You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

Obstructionists

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Political Euphemisms
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Obstructionists Reply with quote

For years, before the NeoCon Republicans took control...we heard about people not being offered a clear choice between the two major parties. We were told that both tended to the middle so much that they effectively tried to sell the majority the same political product, while assauging their extremist wings with promises of arts grants for the left, or defense contracts for the right.

Now, we have a two party system...except only one party, the Republicans, have a clear and patent political stance on almost every issue. The other party, the Democrats, have a completely undecipherable stance on every issue.

For most issues, the Republicans will articulate a clear strategy such as "continue the war in Iraq". The Democrats will then take that strategy and mist over it with vagaries that might take the form of "I would continue the war, up to a point, and then promote a considered reevaluations".

It's sort of like if politics were an atom, the Republicans would be the protons in the nucleus. We know where they are...and they are dense, massive, positively charged. The Democrats are the electrons...here they are, here they aren't. If you manage to locate one, you never know which direction they are going to travel next and how fast. And if you see one going someplace, you never know where they'll stop.

One thing that these negatively charged Libs are good at though...is trying to cancel the charge of the Republicans. I would summarize Democratic strategy best as obstructionist. Using this strategy for them has been somewhat successful. While featuring none of their own leaders, they have married their opponents to George Bush. Mr. Bush has been saddled by negative Liberal press from the get go, and these layers upon layers of accusation may have twisted a few minds.

Examples abound. Al Gore screams about information about global warming being blacked out...yet, he fails to mention that the Bush administration has been contributing billions to hydrogen and fuel cell research from the get go...even pre-911 (which is one of the first things that won my support). The Dems focus on the first 3 days of Katrina, but ignore the massive subsequent effort, and successful result of Federal aid. They hammer Iraq policy, but don't acknowledge the possible correct action of an activist approach to terror.

And their policies or choices or definitive actions are non-existent! I recently read a glowing article about Barrick Obama. It went on and on about his charisma...which seems plentiful. But, I wrote the author, you do not mention one policy, program or action this person has taken while in office that deserves merit!

Obstructionist clouds of negativity abound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it ironic that in your post in defense of the status quo,
that you argue that Dems are obstructionist (and presumably
should be voted down). Could it be that your call for the status
quo is what I thought it was at first, a trick? Or just a parroting
of some 6 month old spin? Complaining about ongoing Democratic
obstruction calls into question your commitment to this notion.
Hasn't it been part of the status quo?

In any case, I've made no commitment to the idea of the status
quo, and I am immensely relieved by the results of yesterday's
election. You want to call the Dems obstructionist (and even say
that it is the most benign interpretation of their policies!).
Now, I know better than to let you set the frame for interpretting
the facts, but I'll play along for a minute or two. The Dems have
been in the role that the British would call "the loyal opposition".
Out of power in the congress, in a way that is unprecedented in
modern history, one could argue that this is the role that they
are dealt. If it is obstructionist to argue and vote against the
weakening of civil rights protections, then count me amongst the
obstructionists. If it is obstructionist to resist this administration's
moves to over-ride the notion of habeas corpus, an 800 year
tradition in jurisprudence, one that allows those charged with crimes
to go before a judge to dispute their arrest, then count me with
the obstructionists. The president resisted signing a bill (passed
with the help of Republicans with conscience) that outlawed
torture, and then added a "signing statement" that said the the
law did not apply to him, or his administration.

Follow the story in nearly every area of this administration's
efforts. "Clear skies", for instance, which allows more mercury
pollution. Tampering with science. On and on. In all these cases,
count me amongst the obstructionists of terrible, misguided
policies.

On the other hand, you say that Dems policies are indecipherable.
I wonder whether you will continue this line of reasoning in the
months to come. If not, then I think you will be forced to admit
that the cause of this is a combination of being out of power, and
the unprecedented partisanship that the Reps have been using
in the congress. There is not one democratic policy on Iraq, for
instance, because there is not a Dem in the white house.

I'll leave your metaphor about electrons and protons alone.

I will say that your talk about the liberal press is somewhat
laughable. It reminds me of a couple of jokes I've heard in
the last few years. One, that obviously, the majority of
Americans are out of the mainstream. Two, that reality has
a liberal bias. Liberal media do exist, but mostly they are
drowned out by the opposite.

John, you have a contrarian bent that I admire, and an optimism
that could be contagious (from some other posts). You are
good at pointing out some hypocrisies of the left but your
examples here are weak. The line on hydrogen research
looks like merely a rationale for avoiding taking action in the
present (raising CAFE standards in order to remain competitive
in the worldwide auto markets). And there may be other
problems with it. It's starting to look to me that alcohol as a
fuel is much more promising, for instance. Still, I'm happy that
research is happening.

As far as Katrina, this administration has been a disaster before,
during and after the fact. I suppose that the Dems are harping
on it because it points up the lie to the homeland security emphasis
of this administration. With days of warning, of a phenomenon
that could be seen from space, this administration did virtually
nothing, and then lied about it. To be fair, I think that both parties
are ducking on this one now. Unless there is the will to deal with
the problem of reduced delta-formation, New Orleans will be
an island in 50 years. All the dikes in the world won't save it.

As for Iraq, that is a book in itself. Iraq was not involved in the
September 11 attack on the US. Even now Al qaeda is not a
significant force in Iraq. The administration knowingly
"cherry-picked" the data to support attacking Iraq. To be fair,
again, Iraq *was* involved in terrorism, pretty much to the
extent that many/most other middle east countries were, in
contributing to funds that paid the families of suicide bombers
in Israel. Saddam was an evil man, but for the times that he
was most evil, he was *our* man. After gassing the Kurds,
Rumsfeld himself went to Iraq to congratulate him. And the
weapons that they thought they'd find were ones that our
government provided. This administration echoes the protestations
of that "poor, corrupt bureaucrat" played by Claude Rains that
he was "shocked, shocked" that gambling was allowed at Rick's
Americain.

In the Republican congress, definitive actions by Democrats
were not allowed. Dems were not even allowed to hold hearings.
Barack Obama has gained the interest of many people based
on his speech at the 2004 democratic convention. What I found
most remarkable about that speech was that he was not doing the
kind of argumentation that you and I indulge in, but finding our
commonalities. He made it seem possible for Reps to join up
for us to all promote the greater good (not his words). And it
was not a partisan, shame-based speech about the past, but one
looking to the future. That may be his greatest gift.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you Democrats did me a favor by electing yourself...for now, I can hurl invective without having to prove fact or provide a better way (much as you've done for the last 12 years).

Some notes on the election. Dems kept trying to make the Congressional midterms a referendum on Bush. And it was. For example, Mike McGavick who ran a low-fat lite "let's all work together" campaign and distanced himself as far from Bush and the war as possible...went down screaming.

Meanwhile, my local House Representative, Republican Dave Reichart, who cozied up to Bush and made no bones about it...won.

Bush himself lead the groundwork in 2004...but most were to stupid to follow. He showed that moving away from the middle, even after the primaries, can be a very effective strategy. Offering something in the middle, when your opponent can offer the same thing, only better, is a sure losing strategy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently, invective is hurled by one if another does not find
it possible to refute it.

Secondly, I am not a Democrat.

3) I think we've done you a favor in more ways than you imagine.
Do you realize that I estimate that the war in Iraq has cost *you*
over $8,000 so far? You want cleaner air in Kent? You think the
Republican congress was going to help? Maybe now they might,
now that they're going to have a little more time on their hands.
Still, I'd recommend talking to your Democratic representative.

4) My personal invective is mostly limited to the last 4 years.
It's something about my personality. I dislike being lied to.


Regarding your notes on the election:

I think that you can explain a lot by using the "allergic reaction"
metaphor. While I'm not sure I want to help your analysis of the
strategy that won elections, I suspect it is more about the district
you live in. Congressional district have been so gerrymandered
(by both Dems and Reps) that it is very difficult to dislodge an
incumbent.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you realize that I estimate that the war in Iraq has cost *you*
over $8,000 so far?


It's money well spent. I didn't realize it was so little!

Quote:
You think the Republican congress was going to help?


They have been helping...by continuing to enact the President's plans in fuel cells and hydrogen power. BTW -- Did you notice that Arnold Schwartzenegger was reelected in a sweeping vote? That's another politician who has always been very strongly pro-Bush, and pro-hydrogren.

Quote:
It's something about my personality. I dislike being lied to.


It doesn't seem that so much as you dislike certain people who lie to you. The others are your cronies, so it's ok.

Quote:
it is very difficult to dislodge an incumbent.


I've seen the figures and yes, it is! However, I think there was one huge factor in the election that no one discussed...one that hits at the home and heart of every American...falling housing prices! Increase in house prices has been the ace-in-the-hole for every American who could not bring himself to putting aside the 5 percent a week in his 401k. He knew that if he did nothing, his house would keep going up and and up and eventually he could sell it to some young couple for 5 times value...securing a cheaper retirement home elsewhere. That was the tacit bargain that let people accumulate so much credit card debt and otherwise, because ultimately it could be taken care of by the house.

Not any more maybe, and that's a tough nut to swallow. I thing the voters were crying out for help in any way possible. I didn't hear Iraq mentioned much at all except by the pundits and talk shows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John, you are continually surprising.

It sounds like you may be interested in contributing more
to pay for the occupation of Iraq. Contrary to your impression,
I heard Iraq as the main issue amongst people I talked to.
Registered republicans who weren't going to take a chance
and vote for even one republican, let alone a senator, lest
it somehow encourage Bush and co.

I'd like to be fair about the question of Iraq. I honestly don't
know if it was a good idea to invade it. What I know is that
every reason that I can remember being given for the invasion
was later shown to be false at best, and fabricated at worst.
Perhaps you know of other reasons, or can show that the reasons
I've determined to be false are indeed true.

I know we didn't go there to prevent a civil war (our current
mission, it seems), but I've been forced to reach my own
conclusions about the rationale for this war, and none of them
are very admirable. I encourage you to post, perhaps under
a different header, why you think that this treasure (money,
soldier's lives and health, and the goodwill of the world) are
worth the current situation in Iraq.

As far as Reps helping you by researching hydrogen, I think you
miss the boat in 2 regards: 1) I predict you'll find that the Dems
are a lot better about renewable energy than the Reps ever were.
Look at the energy bill that was passed and Bush signed.
Massive subsidies and giveaways to the *old* energy sources:
oil, gas and coal. A tiny incentive for solar. No wind. etc.
You seem to have the notion that the Reps are the party of
new technology and entrepeneurship, but I see the Dems as
more interested in it. Were you aware that Hummers qualified
for business tax write-offs but smaller vehicles didn't? Thank
your republican congressman. 2) Hydrogen research is all very
well, and I support it, but it's not going to make the air better
where you live before you reach retirement age.

Your idea that the slump in housing prices may be a factor could
be true. We haven't seen that so much where I live, so I
can't comment on it much. Things I've seen indicate that the
effect is mild, though I know you've posted something about
a drop of 25%. Even if it hasn't reached that point in most
markets, the pieces are all in place for it to spiral downward.

And, no, I don't like being lied to by anyone. I presume you
are referring to Clinton. I did not like it. On the other hand,
it was an otherwise inconsequential lie. If you've got other
examples of my hypocrisy, well, then, bring em on. Which
lies are you referring to? Maybe we can create a new forum:
lies and damned lies.


******

You and I may have different styles of argumentation. You mention
hurling invective, and lack of proof. When I challenge you on
this, you are silent. My style is not to try to prove everything,
but to convey what I've learned. I, personally, believe that
there is good reason to believe the claims I make, but I know
others may not accept them. I can try to prove claims, and
I'm willing, to a point, to try to do so. On the other hand, many
of my sources are not internet links, and I don't keep index
cards of every point. If you have doubt, I could probably point
you to some sources or at least some google search terms to
prove it to yourself.

I'm willing to accept being corrected, but you tend to leave things
ambiguous; do you not reply to a point because you agree, or
because you see no point, or because you don't want to admit it?
This approach leaves me pretty dissatisfied with our discussions.
You come across as an extreme loyalist who cannot admit to
error, perhaps because error implies weakness. Name-calling
and characterizing what I say as "hurling invective" is even worse.
It's not like there's a huge audience to score partisan points here,
John. It's just you and me, and maybe a dozen strangers that will
ever read these posts.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You wrote:

Quote:
You come across as an extreme loyalist who cannot admit to
error, perhaps because error implies weakness.


Your next sentence begins

Quote:
Name-calling


Pot.

Kettle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It sounds like you may be interested in contributing more
to pay for the occupation of Iraq.


I'm happy with the current level of spending.

Quote:
Contrary to your impression, I heard Iraq as the main issue amongst people I talked to.


We talk to different people then.

Quote:
I encourage you to post, perhaps under
a different header, why you think that this treasure (money,
soldier's lives and health, and the goodwill of the world) are
worth the current situation in Iraq.


This region presents an unstable and demonstrably danger to the future of Western Civilization. It is growing in population, wealth and reach. It's society is brutal, mean and power mad. If it should overspill its borders and start to press towards what we call Western Civilization...then I fear for the worst. To me, it has been, and always will be -- nipping it in the bud.

As far as stay or go...I think of the whole thing as a police action. Clearly the Islamic "Mob" got out of hand, and Eliot Ness came in and trashed the place. Do we leave? Of course not. Do the police leave the city after jailing the criminals? Nope...because there will always be more.

Quote:
I predict you'll find that the Dems are a lot better about renewable energy than the Reps ever were.


History does not support your assertions. It has been Bush and Schwartzenegger who have single handledly promoted and pushed the new hydrogen economy. What about Clinton? Or Al Gore for that matter? Most Democratic "alternative" programs consist of giving large subsidies to farmers for things like biodiesel which will never, ever get us to the next level of energy technology.

Quote:
Look at the energy bill that was passed and Bush signed.
Massive subsidies and giveaways to the *old* energy sources:
oil, gas and coal.


Unfortunately that's the way the world works. You have to satiate the lions and tigers, so you can do your work...else they'll be so hungry, they'll eat you. The question is -- what alternative energies are being funded...not what other things are riders in the bill.

Quote:
A tiny incentive for solar. No wind. etc.


There were some very public statements that the administration felt these were mature technologies, which already had commericial ventures funding and developing them. I agree with that.

Quote:
Hydrogen research is all very well, and I support it, but it's not going to make the air better where you live before you reach retirement age.


Putting out water as the exhaust rather than sulfur dioxide won't make the air better?

Quote:
Your idea that the slump in housing prices may be a factor could be true. We haven't seen that so much where I live, so I
can't comment on it much. Things I've seen indicate that the
effect is mild, though I know you've posted something about
a drop of 25%. Even if it hasn't reached that point in most
markets, the pieces are all in place for it to spiral downward.




Quote:
http://www.ktvz.com/story.cfm?nav=nwest&storyID=17123

Is the Northwest housing market bubble-proof? Some cities are, according to new analysis. Business 2.0 Magazine says Seattle is one of five cities where the longer term housing trend is positive. But Portland was not among the top five.


Quote:
You and I may have different styles of argumentation. You mention hurling invective, and lack of proof.


I have yet to see you post any quoted source, or web link, or validated scientific study or news article for any assertion that you have made in this forum, or any forum on YRIHR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:41 am    Post subject: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do... Reply with quote

By popular request, I'm branching this debate into new or existing threads.

This thread is about Obstructionism. That is, do parties, organizations take a detractive, negative role in blocking action for their own gain, rather than helping change and doing what's best over all.

The energy debates (hydrogen) belong in the Energy/Transportation section. We can start a new thread there.

Portland housing. It's part of one of my arguments for the Status Quo, that the poor are getting richer and the rich getting poorer because of things like declining housing prices. That belongs in the thread, [i]The Wealth Economy.

Iraq...new thread in Status Quo (as in we did the right thing, or not).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm re-arranging the way you split the thread, John. My original reply:

*************************************

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe you caught me in an inconsistency,
and maybe not. Telling you how you come across is something
I did because I wanted you to refute it. I want to believe that you
aren't an extreme loyalist. By that I mean that you don't argue
just for partisan advantage, but as a way of us all discovering the
truth. If its the former, then I don't particularly want to participate.

If it is the former, then it doesn't matter what ideas I contribute,
because if they have validity but are embarassing to your cause,
then you can ignore them. If I've made some slip-up in some detail
of my presentation, then you can make the conversation about that
slip up. And believe me, I can slip up plenty. I'm not a politician,
and I don't parse my words to soften every edge until nothing much
is said.

No, John, I want it to be the latter. But when it doesn't look that
way, well, it hurts *your* credibility. If that's how you come
across, as a battler for your cause that will use every trick to "win",
then people (and I mean in your personal life, as well as on web
forums) will tend to discount your message.

As far as the name-calling goes, as it turns out I think I did a pretty
good job of it, actually. I framed it in terms of my perceptions,
rather than in terms of "you are <X>", for instance, which is one
way of promoting "fighting fair". You've called yourself in my
presence a "rabid republican", which seems fairly close to what
I said. The only word left is "loyalist", and "loyalty" is widely
considered to be a virtue. The question I have is how you balance
that virtue with other virtues which I know you possess.

While I'm happy to talk about housing values in Portland, its
frustrating to me that from what I can perceive from your postings,
my concerns about habeas corpus, warrantless (unconstitutional)
domestic surveillance, et al, can be dismissed (by implication)
as "hurling invective", without any other response. You think that
what I am saying is false? I could probably find plenty of links
so you could prove it to yourself. Maybe if you showed me that
it had some value to do so I might. This stuff is all out there.
Maybe you accept it, but discount it's importance. I don't know.

Which brings up the subject of providing links to prove my points.
I think I said in my most recent posting that this is a stylistic
difference between us. Believe me, I've cited plenty of references
in academic papers for journals, conferences and book chapters.
There, citing is done as much for giving credit as it is for bolstering
an argument. Offhand, I don't think a lot of folks are concerned
because I haven't given them credit, so its more about bolstering
the arguments. The other thing in academia is that, historically,
the arguments put forth in articles don't have the same immediacy
as posting online. If you're wondering whether scientist X considered
factor Y, online, you can ask him. Trying to anticipate every such
question and cite appropriate references in a scientific, peer-reviewed
paper is not as needed here, and it is easily the most tedious part
of research.

I personally admire that you post links to strengthen your arguments.
This is especially valuable when you are fulfilling the mission of
YRIHF, bringing new information to the community. You posted
a link to a million dollar grant from the US to research hydrogen
combustion engines, for instance. Which strengthened (a little)
your claim that Reps are pro-hydrogen. If you look around, you'll
find that I've cited other websites when there is a question about
whether something I've posted is a "first". For the most part, though,
you are right. I haven't posted links. To my mind, they haven't
been needed, this not being an academic journal, and being a forum
where anyone can challenge what I say with just a few keystrokes.
You don't think that Bush wrote in his signing statement that the
torture ban he signed didn't apply to his administration? Look
around! If you still can't find it, I'll find it for you. And you can
prove it to yourself. It's not important? Say so. If you want
to have a dialogue, I recommend against dismissing it as "hurling
invective".

So then, I hope we're left with the substantive issues in your
posting: Iraq, who funds hydrogen research, and housing values.

I'd prefer that we had different postings about each, to keep the
dialogue a little clearer, but I'll write a little about each, here.
I think the onus is on you to start these separate threads; I don't
feel that I have much that is original to say about these areas,
and right now, I'm just responding to what you've said.

It seems to me that, first, these were not the reasons given to go
to war with Iraq. Secondly, there are a host of assumptions that
underly your 2 short paragraphs: 1) instability is a valid rationale to
attack a foreign country, 2) the US is the policeman of the world,
3) the growth in the wealth and population of a foreign country is
a valid rationale to attack it, given other factors, 4) by "overspilling
it's borders" the region will "press towards" western civilization,
5) there is some confusion about whether it is the region or the
religion that is at issue, 6) you don't say what the "worst" is that
you fear, nuclear attack? 7) pre-emptive war is justified, and that
we have the knowledge of what it is that need to be pre-empted,
Cool that by pre-empting we can make the situation better and not
worse, 9) since it is a "police action", our laws apply to foreign
nations, 10) since our role is "policing" we should never leave Iraq,
11) finally, the strongest argument I think you make, that the
brutal, power-mad people of the region/religion/society are dangerous
to western civilization/US interests.

By no means do I consider these assumptions defacto right or wrong.
Some are stronger and others are weaker or more contentious.
Perhaps you can put your posting under its own header and we can
debate them more closely.



[Note: this thread has been broken out in this same forum.]



Energy: from what I've seen, both parties are pretty out of step
with the kinds of policies our country needs for a rational energy
future. Rather than being party-based, it tends to be region-based,
with midwesterners supporting biodiesel, and oil-states supporting
oil, etc. I agree that corn-based ethanol is a dead-end, but mostly
because corn is a remarkably inefficient way to produce it. Alcohol,
however, looks like a big winner when you look at producing it out
of sugar beats, and a host of other crops.

The only figures I could find by just glancing around for a few minutes
was that funding was at the 1-2 million dollars in 1993, and that it
was about 150 million by 2002. If you have more precise figures,
it would be helpful to post them, but on the face of it, it looks like
the Clinton administration presided over something like a 100-fold
increase in funding. If it was only a 70 fold increase, that would still
be pretty significant. The Clinton admin funded the PNGV project
which Bush cancelled. The hydrogen caucus in congress is bi-partisan.

My impression is that hydrogen vehicles, for instance, are a ways off,
note Joseph J. Romm's prediction http://www.cool-companies.org/index.cfm that hydrogen
vehicles will have less than 5% market penetration by 2030.
(see? I can post links!) Hence, my claim that it will not significantly
clean the air where you live before you retire.


[This thread broken out into this same forum.]



Portland housing: I'm not quite certain what you are refuting here.
That Portland is not in the top 5 is not a very compelling argument.
The fact is that Portland was in the top 5 for the period ending
June 30, 2006, and while I've seen some "price reduced" tags
on realty signs and classified ads, my impression is that the reduction
is small if there is a reduction at all. In any case, it doesn't
appear to affect the original claim that it didn't seem to be a factor
here. If you want to argue the opposite, then your argument
should lead you to conclude that Oregon voted more for Bush-
friendly politicians than other states that are feeling the effect of
housing price drops more.

I don't think we need to fight, John, but if we are to fight,
then I insist that we fight fair.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So this is your chance, John, to leave or not leave me believing that
you are either unaware of the issues I've raised about torture,
warrantless wiretapping, et al, or aware but unbelieving, or
believing but not caring, or believing and caring but what?

It is also your chance to say which of the claims I've made are
invective. Your chance to say which lies by my "cronies" that
don't disturb me (and thus prove my rank hypocrisy).

Frankly, I'm still offended. So, please, choose your words carefully.

But choose them. You might start by looking at the definition of
invective, and considering how it is that true statements about this
administration (and the current congress) would be "abusive".
I'll admit that I *can* think of a situation where telling the truth
could be abuse, for instance, when protecting children from something
that would be harmful to them, that they are too young to understand.
Surely that is not your rationale here, though, no?

I'm still in suspense. Am I the partisan hypocrite, hurling invective
as your postings suggest?

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So this is your chance, John, to leave or not leave me believing that you are either unaware of the issues I've raised about torture, warrantless wiretapping, et al, or aware but unbelieving, or
believing but not caring, or believing and caring but what?


Torture: We are dealing with people who play polo using the head of a goat. For me the question is not should we, but is it effective.

Wiretapping: I have some differing ideas about public/private. In an earlier day of the town, everyone knew everyone's business. Those who had nothing to hide, had nothing to hide...and maybe those who did have something to hide were held in check before they could do something much, much worse. For me, I say -- be public. I think voting should be open and public -- which every man's vote laid open to scrutiny just as our elected representatives.

Invective: This is a situation where we have both somehow put ourselves into a maelstrom of a shitstorm, and to end it all I would say: I'm sorry and I take back and will edit and remove any sentence you consider invective.

But after that, I would say -- hey, YRIHF is a public forum. I'd love to see some other posters making comments on our style of debate. Maybe they will make us out to be the fools that we now appear to be (sorry, I called you a fool -- I mean, me...I'm the fool.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-

Thanks for your clarifying this. I'm posting the torture and wiretapping
sections to their own topics so we can explore them further.

As long as I have something to say about it, I'm going to err on the
side of posters fighting fair, if fighting is even called for. That's why
I appreciate your apology. Personally, it was not acceptable to me
to allow my heartfelt feelings to be characterized as invective with
no example given, and without addressing the points that I raised.

But I wonder, even now, if you misunderstand what I was saying.
I was not saying that your posts were invective, but that this is
the word you used to characterize mine. I do not wish for you to
remove any sentences.

As for the wider world, they'll come around at some point.
Meanwhile, we can have good fun letting our creativity have
an outlet. Let them call us fools if they like. Occasionally,
we may even admit to it, eh?

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Political Euphemisms All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group