Return to General Talk

Saddam caught alive

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:27 am

I haven't got time for this:

But for fifty dollars, Alex.


Quote:

2. Saddam didn't have WMDs

Thats pretty naive or blind .... My guess partisan. Even your own president said he did. Hell. he used em. If he got rid of them, Why place cat and mouse with the UN? Just open up. "This is where I dumped them, Here is my books. Thank you and go away. "[quote]

Show me both where "my president" said that he had them and do so in context. Give me some idea of what you're saying. ie: You could say that George Bush I supported gay marriage and that you could use the quote that he'd had sex with Ronald Reagan to "prove" your point. My point: Quotes out of context are worthless. Period.
Absolutely Adequate
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4830
(Past Year: -170)
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby wrveres » Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:46 am

wrveres wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote: Think about it. By being a padre, aren't you automatically a motherf****r by definition?
:-?


WOW ... Is this what you teach the children ?? If they don't believe what you believe ... lash out .... ;-D Props ;-D .... In another thread you were discussing getting hi ... 8-o Wow ...

So far tonight

Absolutely Adequate wrote:If you say that democrats raise taxes, give some evidence
clinton ... again short memory ...

Absolutely Adequate wrote:1. Let's reform campaign financing. Let's make it illegal for any company to give any money to a candidate. Right now, politicans work for special interest groups because they are the ones that pay to get the politicans into office. Let's end that and have the politicans work for us again.


just as soon as your union quits giving ... Its called freedom of speach ...

Absolutely Adequate wrote:3. Either explain why we're in Iraq or get us out.

Its been explianed ... you just don't like the messenger ... Did you have the same outcry when Clinton bypassed the UN and went into Kosovo with NATO.. I doubt it, I know I didn't. :-) ... where was that guy ranked on your "dictator" list?

Absolutely Adequate wrote:The death penalty is irrevocable. Until it is infallable, it is morally wrong
But its ok to kill em just before they are born ... Right . ;-D .. I got your "morally" ;-D

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Call me crazy, but I think that the laws of the land should be based on the constitution
but you are against freedom of speech and pro gun control .. that would pretty much be an attack on two of the biggies..IMO
;-D
Absolutely Adequate wrote:. Statistics prove (just ask me) that the media favors Republicans

CBS ... NBC .... ABC .... CNN ... PBS ... and all major New York Papers (read around the world as "American Opinion")...are all liberal ... funny too becuase recently a few major democrats wanted to find out how to shut down Fox and Limbaugh by passing laws. So much for that freedom of speach thingee

Absolutely Adequate wrote:The current administration is in bed with the corporations.

Absolutely Adequate wrote:My point: Quotes out of context are worthless. Period


agreed .... ... ... :-)
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31204
(Past Year: -313)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wrveres » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:07 am

shortsavage wrote: Wow, there are some people here who are clueless when it comes to politics. If you studied what is going on in the world half as much as what is going on in baseball, your would see things in a whole new light.

Reading these responses is making me sick.


you want to know what makes me sick ......
shortsavage wrote:Did Bush make a public apology to the Iraqi people for being wrong in his accusation? No, he captured their leader and now the US is decaring victory

defend away ... ;-D

shortsavage wrote: It would also be advantageous if the US took some time to figure out why we have such a bad reputation with so many countries, and then maybe try to figure out what we can do to better ourselves.

we could just send a commitee over there and ask them why we are the bad people ..... :-o
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31204
(Past Year: -313)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby ramble2 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:08 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:2. Let's stop gerrymandering. Let's draw districts with computers, like Iowa does. As it is now, the incumbants can win because they can redistrict to fit their needs. Out of all the congressional races in 2002, 12 were close races. 3 of those races were in Iowa, where they draw the districts according to population and not to politics. If we can stop them from effectively electing themselves, then we can have them work for us.


Absolutely right. Too many safe seats right now. This should be a bi-partisan issues, as far as I'm concerned. Get the politicians back working for those that they represent.

Another solution, IMO, is to start using IRV (instant-runoff-voting) for certain elections. This kind of voting allows you to rank your top three choices. If your first choice gets eliminated, then your vote goes to your second, then third choice. To win an election, a politician must have over 50% of the votes. I'm leaving out a lot of details, but it works well.

