Page 6 of 7
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:27 pm
by Roody
Sarahnn wrote:No, you are in denial. There is no comparison. Clearly obama has played the bush blame game ad nauseum and Bush let the chips fall where they may by acknowledging a recession. You know what? I've given my side of this discussion. And I have not attacked you on what is beneath you. You are using me to dodge bullets. It's okay.
Bush blamed Clinton. That is a fact. It's disappointing that you can't acknowledge that Bush did blame Clinton. Admitting that doesn't make you a lesser person. Frankly this comes across like debates with Sava. No matter how much evidence is shown to disprove a point there is this idea that a wrong can't be admitted. I will never understand that line of thinking.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:27 pm
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:Let's begin with your data. What data supports your theory that terrorism is an existential threat to the US? I think we should start there because it's the sole basis for your support of the Patriot Act.
I will show you that terrorism is not an existential threat to the US and therefore the Patriot Act is unnecessary.
Okay, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'm all ears.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:35 pm
by Roody
Sarahnn wrote:Okay, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'm all ears.
Seems he was asking you what your data was.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:54 pm
by brembo
Roody's gettin angry
/George Constanza voice
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:54 pm
by Roody
For what it's worth Sarahnn I apologize to you if I made you feel insulted. That was not my intent.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:55 pm
by Roody
brembo wrote:Roody's gettin angry
/George Constanza voice
No, not at all man. I'm just offering up my viewpoint.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:11 pm
by Sarahnn
Roody wrote:For what it's worth Sarahnn I apologize to you if I made you feel insulted. That was not my intent.
It's okay, no apology necessary.
You know, I think that the difference between Bush blaming Clinton and Obama blaming Bush is that Bush did not drive the point home to Americans that Clinton had been a detriment to this country overall.
Clearly that is what obama is about. In impugning a past president to the degree that obama has worked publically to do, it is a reflection on our voting process, our Congress, the office itself and compromises anything that a past administration did accomplish.
Obama uses many of bush's initiatives and obama continues to tear the last president down as though bush caused the darkest days in our country's history. Obama has very little character in my book. I'm not young, I'm certainly not stupid and I was encouraged when a black citizen took office as President. I think I make good points.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:13 pm
by Sarahnn
Roody wrote:Seems he was asking you what your data was.
hmmmm, maybe I misunderstood him. He said, "I will show you that terrorism is not an existential threat to the US and therefore the Patriot Act is unnecessary.".
I need to be shown because I'm not sure where he's coming from. So, therefore, I'm all ears!!!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:13 pm
by Roody
Sarahnn wrote:It's okay, no apology necessary.
You know, I think that the difference between Bush blaming Clinton and Obama blaming Bush is that Bush did not drive the point home to Americans that Clinton had been a detriment to this country overall.
Clearly that is what obama is about. In impugning a past president to the degree that obama has worked publically to do, it is a reflection on our voting process, our Congress, the office itself and compromises anything that a past administration did accomplish.
Obama uses many of bush's initiatives and obama continues to tear the last president down as though bush caused the darkest days in our country's history. Obama has very little character in my book. I'm not young, I'm certainly not stupid and I was encouraged when a black citizen took office as President. I think I make good points.
I think you make good points also. I am not happy with the ongoing criticism Obama offered up at Bush although he has at times been correct. It's something he certainly needs to overcome. The point I was trying to make is Bush wasn't immune to criticizing other Presidents either. Not that his doing that condones Obama doing the same thing because it doesn't.
Anyway, I appreciate your understanding where I was coming from and not getting upset with me.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:20 pm
by Sarahnn
Roody wrote:I think you make good points also. I am not happy with the ongoing criticism Obama offered up at Bush although he has at times been correct. It's something he certainly needs to overcome. The point I was trying to make is Bush wasn't immune to criticizing other Presidents either. Not that his doing that condones Obama doing the same thing because it doesn't.
Anyway, I appreciate your understanding where I was coming from and not getting upset with me.
I know you, Roody. If I did get upset, it would not be a reflection on you, but on my inability to handle differing views. But, I admit, sometimes I'm guilty as charged.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:08 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:Okay, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'm all ears.
Show me your data first. I would like to see the data which you drew your conclusion from. So let's start with you. In turn, I will show you the data that I drew my conclusion from.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:11 pm
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:Show me your data first. I would like to see the data which you drew your conclusion from. So let's start with you. In turn, I will show you the data that I drew my conclusion from.
I have no data.
You made the statement "Terrorism isn't an existential threat to the United States. Period."
Then you asked, "Would you like to trade data on this?"
The onus is on you to defend your statement with the data you promised. If I don't agree with that data, I will be happy to provide counter data to support my disagreement.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:20 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:I have no data.
You made the statement "Terrorism isn't an existential threat to the United States. Period."
Then you asked, "Would you like to trade data on this?"
