The Watering Hole

No tools allowed.  Who won?

Well there was a lot of same ol same ol if you've been following the campaigns at all but I think McCain shot himself in the foot by running back to Washington.  He looked tired to me and didn't have the victory he was seeking in DC.  Fox's little group of independents went for Obama as well as CNN's group.  I'd have to say Obama won based on this.

I want a bracelet too. ;D

It was the same ol stuff.

I became tired of McCain's stories. He was like a old grandfather.
I'll take Obama.  

I'd give an edge to McCain. He clearly has a better grasp on foreign policy and or, international affairs. Obama seems to agree with McCain quite a bit to. McCain did better than I expected. Very close to a tie though.

Hook is the BertCave's little group of "independents"  :P :)

It looked pretty much a draw to me,

But McCain looked to have been using far more of his firepower than Obama did.

And as a independent, liberal extremist are a great source of entertainment. ;D It's nice to be nuetral on this thing going into the debates. Although I'm sure you think I'm far from nuetral. ;D ;D

I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Hmm,

McCain 5  years ago

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qbJGLLvS8Pc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto

Obama 5 or more years ago

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

fingers — Sep 27, 2008I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D

I'd give an edge to McCain. He clearly has a better grasp on foreign policy

Have you watched the youtube clips yet.
What's your unbiased independent judgement on them :P


Ah so liberal extremists are a bunch of flockers, who can't make their own mind up like us  independents  :P

BINGEWOOD — Sep 27, 2008Get the flock outta here!!

Hey, leave my girls out of this!  :D

Hookbender — Sep 27, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1222488625/0#6 date=1222532238]I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D


So...You have smileys after what you said. According to you that means you are joking.

Do you mind answering the question then?

Otherwise we don't know what you mean.

BINGEWOOD — Sep 27, 2008Get the flock outta here!!

Coz I'm a liberal extremist

Sounds like a Binge song. :)

I think us Independents understand that "Politics is show business for ugly people"

Wiki says:

The definition of an "independent voter" is controversial and fraught with problems.

The earliest concept of the independent was one whose political choices, by definition, were made based on issues and candidates (since the voter did not have a party affiliation). But early studies of voting behavior conclusively demonstrated that self-identified independent voters were less interested in specific elections than partisan voters, poorly informed about issues and candidates, and less active politically. In fact, a contrary view emerged: The independent usually voted on the basis of deeply ingrained beliefs, attitudes and loyalties, and was more like the strongly partisan voter than any other voter (or the idealized "independent").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter)

Getting the definition of extreme liberal and bleeding heart liberal by Hook is controversial and fraught with problems. ;D

To me getting any rational answer out of him is fraught with problems. ;D

Independent means:

Free to talk shit about 'em all.

Hook is just fraught :)

If stratman was down here,I'd like to ask him .....if you were Osama,who would you want for President?

The guys who never bothered to get him,or Obama who says he will come after him?

I think Rush said that  all the time during last election.

Hookbender — Sep 27, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1222488625/0#6 date=1222532238]I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D


Hook,here is a test that we did on the WH.....see where you are.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

BINGEWOOD — Sep 27, 2008Independent means:

Free to talk shit about 'em all.

Impressive! And part true.

I like right down the middle. I like some things the dems stand for and push, I like some things the repubs stand for and push. However, the confusing part is the some things I don't like about each, which sometimes has to be sacrificed. Meaning, you can't have it all your way. This ain't Burger King.

I find it irritating for someone to declair themselves either way, like a registered republican for example. This closes the door on any other candidate from any other party. Yhey have committed to the agenda of republicans, regardless of what the person brings or doesn't bring to the table.

Part of the problem with people understanding my position in politics is the wide use of lables for indentification purpuses. I consider myself a Centrist, although I really would rather not have that attached to me either. People's need to find words in my statements that would define me one way or another, liberal or conservative, dem or repub, left or right, etc are part of the problem. I like some of it all, so frustration occurs because a lable just doesn't match me. ;D

I would rather explain my view on each question or issue that arrises myself, rather than have it defined for me. I look at things, maybe to dumbed down, but from a reality standpoint. I live in reality, so I listen from that prospective.