If we had IRV in place for the Presidential Election, then Bush I would have beat Clinton in '92, and Gore would have beat Bush II in '00. Again, I see this as a bi-partisan issue.
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2941
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby ramble2 » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:17 pm

I guess it's a dead issue now, but I wanted to respond to the call for HOOTIE to use statistics. I think that's unfair. First of all it's assuming HOOTIE is so one-dimensional that he can only make cogent arguments using statistics.

Second of all, using statistics to support baseball arguments is a different beast than using stats in political arguments. Madison is right - politics is about ideology, not statistics.

The death penalty is a good example. There is more than one way there might be a disagreement about values here. The first way might be a moral disagreement. That is, Madison thinks that the State has the right to kill a person in retribution for certain crimes. Others may think that killing by the State is wrong in all cases.

Or there might be disagreement over the application of values. So, for example, I tend to agree that the State does have the right to put someone to death in certain circumstances. But I tend to agree with the former Gov. of Illinois (Rep. G. Ryan) that the process of capital punishment is not a just one, and in fact is so unjust that it warrants either reform or elimination.

Statistics can help support different positions, but the question of whether we share certain values or not, or how we prioritize certain values that are in conflict, are unlikely to be resolved by statistics.

And shortsavage, c'mon. I found your statements pretty ignorant and insulting. How can you possibly make the accusation that people here don't know enough about the world simply by reading a few of their posts? That just makes you look silly. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2941
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:28 pm

Well, Wrveres, I'm terrible with technology and I'm high on flu medicine so I won't even try.

The Padre thing was a joke. And a darn clever one for some guy all hopped up on cold medicine, if I say so myself.

Clinton raised taxes for the top 1.5%, though. And it wasn't as big a tax raise as the one Reagan used in 1982 - the one that hit everybody, not just those that could afford it.

I agree that Unions shouldn't give. Certainly. Neither should corporations or groups. I'm tired of politicians working for special interest groups.

Next, I don't think that the reasons have been satisfactorly explained. The reasons keep changing. Also, I remember Clinton having the UNs support - if he didn't, I apologize. But in that case, exactly how many wrongs does it take to make a right?

As for the abortion crack, you're just assuming. I'm actually undecided on the issue because I don't know enough about it.

I'm for free speech, more than you know (though the 1988 Supremes decision that money=free speech was idiotic). I'm not for gun control. Regulation, sure. But if it's in the constitution, it's okay with me. (again, though. Odd assuming. If you can name one case where I'm against free speech or for gun control, let me know.)

As for the media issue, the trade magazine
Editor & Publisher hired an independent survey group and this is what they found: of the daily newspapers 48% endorsed Bush and 23% endorsed Gore. In terms of circulation, 58% of the national circulation supported Bush while 42% backed Gore. They also found that Bob Dole got more newspaper endorsments than Clinton in 1996. And if the numbers don't convince you, let me suggest that we play a game - you name a liberal radio host and I'll name a conservative. We'll go back and forth until one of us runs out. Or you name a publisher of a newspaper that contributes to liberals and I'll name one that contributes for the conservatives. Or we could do it with TV stations or any form of mass media you like.

I'll close by restating what I said before to support my statement that this administration is in bed with the corporations - In the history of the world no candidate has ever gotten more money from corporations than GWBush.

Wrveres- You were all over the place in your post and I tried to answer everything that I could. But please don't assume again that I'm toeing the democratic party line here. I'm a registered independent (like O'Reilly says that he is) - I have recently become interested in politics because of the mass corruption that I see there. They've all stopped working for us - especially, though, the republicans.

And I think that statistics are paramount in a political discussion. They can disprove very common myths (like the idea of a liberal press) or they can expose silly hypocracy (even though this administration claims to be in favor of a fair tax code for everyone, by 2008 the bottom 20% of earners will be paying a higher % of their income in taxes than the highest 20%.) I don't need Hootie to make his points with statistics. He's more than a one-trick pony, for sure. It's just that I'm used to him backing up his arguments with more than supposition. If he'd gone around saying that "clutch is for stupid people" then I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard now.

And sorry about the padre crack, wrveres. If it hurt your feelings. If not, I thought that it was funny.
Absolutely Adequate
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4830
(Past Year: -170)
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Transmogrifier » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:49 pm

I pretty much agree with AA wholeheartedly, but I know I'll never convince people like Madison and WR to support my views.

