Oh and Spaceman this makes two of us : " I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say ".</strong><hr></blockquote>
MAKE AN ARGUMENT!!! Name-calling and bitching about PMs and telling me over and over again about how you think different just doesn't even come close to "cutting it". Thinking different isn't a virtue all by itself. You've given me nothing to consider. And then when I remain unpersuaded, you attack me as close-minded.
<strong> And in MY OPINION the faith based iniatives are a wonderful program that DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, violate the separation of church and state.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the former statement, you opine that they do not violate separation of church and state. While in the latter statement, you state that they do not violate the separation of church and state and further clarify your opinion in commenting on whether or not you like the program.
The latter statement is certainly different than original one. The distinction lies where in the former statement you base an argument on personal judgement, or opinion, while in the latter one you state it like it is based on fact. (Although, you did not support it at all)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:<strong>
What? Which ones? He lowered taxes, increased military spending and allocations for housing, passed education reform.....the list goes on. What promises has he broken? Do you consider a compromise a "reversal'? I don't. Remember, you said CAMPAIGN PROMISES....not "items you agree with". I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE! The fact is you don't know what to do with a President that actually DOES what he SAID HE WOULD DO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The EU criticism came in response to a letter from President Bush to Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska last week in which Bush reverted a campaign pledge by saying that he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide (CO2) at US power plants as caps on CO2 would force a shift from coal to natural gas which he claims would lead to higher electricity prices.
By deciding not to regulate power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the president this week sided with some of his most ardent backers in the business community and reversed a campaign pledge.
Substantively, please. "Your arguments are weak" personally attacks him and contributes nothing to discussion. However, if you said "This is why your arguments are weak" and go on to explain why in the context of the issue, then you can get away with a little personal nudges here and there.
Substantively, please. "Your arguments are weak" personally attacks him and contributes nothing to discussion. However, if you said "This is why your arguments are weak" and go on to explain why in the context of the issue, then you can get away with a little personal nudges here and there. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Contributes to the discussion? What discussion? Calling someone a redneck or a knucklewalker isn't a discussion.
Bush?s reversal caused Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to call Bush ?a liar? and join the GAO in a lawsuit asking the courts to force Cheney to release information related to energy policy meetings with industry executives.
[quote] <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry022102.shtml"; target="_blank">RIch Lowry on Bush on National Review Online</a><strong>If Bush signs something close to the current version of Shays-Meehan he will be committing his first bona fide, no-doubt-about-it, can't-be-spun flip-flop and broken campaign promise.</strong> <hr></blockquote>
In another clear reversal of a campaign promise, President Bush reportedly plans to slash fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy funding for nonproliferation programs with Russia.
I have never said getting older will make you more liberal but, your perspective will change. The way you see things will change. If you don't believe me give it time. But, I never said it would make your opinions the same as mine.
By the way even at 30 I wouldn't have believed me ether.
Spaceman you lost ANY willingness on my part to discuss things in a open manner the minute you called me a troll. That showed me you didn't want to discuss, you just wanted to win. So I guess if you don't like name calling you shouldn't have casted the first stone. For those of you who missed this part SPACEMAN-SPIFF sent me a private message to stop trolling because I didn't agree with his point of view. You know, the same way he accused BRussell of policing his posts.
Once again I have a life and talking to you two is a big waste of time. Sometimes though you say things I just have to reply to.
I always thought as you get older you get more conservative. Young ones tend to be more liberal. So at your mid 30's you will have a perfect balanced view of the world. Therefore only 30 somethings should rule the world. Problems solved!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> good god i am laughing so hard! You think recognizing more than one point is naive. Rehashing? no making clear your short comings of course they're irrelevent you can't see them <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>^ You clearly don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Again oh person of oneness, enlighten me with your unfathomable wisdom on this. It's only irrelevant if it is on a completely different topic when you are speak in terms of opionon. Are all opinions valid? Nope, in fact I do not think most of yours are. But irrelevent, no and i am loth to see what the people of this country are coming to and you represent, thankfully, a very extreme few.
<strong>^ You wouldn't understand.... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what sjpsu, you can not insite me with an i know more than you attitude nor will your kind ever intimidate anyone. So you loss out on all points and without defense fall back to "i can not understand what your saying because it does not fit into my tiny view of the world around me" and call it "irrelevant". Thankfully the irrelevance falls into the "this board won't make a bit of difference in the world" category.
<strong>He didn't say you can't understand he said you wouldn't understand. There's a big difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he/she didn't, I said it about him/her. I read and fully understand his/her points, and see other facets to them. His/her points appall me with there incredibly narrow view and bitting commentary on the ability of another to think due to their lack of agreement. With a touch, just a touch, of wisdom this person could see at least one facet of the points he/she is making and gain some perspective. Hopefully that would lead to more understanding of some of the other facets and more perspective, and not a phobic panic cause him/her to become even more narrow. But first he/she must recognize them. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Comments
<strong>
Oh and Spaceman this makes two of us : " I'm not all that impressed with extent to which your mind is open to what others say ".</strong><hr></blockquote>
MAKE AN ARGUMENT!!! Name-calling and bitching about PMs and telling me over and over again about how you think different just doesn't even come close to "cutting it". Thinking different isn't a virtue all by itself. You've given me nothing to consider. And then when I remain unpersuaded, you attack me as close-minded.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong> And in MY OPINION the faith based iniatives are a wonderful program that DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, violate the separation of church and state.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the former statement, you opine that they do not violate separation of church and state. While in the latter statement, you state that they do not violate the separation of church and state and further clarify your opinion in commenting on whether or not you like the program.
The latter statement is certainly different than original one. The distinction lies where in the former statement you base an argument on personal judgement, or opinion, while in the latter one you state it like it is based on fact. (Although, you did not support it at all)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:<strong>
What? Which ones? He lowered taxes, increased military spending and allocations for housing, passed education reform.....the list goes on. What promises has he broken? Do you consider a compromise a "reversal'? I don't. Remember, you said CAMPAIGN PROMISES....not "items you agree with". I can't think of one campaign promise he has broken. Please name ONE! The fact is you don't know what to do with a President that actually DOES what he SAID HE WOULD DO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<a href="http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/27-03-01/story3.htm"; target="_blank">ICTSD Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest</a>:<strong>
The EU criticism came in response to a letter from President Bush to Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska last week in which Bush reverted a campaign pledge by saying that he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide (CO2) at US power plants as caps on CO2 would force a shift from coal to natural gas which he claims would lead to higher electricity prices.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/03/15/fp2s1-csm.shtml"; target="_blank">Christian Science Monitor</a><strong>
By deciding not to regulate power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the president this week sided with some of his most ardent backers in the business community and reversed a campaign pledge.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
One.
<strong>
Umm........I'm pretty sure that is what he did, since his post was about the arguments being weak.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Substantively, please. "Your arguments are weak" personally attacks him and contributes nothing to discussion. However, if you said "This is why your arguments are weak" and go on to explain why in the context of the issue, then you can get away with a little personal nudges here and there.
<strong>
Substantively, please. "Your arguments are weak" personally attacks him and contributes nothing to discussion. However, if you said "This is why your arguments are weak" and go on to explain why in the context of the issue, then you can get away with a little personal nudges here and there.
Contributes to the discussion? What discussion? Calling someone a redneck or a knucklewalker isn't a discussion.
Bush?s reversal caused Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to call Bush ?a liar? and join the GAO in a lawsuit asking the courts to force Cheney to release information related to energy policy meetings with industry executives.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
Calling someone a redneck or a knucklewalker isn't a discussion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
Three.
In another clear reversal of a campaign promise, President Bush reportedly plans to slash fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy funding for nonproliferation programs with Russia.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Four.
I have never said getting older will make you more liberal but, your perspective will change. The way you see things will change. If you don't believe me give it time. But, I never said it would make your opinions the same as mine.
By the way even at 30 I wouldn't have believed me ether.
Spaceman you lost ANY willingness on my part to discuss things in a open manner the minute you called me a troll. That showed me you didn't want to discuss, you just wanted to win. So I guess if you don't like name calling you shouldn't have casted the first stone. For those of you who missed this part SPACEMAN-SPIFF sent me a private message to stop trolling because I didn't agree with his point of view. You know, the same way he accused BRussell of policing his posts.
Once again I have a life and talking to you two is a big waste of time. Sometimes though you say things I just have to reply to.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Naive. Everything is political.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> good god i am laughing so hard! You think recognizing more than one point is naive. Rehashing? no making clear your short comings of course they're irrelevent you can't see them <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
<strong>^ You clearly don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Again oh person of oneness, enlighten me with your unfathomable wisdom on this. It's only irrelevant if it is on a completely different topic when you are speak in terms of opionon. Are all opinions valid? Nope, in fact I do not think most of yours are. But irrelevent, no and i am loth to see what the people of this country are coming to and you represent, thankfully, a very extreme few.
Guest-"Karl Rove isn't trying to politicize the war..."
Begala- "He's a political strategist!" lol
<strong>^ You wouldn't understand.... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what sjpsu, you can not insite me with an i know more than you attitude nor will your kind ever intimidate anyone. So you loss out on all points and without defense fall back to "i can not understand what your saying because it does not fit into my tiny view of the world around me" and call it "irrelevant". Thankfully the irrelevance falls into the "this board won't make a bit of difference in the world" category.
<strong>He didn't say you can't understand he said you wouldn't understand. There's a big difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he/she didn't, I said it about him/her. I read and fully understand his/her points, and see other facets to them. His/her points appall me with there incredibly narrow view and bitting commentary on the ability of another to think due to their lack of agreement. With a touch, just a touch, of wisdom this person could see at least one facet of the points he/she is making and gain some perspective. Hopefully that would lead to more understanding of some of the other facets and more perspective, and not a phobic panic cause him/her to become even more narrow. But first he/she must recognize them. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
My Statement to Nations that Hate the US: Right back at you, bitches!
Short and SWEEEET!