When I look at the mees America's in right now, I don't blame Bush, I blame government. Yeah, Bush made some mistakes, so did Clinton, so did Regan, and many others. Some dems, some repubs, some congress, some the President. That equals government. Not Bush, not Clinton. Government. Government fucked us all and failed us big time. Partly because the government is suppose to work for, and be accountable to, it's people. Today, it's opposite. The people are killing themselves trying to make it and feed the government.

You are kidding yourself that labels don't attach to you,
You say you live in reality - well here is the reality.

You have said you are a life long republican voter, you have never voted otherwise, but are now considering it.

This makes you a  "disenchanted republican voter"
One who is flirting with leaving the flock and voting across the aisle for once.

It doesn't make you an independent or a centrist and your use of labels and arguments gives you away,
at heart you are instinctively republican.

Look at it this way, with a little experiment.

Imagine that the current President was a Democrat, let's say Al Gore had won in 2000 and was coming to the end of his 2nd term.
The two houses had been in democratic hands up until republicans had won them back until 2006.
The situation in the US is as now, financial crisis and  Iraq war.

And McCain and Obama are running for election.

Do you think you would be a centrist and independent and considering voting Democrat in that situation.

Would you be saying, "I don't blame it on Al Gore, it was Reagan's fault as well"

No you wouldn't, you would be voting republican without any question.

In that situation I would be with you and I would be rubbishing Al Gore for his disastrous record of government, with graphs if necessary.
And hoping that everyone voted for McCain.

You see the  independent instinct is to punish failure and incompetence and they keep government from arrogantly assuming they can get away with relying on party allegiance and familial gullibility however piss poor their record.

In the UK I want to kick the Labour government out and get the Conservatives in.
Yes  - I want the left wing party out and replaced by the right wing one.

I have absolutely no allegiance to any party, right or left.

You have - that is why I know you are not an independent, you are just a disgruntled supporter flirting with another party.

It is in the interests of every country that a decisive block of their electorate is truly independent.

Hookbender — Sep 27, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1222488625/0#6 date=1222532238]I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D


If you don't like labels on yourself,don't you think you shouldn't label others?

When I read Trippers,Chargers and fingers posts, I can easily see how much thought they have put into what they think.
I like the way they think.

They are clear,concise,and to the point. They seem logical and rational. In fact that's how I learned about the subjects myself.
Therefore I don't have much to argue with them about.

But with stratman,a few others who were on the WH,and you(Hook) I find plenty to object to.

....And they (F,C,T)seem to have plenty to object to as well.

Why do you think that is?

Why don't they tear apart each statement I make and rebutt them one by one?

Why don't "they" tear each other up in arguments?

Let's find some smart ,scientific,logical,rational minded people who say we should vote for Obama and why:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36033

Check it out Hook:

Logical,reasonable......

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kdB1_KFOhnU&feature=related

Ignorant,uninformed:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kdB1_KFOhnU&feature=related

fingers — Sep 28, 2008You are kidding yourself that labels don't attach to you,
You say you live in reality - well here is the reality.

You have said you are a life long republican voter, you have never voted otherwise, but are now considering it.

This makes you a  "disenchanted republican voter"
One who is flirting with leaving the flock and voting across the aisle for once.

It doesn't make you an independent or a centrist and your use of labels and arguments gives you away,
at heart you are instinctively republican.

Look at it this way, with a little experiment.

Imagine that the current President was a Democrat, let's say Al Gore had won in 2000 and was coming to the end of his 2nd term.
The two houses had been in democratic hands up until republicans had won them back until 2006.
The situation in the US is as now, financial crisis and  Iraq war.

And McCain and Obama are running for election.

Do you think you would be a centrist and independent and considering voting Democrat in that situation.

Would you be saying, "I don't blame it on Al Gore, it was Reagan's fault as well"

No you wouldn't, you would be voting republican without any question.

In that situation I would be with you and I would be rubbishing Al Gore for his disastrous record of government, with graphs if necessary.
And hoping that everyone voted for McCain.

You see the  independent instinct is to punish failure and incompetence and they keep government from arrogantly assuming they can get away with relying on party allegiance and familial gullibility however piss poor their record.

In the UK I want to kick the Labor government out and get the Conservatives in.
Yes  - I want the left wing party out and replaced by the right wing one.

I have absolutely no allegiance to any party, right or left.

You have - that is why I know you are not an independent, you are just a disgruntled supporter flirting with another party.

It is in the interests of every country that a decisive block of their electorate is truly independent.