A few notes on this divide:

1) I am totally against the death penalty. Statistics show--and I can dig them up if necessary--that juries are much more likely to award the death penalty to black criminals that kill a white person than vice versa (for the same crime). It is racst and mistakes are often made. Plus, it costs more money that jail. I for one, would rather let 10 killers go than kill an innocent man/woman. WR, you say you're ok with occasionally killing the wrong person. What if it was your Mother? Father?, etc. I lived in fear for two weeks with the snipers here and I do not support the death penalty for them.

2) I have a libertarian strain in me: I would rather be more susceptible to terrorist attacks--within reason, of course--than lose my freedoms as we have. Where to draw the line is the tough spot. Greater border controls? Great! Registering Arabs? NO.

3) Bush really isn't economically conservative. Discretionary spending has exploded under his presidency--the deficit is NOT due to the War on Terrorism. And he's slapped on steal tariffs, tariffs on Chinese textiles, etc.

4) Lowering taxes does not give a longterm boost to the economy. In the U.S., we operate in a floating exchane rate which means fiscal policy (taxes and spending) does not increase output. Monetary policy (interest rates) does.

5) Get rid of Gerrymandering! It is destroying democracy.

6) We still need more campaign finance reform--money corrupts.

7) Regarding WR's statement that he votes against entitlement programs because he doesn't need them. I agree; I don't need them. But the way I look at is that I was lucky--and I think it is society's responsility to take care of those that are less fortunate. The system has to be able to police itself, though, to get rid of deadbeats that have no intention of working to help themselves. It is a real problem when a vast majority of homeless people are veterans. It's a disgrace.

Anyway, for the record, I voted against Bush, voted against Clinton in '96, and hope to vote for Kerry.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7088
(Past Year: -93)
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Arlo » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:35 pm

First off, thanks for keeping such a controversial discussion friendly. Please be extra careful to keep your replies respectful, though. It's easy to get carried away when talking politics.


Second, go out and vote. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or their views, choosing the lesser evil doesn't hurt.

Here's an interesting thought: since it seems that we (and, presumably, a whole lot of other people) can all agree on several issues like gerrymandering (from Marblehead up to Salisbury... :-D ) or comprehensive campaign finance reform (and I have a hunch we might all be able to agree on getting back into Kyoto, too, if we can take the issue at face value without the whole Republicans vs. Democrats plotline :-) ), I wonder what would happen if a national candidate decided to embrace precisely those topics? :-?
Arlo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7375
(Past Year: -1472)
Joined: 4 Jan 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Cheap Seats

Postby Transmogrifier » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:00 pm

Arlo wrote:First off, thanks for keeping such a controversial discussion friendly. Please be extra careful to keep your replies respectful, though. It's easy to get carried away when talking politics.


Despite all our disagreements, there's a lot of respect in this thread. ;-D

Arlo wrote:Second, go out and vote. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or their views, choosing the lesser evil doesn't hurt.


YES! It's a shame when only half of the eligible voters actually vote.

Arlo wrote:Here's an interesting thought: since it seems that we (and, presumably, a whole lot of other people) can all agree on several issues like gerrymandering (from Marblehead up to Salisbury... :-D ) or comprehensive campaign finance reform (and I have a hunch we might all be able to agree on getting back into Kyoto, too, if we can take the issue at face value without the whole Republicans vs. Democrats plotline :-) ), I wonder what would happen if a national candidate decided to embrace precisely those topics? :-?


Why would a candidate veer off from the Republican/Democrat tickets and actually think for her/himself? What good would that do? (Note sarcasm...)

Oh, and since I live there, it's also a shame that 1 million people do not have voting rights in this country--that's right, the citizens of Washington DC do not have Senatorial or House representation. It's a sham, a mockery, and undemocratic. Either make us a state (hey, South Dakota has less people and still has two senators), or let us vote with Virginia/Maryland.
;-D
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7088
(Past Year: -93)
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:21 pm

I agree with you, Arlo. However, I'm afraid that any candidate that came out in favor of those things would be blackballed. Politics are incredibly corrupt and it's going to take a lot of baby steps to get us to the point that meaningful change is possible. Unfortunately.
Absolutely Adequate
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4830
(Past Year: -170)
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests