election (1 Viewer)

[Pantone247]

Is your self-expression more important than winning the argument, and possibly changing your opponent's position?

wha-huh?





what's wrong with agreeing to disagree?

frankly Jane, and I mean no offence by this, has come off way more hysterical, irrational and plain catty then Elder Lemon.

I mean it's not like the guy went to America and stuffed loads of lake ballots in the box... AND its not like Kerry winning and Bush losing was going to stop the war in Iraq...

 

[avernus]

http://democracyfororegon.com/node/view/715

What you need to know:

For the first time in American history founding members of the PNAC or Project of the New American Century were put into positions of great power within the Bush Administration simultaneously. This allowed the original “Neocons” the power to put into play their plan “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” the document that inspired the 2002 Bush Doctrine.
Although little known, this is not a secret organization. Their reports are published documents anyone can read. The reason why most of you have not heard about the PNAC is because Rupert Murdock owns a huge portion of the mainstream media including FOX television. When Bush-1 was in office he was told to never put these people in serious positions of power because they were “crazy far right zealots” and when Clinton was in office the PNAC went to him demanding a war with Iraq, which Clinton denied them. You will notice that FL Gov. Jeb Bush is a member of the PNAC and once Bush-2 took office life as we knew it had changed.

The PNAC plan is to become in their own words the worlds only “Imperial Super-power” by means of “multiple and simultaneous theater wars” across the globe beginning in the middle east. This is not going to stop with Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea is to exert enormous military power and create fear to control other countries and American people. They even went so far as to maintain that biological weapons could be used for political purposes and that encouraging terrorist attacks on American soil would rally the country behind them.

Today, a 76-page paper written by the organization reads like a blueprint for the policy being carried out largely by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In fact, of the 40 people who signed that letter, 10 are currently in the Bush Administration.

See: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to do your own research but as Nightline’s Ted Koppel said “This story has all the makings of a conspiracy theory, except that it's true and real and happening right now." Source: ABC's Nightline exposes the PNAC's plans For a New World Order Friday, March 07 2003 @ 11:50 AM CST entitled “The Plan” For more PNAC info put PNAC or Project for the New American Century in any search engine. Take Back America, It’s YOUR Country not the PNAC’s.

 

[snakybus]

Ah if only the Nazis had gone for the Lutherans first, it all would have been avoided.

 

[egg_]

In fairness egg_ you can't compare the election of bush to the Nazis

Ah jaykers I know that, and I didn't intend to - I was just trying to illustrate the danger of "tending your own backyard" in political terms using a well-known quote.

 

[billygannon]

no, but there are lions, tigers, giraffes and zebras.

Yeah... they're cheese-loving, flip-flopping, leaf-eating faggoty Arab Jewboy lions, tigers, giraffes and zebras.

 

[jane]

Is your self-expression more important than winning the argument, and possibly changing your opponent's position?

But I'm not trying to change his position.

He made it clear about ten posts ago that his pro-life sentiments are impenetrably strong, and he seems to just wants to hear (see) himself talk. He's perfectly welcome to come and post on Thumped, but he never appears to take anyone else's position to heart, except to say politely that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. He doesn't seem to come on here to engage in productive debate, simply to spread his 'personal theories', and I find his politics offensive. As long as he posts on here, I will continue to be offended by his extreme views, and will make it clear. You can't convince a self-important ideologue to change his ways, and, while perhaps my vitriol is not the best way to reason, you can help others to see that someone is just a right-wing ideologue.

 

[egg_]

what's wrong with agreeing to disagree?

Nothing, if you're just shooting the breeze ... but if your views are important and you want them to prevail in the world, you don't agree to disagree, you convince people that you are right

 

[MDR]

but he never appears to take anyone else's position to heart, except to say politely that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. He doesn't seem to come on here to engage in productive debate, simply to spread his 'personal theories', .

...but neither do you

 

[jane]

...but neither do you

Oh well.

But my personal politics don't involve endorsement to harm other people. What is most offensive about his is that he knows his do, but he's willing to make that sacrifice for a single issue that has to do with women's bodies, and not with human life. I don't think it's wrong to be against abortion, and I wouldn't try to convince anyone to think that they have to support it, but I do think it's wrong to try to take away my right to choose.

Anyway, I've actually taken a lot of people's ideas to heart on here, despite them being different from mine. So what if I just plain don't agree, even once the argument is over?

And by the way, since when has Thumped become a bastion of manners?

 

[Pantone247]

He doesn't seem to come on here to engage in productive debate, simply to spread his 'personal theories',

one could say the same for your posts on this thread...

You can't convince a self-important ideologue to change his ways, and, while perhaps my vitriol is not the best way to reason, you can help others to see that someone is just a right-wing ideologue.

or show someone else is just a right on crank

 

[jane]

one could say the same for your posts on this thread...



or show someone else is just a right on crank

It's funny. When Michael Moore goes off on one, people jump up and down and clap their hands. But let someone else get pissed off, and, whoa, they're just a crank.

Awesome.

 

[Bluto]

...When Michael Moore goes off .......

Yay - another 4 years of Michael Moore to look forward to!

 

[LMD64]

But my personal politics don't involve endorsement to harm other people. What is most offensive about his is that he knows his do, but he's willing to make that sacrifice for a single issue that has to do with women's bodies, and not with human life. I don't think it's wrong to be against abortion, and I wouldn't try to convince anyone to think that they have to support it, but I do think it's wrong to try to take away my right to choose.

now hold on a sec there, jane, maybe he has a woman's body, did you ever stop to consider that?

 

[jane]

now hold on a sec there, jane, maybe he has a woman's body, did you ever stop to consider that?

"If I said you had a woman's body, would you hold it against me?"

 

[ElderLemon]

But I'm not trying to change his position.

He made it clear about ten posts ago that his pro-life sentiments are impenetrably strong, and he seems to just wants to hear (see) himself talk. He's perfectly welcome to come and post on Thumped, but he never appears to take anyone else's position to heart, except to say politely that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. He doesn't seem to come on here to engage in productive debate, simply to spread his 'personal theories', and I find his politics offensive. As long as he posts on here, I will continue to be offended by his extreme views, and will make it clear. You can't convince a self-important ideologue to change his ways, and, while perhaps my vitriol is not the best way to reason, you can help others to see that someone is just a right-wing ideologue.

Yes, my prolife views are strong - as are your prochoice ones. My view wasn't going to be shifted, and I certainly had no intentions of trying to shift yours. My 'personal theories', such as they were, were about nothing to with abortion, but rather the psychology of voter choice. I do not hold extreme views, and neither am I a right-wing ideologue. My views are mainstream Irish pro-life views, and if I'm against the death penalty and in favour of a gay partnership law I can hardly be accused of being a right wing ideologue.

 

[LMD64]

Yes, my prolife views are strong - as are your prochoice ones. My view wasn't going to be shifted, and I certainly had no intentions of trying to shift yours. My 'personal theories', such as they were, were about nothing to with abortion, but rather the psychology of voter choice. I do not hold extreme views, and neither am I a right-wing ideologue. My views are mainstream Irish pro-life views, and if I'm against the death penalty and in favour of a gay partnership law I can hardly be accused of being a right wing ideologue.

...but you hardly agree with all of Bush's views then, also.

 

[ITalkShite]

[completely off the point]

Why gay civil unions, but not gay marriages?

If you're grand with one, what's the problem with the other?

[/completely off the point]

 

[ElderLemon]

[completely off the point]

Why gay civil unions, but not gay marriages?

If you're grand with one, what's the problem with the other?

[/completely off the point]

For a start, gay civil unions are a lot more acheivable, a lot quicker. As far as I know, gay marriage would require a constitutional change - I'm open to correction on this - which would be very unlikely to be passed. They would also be more acceptable to the general public, and so therefore wouldn't carry as much political baggage which might deter a government ploughing ahead with it.

 

[LMD64]

religiously approved/condoned church onions as opposed to onions only recognised by the government. the cattle-ick church have always been opposed to gay. they would be sooner to state that gay isn't a sin than allow gay marriage.

personally, gay marriage is bollocks. i feel that gay civil unions are far more important, as they would provide the basis for tax matters, spouse benefits, pensions, resolving estate disputes on the event of death of one partner, property disputes in the case of breakups, etc. who gives a fuck about the church? if i get married i want the government to recognise it, not some roman blokes in dresses.

 

[ElderLemon]

[completely changing the subject]

Can any knowledgeable person tell me what precisely the story is with with these postal/provisional bollots in Ohio? How many are there, what's the procedure for counting them, and what way are they likely to lean?

[/completely changing the subject]