O.K., I get what your saying, your kinda right, and kinda wrong.

Let's throw another fact in the mix. And, while I'm at it, I'll explain myself some.

I'm not a life long republican voter. Fact is, I've voted two times in my life. I voted Bush twice. I'm just being honest here.

Now my thoughts in the past, and beliefs, have been pretty much on the conservative line. Regan got me interested in politics. He actually gave me a since of patriotism. I hated Clinton, for many wrong reasons, and in ignorance of the very little I knew about politics. In the last 12 years, I guess, give or take, I've been paying attention to what was happening around the world and have read quite a bit, though here and there, about different issues.

The political issues are, for me, very much like changing my mind on religion as religion shaped my political views much of the time. Now, I'm able to see the flaw of having religion mixed into politics, as far as governing goes. Example, God telling Bush to invade Iraq. Perfect example why religion has no place in politics. Basic, but good. And, very costly.

As my religious view changed, I was and am, able to look at things with an open mind. Yes, label will be fixed to me. I agree. But as we continue to discuss politics, I think the label fixed to me will change due to different views on different issues. Others can label me, that's fine. I'm not gonna label myself though. I feel that would limit my choices or sway me to one side or the other, possibly. I want and strive to be neutral. I may not succeed at that 100% of the time. I'm human. However, I don't find fault for being conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I still try to be right down the middle. Alot of things or stances are not in my control, as far as what repubs or Dem's are known for. My attempt is to not be either, but be some of both...hoping that the both are the best from each.

I like to deal in reality. I'm very optimistic, or try to be, about every situation. I put to much effort in being skeptical of things and not quite enough in studying the basics. I want to know as much as possible with as little effort as possible. So, I have flaws in my thinking.

But I don't think there are any clear correct answers on how to fix political problems, such as the economy. Experts on the subject can't even agree. So, I take what I consider the best from both or all sides and try to come up with the most logical answer to the question as possible, for me. Sometimes I'm close to right, sometimes I'm close to wrong. Close, I mean parts of solutions sometimes work, while other parts of solutions sometimes fail.

So i want to be able to defend Palin, for example, and question Obama at will and extensively. As I learn more, I may change my opinion completely. I thought Palin, at first, was a great choice for McCain if he wanted to win the election. The media came down hard on Palin, I defended her. Then, she opened her mouth. The main reason for changing my mind about her, not that she's flaky, or doesn't speak well, but because she knows nothing about the issues at all. She hasn't been prepared by McCain and company. She hasn't been given any worth while crash courses on issues, and if she has, she's forgotten what she learned real quick. I don't think that means she can't be a decent VP, I do know that means she in no way is ready to step in as President and run this country. Even with the best advisor's. And that should be a consideration  , I guess.

So when I said, if I said that, I was a lifelong republican voter, I guess I meant I had republican or Conservative views all my life. Sorry if I mislead you.

Now I'm not sure if I'm a complete independent or a centrist, you can call me what you will. But I'm not a repub or a Dem for sure. I'm gonna stick to my own thoughts based on the info I receive and search out and call the shots based on that. While I like ideas of the repubs and Dem's, I also dislike ideas of both parties. So no matter what, I'll have to sacrifice based on the most good ideas and desires from whoever, and won't get all the things I want and don't want in any one candidate. If that makes any sense.

I don't think anything was Regan's fault, and I don't believe I said it was. I did say it's governments fault, Dem's and repubs alike. Or, I'm saying it now. This problem we have didn't start last week. It's been brewing for a long time. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the ilse.

pickmaster60 — Sep 28, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1222488625/0#8 date=1222533980][quote author=fingers link=1222488625/0#6 date=1222532238]I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D


If you don't like labels on yourself,don't you think you shouldn't label others?

When I read Trippers,Chargers and fingers posts, I can easily see how much thought they have put into what they think.
I like the way they think.

They are clear,concise,and to the point. They seem logical and rational. In fact that's how I learned about the subjects myself.
Therefore I don't have much to argue with them about.

But with stratman,a few others who were on the WH,and you(Hook) I find plenty to object to.

....And they (F,C,T)seem to have plenty to object to as well.

Why do you think that is?

Why don't they tear apart each statement I make and rebutt them one by one?

Why don't "they" tear each other up in arguments?











See thsose laughing symbols, that means I was joking. How quickly one forgets.

You didn't have them smileys here:

"And no Trip, I'm not drunk and wasn't drunk at 7am in the morning. And I'm not embarrassed at all to have a different take on stuff than the bleeding heart liberals that consume the political arena here."

No.....I don't forget things I just posted about.

Hookbender — Sep 28, 2008
When I look at the mees America's in right now, I don't blame Bush, I blame government. Yeah, Bush made some mistakes, so did Clinton, so did Regan, and many others. Some dems, some repubs, some congress, some the President.

That's the quote I was referring to.
You don't blame Bush you blame government.
You don't blame the leader of the republican government who presided over a republican congress and senate for 6 years.
you share the blame with the dems who had control of congress and a tied senate since jan 2007

Imagine that the current President was a Democrat, let's say Al Gore had won in 2000 and was coming to the end of his 2nd term.
The two houses had been in democratic hands up until republicans had won them back until 2006.
The situation in the US is as now, financial crisis and  Iraq war.

I am interested in your honest view on how you would be voting in that situation.

Reckon this might be a problem Hook?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1

If you missed SNL last night they summed up the debate pretty well:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/presidential-debate/704121/


also Palin:


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/


and Clinton:


http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-bill-clinton/704104/

Fingers

I hold congress more responsible than I do the President. Even when Bush was President with a repub congress, he couldn't get shit done. Not really.

The system is broke. It's all about dems against repubs and a battle to see who gets credit for what. I don't understand congress. They do not function at all. At least recently. Maybe that's partly Bush's fault, I don't know.

I would hold the entire system, government, responsible in your example, just as I do now. No doubt about it. Why would it be any different. Why do you assume I must look at dems and repubs instead of simply the government, who is suppose to be working to better out country...suppose to be working for us and accountable to us. Others may look at what dems and repubs are doing, specifically, but I really don't. No need to really. I have a different way of looking at stuff, sure, but that's me. May be wrong, may be right. Who cares. The fact remains that our government isn't doing their job. So something needs to change, right? Maybe this view could help matters. They make them worse.

I think the military is very important. I like a strong military. The best offense is a great defense. I don't really like to use the military, though. That would be considered conservative, probably. I oppose religion being involved in schools and politics, probably liberal.

And I'm learning right now. Like in religion or anything else, I may change my views as I learn more. Nothing wrong with that. I don't mind being wrong and showed I'm wrong. I'm not embarrassed by that at all. I learn from it. So, it's positive for me to be shown I'm wrong, not a negative. I'm optimistic. I live in reality, I'm not right all the time. Shit, I must be human. ;D

And look at Obama right now, today. He's said that he may have to delay what he wants to do. So now, we really have no idea what he's gonna do since our economy is fucked. He surely can't spend money like he planned to do. What will this change. What are his plans now. Same with McCain. But Obama is who I'm interested in. I'm not voting for McCain, so I want info on Obama. I question Obama. There is no doubt that Obama will increase the debt. So, why the fuck should I vote in another problem. He's gonna continue the war, just move it primarily to Afganastan, and maybe Pakistan. So, that money will continue to be spent no matter what.

Instead of changing all this shit and considering spending money on bailing out these fucking companies, maybe we should change the law concerning the President and how long they can serve. Vote Clinton back in and let him fix this fucking economy and get us out of debt like he did durring his term. At least he had us debt free.

And my situation wouldn't change because I'd still be in the same situation. I wouldn't be voting for McCain, and I'd be interested in Obama and his plans. No different at all. I don't care if they wear a blue shirt or a red shirt, what are they, our government doing? Are they helping us, or hurting us? Same questions, same answers.  

pickmaster60 — Sep 28, 2008You didn't have them smileys here:

"And no Trip, I'm not drunk and wasn't drunk at 7am in the morning. And I'm not embarrassed at all to have a different take on stuff than the bleeding heart liberals that consume the political arena here."

No.....I don't forget things I just posted about.

And hear, Trip was picking on me and I picked back. Pulled his chain some, just as he did me by asking if I were drunk. Problem with that?

Hookbender — Sep 29, 2008Fingers

I don't understand congress.

Have you ever worked in an office?

Hookbender — Sep 29, 2008Fingers

I don't understand congress.

It's not a hard concept.

We all know the opposite of Pro is Con, right?

So, just ask yourself, what's the opposite of Progress?  :D ;)

Hookbender — Sep 27, 2008And as a independent, liberal extremist are a great source of entertainment. ;D It's nice to be nuetral on this thing going into the debates. Although I'm sure you think I'm far from nuetral. ;D ;D

Hmm... most "independents" picked Obama as the winner, as did most people polled.

I can't say I'm surprised at all that you picked McCain, though.

Hookbender — Sep 27, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1222488625/0#6 date=1222532238]I'm an interested observer and an independent just like you :)

What is a liberal extremist exactly?

Simply defined....Tripper or Charger. ;D And those who flock to them both. ;D


I know you're trying to be funny, but I'm going to respond seriously, because you're only half-kidding:

Wow, reality maintains its liberal bias.

Neither of us are liberal "extremists" by any description except that of vapid right-wing sycophants who probably don't even know the definitions of "vapid" or "sycophant" without looking them up.

Tripper

I was busy playing to a bunch of drunk, vapid right-wing sycophants up in Killeen, so I actually missed the debate.

Obama looked (in the clips I saw) like he had deeper grasp of the complexities of all the issues, which was no shock to me or anyone who has actually given all candidates a fair shot (unlike the "impartial" Hook, who has never even given Obama a chance) and done their research on them.

Tripper

Yes, I was kidding Trip.

I have done research on Obama, much more than McCain by the way. Why, because I'm interested in Obama.

Just because I question Obama, much more than McCain, doesn't mean I'm unfair or impartial to either man. I'm skeptical of Obama, unsure about him. And I should be. He is running for President and to many people was a unknown, just like Palin.

You taught me to be skeptical, now don't get pissed about who I'm skeptical of. ;D ;D

Here's my analysis on the debate.  Before I give it consider two things:
1) I am planning to vote for Obama, and
2) I thought McCain would win this debate, and not by a small margin.

Factor 1: appearance and body language:
I am not talking about who is a better looking person here, but whether the person up there looked like a president.  I thought they both came off decently.  Obviously Obama looked more comfortable.  A large part of this debate in the minds of the people was about how Obama looked standing with McCain... whether he had the necessary gravitas.  He did.  He also was able to look at John McCain.  I am not sure why McCain could not look at Obama, but I know it has nothing to do with war injuries.

Factor 2:The gaff, or mistake.  
This was easy, because there were none.  Nobody made a clear mistake.  Okay, McCain couldn't say Ach-me-din-e-jad, but he had said it earlier a couple of times, so I don't think it was a real gaff.

Factor 3: the joke, or one-liner.
I liked Obama's line when McCain said "Obama is the most liberal senator"... Obama immediately threw in, and in a very understated way "that's because I had to oppose all of Bush's wrong-headed policies"--pretty funny, and clever.  I thought McCain's one-liner was a bit less effective: "Senator Obama just doesn't understand."  There are a few reasons this could have worked better... first, I think McCain expected Obama to fall flat.  He did not.  He demonstrated, like McCain, a real command of the issues in foreign policy.  A line like "he doesn't understand" kind of requires the opposite party to look like they don't understand... when they do, it doesn't work.  

Factor 4: obvious knowledge or policy dominance.  
Neither person showed this.  It really, instead, came down to a question of whether you agree more with one person or the other.  They both seemed to know what they were talking about.


In the end, I give the debate to Obama for two reasons: One, I expected McCain to be way better than him.  He was not... even if I was a Republican I'd have to say it was, at best, a tie.  A tie, when the other side expects massive victory (McCain even ran an article proclaiming his victory hours before the debate) has to look like a loss.  Two, I thought that Obama appeared more presidential.  He not only looked comfortable up on stage with an honest-to-gosh rival, but he showed that he can acknowledge the other side's argument, even when it is right, and look at the other person, as well.  Our next president will have to work with people--political rivals, heads of foreign states, etc.  Obama looked like he could work with a person, as well as against him.  McCain, on the other hand, had nothing good to say, could not even look at his opponent, and was overly dismissive.  I think he made it very clear that he could not believe he was losing to Obama, and let that irritation show a little too much.

Hookbender — Sep 29, 2008Yes, I was kidding Trip.

I have done research on Obama, much more than McCain by the way. Why, because I'm interested in Obama.

Just because I question Obama, much more than McCain, doesn't mean I'm unfair or impartial to either man. I'm skeptical of Obama, unsure about him. And I should be. He is running for President and to many people was a unknown, just like Palin.

You taught me to be skeptical, now don't get pissed about who I'm skeptical of. ;D ;D

If you were EQUALLY skeptical of McCain and especially Palin, I'd consider it an honest or worthy pursuit, but you defend McCain/Palin's outright lies in the interest of making Obama look bad or making some inaccurate statement about my support of Obama, often at the expense of the truth about the situation.

That's not good, and that's why I come after you when you make silly statements.
Tripper

Tripper — Sep 29, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1222488625/25#38 date=1222707733]Yes, I was kidding Trip.

I have done research on Obama, much more than McCain by the way. Why, because I'm interested in Obama.

Just because I question Obama, much more than McCain, doesn't mean I'm unfair or impartial to either man. I'm skeptical of Obama, unsure about him. And I should be. He is running for President and to many people was a unknown, just like Palin.

You taught me to be skeptical, now don't get pissed about who I'm skeptical of. ;D ;D

If you were EQUALLY skeptical of McCain and especially Palin, I'd consider it an honest or worthy pursuit, but you defend McCain/Palin's outright lies in the interest of making Obama look bad or making some inaccurate statement about my support of Obama, often at the expense of the truth about the situation.

That's not good, and that's why I come after you when you make silly statements.
Tripper

What have I said that's untruthful? I've tried to have discussions about McCain so you and others can see that I'm equally questioning and skeptical of both candidates. Mainly at the old place, WH. It always was turned right back to Obama so the subject never got discussed, that's not my fault.

What inaccurate statement have I made concerning your support for Obama?

I lay out the facts, then have a opinion about those facts. My opinion may be different than yours, but they are both opinions, and neither can be considered wrong or right at this time, right?

I feel that my opinion of Obama is pretty correct, as do you. Will see.

And I'm really not to skeptical about McCain and especially Palin, I'm decided....agaist them both. But that doesn't mean I have to be unfair in my or anyone elses judgement of them. I can defend them when I think someone is wrong on the issue.  

Hookbender — Sep 29, 2008
What have I said that's untruthful?

You've agreed with and posted some of the demonstrably false assertions of the McCain/Palin camp, and that's falsehood by proxy.

I've tried to have discussions about McCain so you and others can see that I'm equally questioning and skeptical of both candidates. Mainly at the old place, WH. It always was turned right back to Obama so the subject never got discussed, that's not my fault.

Um, I think you're doing a little "misremembering" here. You're the one who usually directed stuff to slamming Obama, even when we tried to discuss other things.

What inaccurate statement have I made concerning your support for Obama?

That it's emotional. It is not in any way.

I lay out the facts, then have a opinion about those facts. My opinion may be different than yours, but they are both opinions, and neither can be considered wrong or right at this time, right?

When have you laid out facts? All I've read from you is speculation and stuff that sounds like it comes from right-wing bloggers. Not saying you take from them, but that your ideas are similar.

I feel that my opinion of Obama is pretty correct, as do you. Will see.

What is it you really believe about Obama? You've never really made that clear. You've just been down on him for absurd things like the preacher and crap like that. It's not very indicative of someone who's done their homework.

And I'm really not to skeptical about McCain and especially Palin, I'm decided....agaist them both. But that doesn't mean I have to be unfair in my or anyone elses judgement of them. I can defend them when I think someone is wrong on the issue.  

The way you defend them sounds more like you support them than you're just trying to be fair. I think people on both sides of the issue would agree on that point.

But now that we understand each other better...hopefully the discussions will improve and we won't see posting like we did in that one thread - good Lord, you really sounded like a Rush Limbaugh devotee (fact-free and indignant as a motherfucker!)

Tripper

Tripper — Sep 29, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1222488625/25#41 date=1222715912]
What have I said that's untruthful?

You've agreed with and posted some of the demonstrably false assertions of the McCain/Palin camp, and that's falsehood by proxy.

I've tried to have discussions about McCain so you and others can see that I'm equally questioning and skeptical of both candidates. Mainly at the old place, WH. It always was turned right back to Obama so the subject never got discussed, that's not my fault.

Um, I think you're doing a little "misremembering" here. You're the one who usually directed stuff to slamming Obama, even when we tried to discuss other things.

What inaccurate statement have I made concerning your support for Obama?

That it's emotional. It is not in any way.

I lay out the facts, then have a opinion about those facts. My opinion may be different than yours, but they are both opinions, and neither can be considered wrong or right at this time, right?

When have you laid out facts? All I've read from you is speculation and stuff that sounds like it comes from right-wing bloggers. Not saying you take from them, but that your ideas are similar.

I feel that my opinion of Obama is pretty correct, as do you. Will see.

What is it you really believe about Obama? You've never really made that clear. You've just been down on him for absurd things like the preacher and crap like that. It's not very indicative of someone who's done their homework.

And I'm really not to skeptical about McCain and especially Palin, I'm decided....agaist them both. But that doesn't mean I have to be unfair in my or anyone elses judgement of them. I can defend them when I think someone is wrong on the issue.  

The way you defend them sounds more like you support them than you're just trying to be fair. I think people on both sides of the issue would agree on that point.

But now that we understand each other better...hopefully the discussions will improve and we won't see posting like we did in that one thread - good Lord, you really sounded like a Rush Limbaugh devotee (fact-free and indignant as a motherfucker!)

Tripper

Specifically Trip. What have I been untruthful about?

And your wrong. I started 2 threads on McCain, at least, and Mark was the first one to post. I think he was calling me a racist again or something. ;D But yes, I am correct on this one. Can't remember the other one, but it ended up quickly about Obama.

You explained away the emotional thing. I accepted it. While your at it though, has your thoughts changed since he's said that most of his ideas will have to be put on hold since the economy has become worse? And...now we have no idea what he intends to do. Would you vote for me over McCain if you had no idea what I was gonna do? ;D

I laid dow the fact that Obama had a crazy racist preacher, then gave my opinion about the whole thing. ETC. I gave the fact, then gave my opinion of the fact. That isn't the only thing, it's just the one that sticks with you the most. It's one example.

I'll give you my opinion tonight of Obama, gotta jet to work in about 5 minutes, right after this post. But what I've done so far....is question Obama.

On the last part, if I stated something factual, that wasn't, over and over, you wouldn't even be talking to me now. I know better than that. We were arguing about opinions of facts with Obama. Not about whether the opinions were factual or not, for the most part. Like I said, our opinions are different, and how can we tell who's will end up correct? We can't.

Hookbender — Sep 30, 2008
Specifically Trip. What have I been untruthful about?

Obama's tax plan, that's one. But that wasn't your fault.

And your wrong. I started 2 threads on McCain, at least, and Mark was the first one to post. I think he was calling me a racist again or something. ;D But yes, I am correct on this one. Can't remember the other one, but it ended up quickly about Obama.

Well, considering the fact that we can't really investigate this point because the Hole is gone, I'll concede.

You explained away the emotional thing. I accepted it. While your at it though, has your thoughts changed since he's said that most of his ideas will have to be put on hold since the economy has become worse? And...now we have no idea what he intends to do. Would you vote for me over McCain if you had no idea what I was gonna do? ;D

I know that's just a sassy comment, but the reality is, if you were going to approach issues the way Obama has instead of the way McCain has, I'd vote for you in a second. Obama has shown wisdom and intellect in his handling of issues - being realistic, thinking things through, and waiting until he has a proper amount of information before making a decision or a statement, instead of just making a snap judgment and/or statement about something. McCain has done the latter, and now he looks like a dumb asshole both by his misstatements about Palin's experience and record, and his ridiculous response to the economic crisis (and the spectacular failure of his "help").

I laid dow the fact that Obama had a crazy racist preacher, then gave my opinion about the whole thing. ETC. I gave the fact, then gave my opinion of the fact. That isn't the only thing, it's just the one that sticks with you the most. It's one example.

But your analysis of the situation was fundamentally incorrect, because you were making the unsupportable claim that Obama was in lockstep with the "crazy racist preacher's" beliefs (provided he was indeed a crazy racist like you claim, and not just a black activist making what he saw as accurate statements about how our country's government has failed its citizens). Obama has never in his life shown even the slightest similarity in philosophy with Jeremiah Wright, and when we pointed that out, you ignored it REPEATEDLY.

I'll give you my opinion tonight of Obama, gotta jet to work in about 5 minutes, right after this post. But what I've done so far....is question Obama.

But so often for reasons that don't make any sense...and without similarly questioning McCain, even though there is MUCH to question, even though you THINK you know him (I thought I did, too, and the more I read, the more I worried about him - I don't know if you recall my initial posts on the race, but I actually said I thought McCain would do a good job - now I'm not so sure).

On the last part, if I stated something factual, that wasn't, over and over, you wouldn't even be talking to me now. I know better than that. We were arguing about opinions of facts with Obama. Not about whether the opinions were factual or not, for the most part. Like I said, our opinions are different, and how can we tell who's will end up correct? We can't.

I suppose that's true. But I maintain that there's only one guy who does his homework, and his name is Barack Obama, and I want that guy in charge because he'll actually know things before he makes decisions, unlike the other guy, who will just make decisions based on his ideology. We've had that other guy for 8 years - it doesn't work, and it's led us to what we have today.

Tripper

I'm not voting for plans, I am voting for the right person to implement them.  For some reason, Hook, you are so hung up on what the respective politicians plan to do, even though 100+ years of political history show that a President has never, ever accomplished what he stated was in his plan.  Never, ever.  It has never happened, and it will never happen.  But I look at Obama's plan, on a broad base, and I say--good ideas.  

Increase tax revenue without hurting the poor and middle class. ++
Health care for those who don't have it (and at a price tage not much more than his opponent's plan, which really does almost nothing).  ++
Increase our standing in the world (which has benefits for peace and stability, AND economic benefits). ++
Bring to the office of the presidency a truly transcendent character, with true gravitas and the ability to influence and calm the electorate with his voice. ++
A president who will, for once, hear out arguments, think issues through, and acknowledge even those parts of an argument that come from his rivals, if he agrees with them.  HUGE ++.

Contrast with McCain.  It's no contest, to me.  We've seen how rash McCain is over the past month.  We've seen how little he is able to convey his gravitas when he speaks.  We've seen how his tax plans bring in less money, while helping the rich more.  We've seen how Bush-like he is in his foreign policy ramblings (the part of the debate where he implied that he would be dishonest with the American people re: Pakistan --"you don't say that!").  Not to even start on his running mate, who is the biggest joke perpetrated on American politics since the movie Dave.

I like Obama for all the same reasons above.
When I see him explaining why we need separation of church and state, that gives me a good idea how he thinks.
When I see him warning about going to Iraq ,I agree.
He's calm,and seems to think through the issues.

No doubt, I'll be voting for him.

pickmaster60 — Sep 30, 2008I like Obama for all the same reasons above.
When I see him explaining why we need separation of church and state, that gives me a good idea how he thinks.
When I see him warning about going to Iraq ,I agree.
He's calm,and seems to think through the issues.

No doubt, I'll be voting for him.

Tell me the truth.  Are you and Hookbender really related?

Yep...our mothers are sisters.

I guess one might wonder how it is we could be so different?

Charger,you may not remember,but at the hole ,I made an unsubstantiated claim about evolution and scientists  believing it wasn't true.

You posted about how my source was biased and directed me to a different source.I had to look up the word bias! ;D
I examined the arguments the best I could and could not believe what I was reading.

My basic nature is to find out the truth. To the best of my ability I want to know the the truth.
When I saw my persuit of truth had been thwarted through religion and particularly Fundamentalist religion ......I felt duped.

In all my years up to that point I had never seen the other side.

Through reading  about the enlightenment,freethinking,logic,rational thought,science,critical thinking and how they go about coming up with an answer to something... I was enthralled.
How could it be that I made it into my late thirties without this knoweledge?


It has changed me forever.
I look at everything through my new lense and knoweledge and notice when people have a similar one. It's a pattern of thought.
It shows in how they approach problems and how they argue. It shows in what they think is important or valid.

Hook is right when he says he thinks differently. He gets the jist of critical thinking,rational thought,and logic........but I don't think he has understood the pattern.

He exibits a desire to know.
He mimmics the general idea.
But I don't think he has taken the time to try to "learn" or to understand the writings of a Bertrand Russell  or others in the genre.

He has admitted he wants to learn as much as possible with the least amount of effort. You just can't get there with cliff notes the night before.
You can't get there without wrestling though the ideas and truely pondering them.

It's the difference between learning something and rote memory.
It's like reading comprehension,without it you can't explain why the answer on the test is right or wrong.  
It can only be faked for so long.

I have read a lot about the subject. My retention of specific facts may not bet that good. But I know the pattern .  

I see "the pattern" in Obama.