The onus is on you to defend your statement with the data you promised. If I don't agree with that data, I will be happy to provide counter data to support my disagreement.
No. Go back and read your statement regarding the Patriot Act.
I think that those who disapprove of the patriot act have no knowledge of what it actually contains, nor how it works on behalf of U.S. citizens, not against them.
This is also one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation in action today. And it is aimed corrrectly at terrorists. It was conceived after the Oklahoma bombing and refined and buiilt upon until Bush finally signed it into action.
It is upon you to provide data because of your assertion which I disagreed with. What data do you have that you based your support of the Patriot Act on with regards to terrorists? If you concede the point and amend your statement that the Patriot Act is bunk...this can end here.
Do you really believe that terrorism is an existential threat to the US and therefore the Patriot Act is necessary? Why? How did you come to that conclusion or was your decision made out of blind support?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:18 am
by JawZ
mnosteele52 wrote:I agree, what I'm referring to are his statements of changing politics in Washington during his campaign. He has done nothing but the same old thing but even worse in my opinion. I think ALL politicians are liars, Republican and Democrats, I choose the lesser of the evils and my beliefs tend to side with Republicans more than Democrats. But Obama is in a different league than other Democratic Presidents of the past, to me he is VERY liberal and is trying to take this country in the wrong direction. The governments job is to govern not completely own and control as in a socialist countries. His mindset is very socialistic (if that's a word), the whole Government Healthcare is what he will be remembered for more than anything..... it's not the governments place to provide me or anyone else with healthcare, it's MY responsibility to provide myself and my family with healthcare. I don't have a problem with the government stepping to to "govern" the way many things are done with healthcare, to help make it more competitive and fair.... but they have no business running it as they want to do.
Look at it from this perspective...while I agree that it is your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare, insurance companies can DENY you health insurance for bogus reasons just so that they can increase profit margins.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:11 am
by SlyOneDoofy
I like to think of our government as a Democratic-Republic.
Meaning (in my opinion)...
The government shall abid by the will of the people UNLESS it infringes upon the rights of the individual.
I'm feeling infringed upon by the social programs I pay for, never use and others abuse.
I doubt this healthcare bill will be any different.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:31 am
by cybotron r_9
This thread is totally useless without data folks......come on....I want data
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:52 am
by mnosteele52
JawZ wrote:Look at it from this perspective...while I agree that it is your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare, insurance companies can DENY you health insurance for bogus reasons just so that they can increase profit margins.
I know, that's why I said I don't have a problem with them "governing" healthcare to make fair and competitive but actually running the healthcare system is not the governments responsibility.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:52 am
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:Look at it from this perspective...while I agree that it is your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare, insurance companies can DENY you health insurance for bogus reasons just so that they can increase profit margins.
"Just" so they can increase profit margins? That's what business is about. To make a profit.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:53 am
by Sarahnn
SlyOneDoofy wrote:I like to think of our government as a Democratic-Republic.
Meaning (in my opinion)...
The government shall abid by the will of the people UNLESS it infringes upon the rights of the individual.
I'm feeling infringed upon by the social programs I pay for, never use and others abuse.
I doubt this healthcare bill will be any different.
You make points worthy of consideration. IMHO
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:51 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:"Just" so they can increase profit margins? That's what business is about. To make a profit.
I'm not going to entertain the tangents until we address the first issue with you.
First and foremost, I think you are being a bit disingenuous. Let me show you why I feel that way...
Sarahnn wrote:I have no data.
I will be happy to provide counter data to support my disagreement.
C'mon Sara...either you do or you don't. Pick one and let's get on with it. What data do you have that supports the justification of the Patriot Act?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:40 pm
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:I'm not going to entertain the tangents until we address the first issue with you.
First and foremost, I think you are being a bit disingenuous. Let me show you why I feel that way...
C'mon Sara...either you do or you don't. Pick one and let's get on with it. What data do you have that supports the justification of the Patriot Act?
You said, "Show me your data first. I would like to see the data which you drew your conclusion from.."
But, I haven't drawn any conclusions, nor have I attempted to justify the Patriot Act. It's not necessary. The P.A. is here, it's law and it's in your face. That's all the data I need at this point in time.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:56 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:You said, "Show me your data first. I would like to see the data which you drew your conclusion from.."
But, I haven't drawn any conclusions, nor have I attempted to justify the Patriot Act. It's not necessary. The P.A. is here, it's law and it's in your face. That's all the data I need at this point in time.
No. You did in fact draw a conclusion that the Patriot Act was needed to protect us from terrorism. Why?
Sarahnn wrote:I think that those who disapprove of the patriot act have no knowledge of what it actually contains, nor how it works on behalf of U.S. citizens, not against them.
And it is aimed corrrectly at terrorists.
How is it aimed at the terrorists? There is no existential threat to the soil of the US from terrorism.
So how does a piece of legislation protect us from a threat that does not exist?
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:30 pm
by Roody
JawZ wrote:No. You did in fact draw a conclusion that the Patriot Act was needed to protect us from terrorism. Why?
How is it aimed at the terrorists? There is no existential threat to the soil of the US from terrorism.
So how does a piece of legislation protect us from a threat that does not exist?
I'm curious to know her answer also.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:58 pm
by DanteBlake
The only legislative power of the president is to veto. So technically the only thing he could do is prevent something from being accomplished.
That and he he could technically propose a bill to congress, but they don't have to do anything with it.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:06 pm
by CiscoKid
And that's what'd been going on. We like to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world so we drive on the wrong side of the road, punish those without medical coverage, and pander to the religiouse right
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:10 am
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:No. You did in fact draw a conclusion that the Patriot Act was needed to protect us from terrorism. Why?
The only conclusion I have drawn about the Patriot Act is that most people misunderstand it. Whether it is needed or not has to be decided by our government. I will clearly state that I am not against the Patriot Act. The reason why I hold back my objections to it at this point in time is that it expires automatically which is why Obama had to extend it for the second time while in office.
How is it aimed at the terrorists? There is no existential threat to the soil of the US from terrorism.
It is anti-terrorism legislation. That is how we know it is aimed at the terrorists.
So how does a piece of legislation protect us from a threat that does not exist?
Are you saying that the threat of terrorism does not exist inspite of the concensus of three past administrations? You'll have to explain yourself further on that. Obviously from the shoe-bomber, and underwear bomber, clearly terrorist threats due exist.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:25 am
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:The only conclusion I have drawn about the Patriot Act is that most people misunderstand it. Whether it is needed or not has to be decided by our government. I will clearly state that I am not against the Patriot Act. The reason why I hold back my objections to it at this point in time is that it expires automatically which is why Obama had to extend it for the second time while in office.
It is anti-terrorism legislation. That is how we know it is aimed at the terrorists.
Are you saying that the threat of terrorism does not exist inspite of the concensus of three past administrations? You'll have to explain yourself further on that. Obviously from the shoe-bomber, and underwear bomber, clearly terrorist threats due exist.
You are not only being disingenuous, but purposefully obtuse. I haven't really seen someone on SG act with such blatant contradictions. This is your latest great bit of oratory prowess...
I will clearly state that I am not against the Patriot Act. The reason why I hold back my objections to it...
lol
And NO...I am not saying that terrorism is not a threat...now listen very carefully Sara..
.I am in fact saying that Islamic terrorism isn't an existential threat to US soil and hasn't been for the past 40 years.
In any case, I'll take your diversions, tangents, evasions, as concessions.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:39 am
by JawZ
Also, to formerly end the discussion, I give you all, the Pulitzer Prize winning site...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
As for Obama, he's made good on 96 campaign promises, compromised on 33, failed utterly on 16, and has 272 in the works with 84 stalled.
Focus on promises kept
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... mise-kept/
Focus on failures
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... se-broken/
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:45 am
by Roody
I referenced that site earlier. It did very little to sway Sarahnn's view on the matter I am afraid.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:46 am
by JawZ
Roody wrote:I referenced that site earlier. It did very little to sway Sarahnn's view on the matter I am afraid.
Defense mechanism at work. I believe it's called denial.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:54 am
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:Defense mechanism at work. I believe it's called denial.
You are the one in denial Jawz. This was my reply to Roody using the same source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/.../promise-kept/
Roody, here is more information I needed time to break down about this politifact article on obama promises. This also came from politifact that makes my point.
Under each category, the promises obama has kept: I'm not including promises in the works because promises are broken.
Economy: 3 out of 20 promises.
Terrorism: 0 out of 7 promises.
Immigration: 0 out of 5 promises.
Military: 6 out of 33 promises.
Misc. Top promises according to Politifact: 2 out of 25 promises.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:11 am
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:You are the one in denial Jawz. This was my reply to Roody using the same source.
and those numbers are incorrect according to the same exact source Sara. Go do your research again...or do I need to hold your hand and do it for you?
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:15 am
by JawZ
Screw it. Obviously you need hand holding.
Do you maintain that Obama has only kept 3 promises as it relates to the economy as cited by the Obameter?
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pro ... s/economy/
Learn to count.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:20 am
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:and those numbers are incorrect according to the same exact source Sara. Go do your research again...or do I need to hold your hand and do it for you?
I used Roody's source to counter his own facts. So, are you saying
his facts from politifact are incorrect, or just
my facts from politifact are incorrect?
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:24 am
by Sarahnn
I stand corrected unless the data was updated in the past 48 hours. He has kept 5 out of twenty promises at this point for a grand total of 11 out of 65 promises.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:27 am
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:I used Roody's source to counter his own facts. So, are you saying his facts from politifact are incorrect, or just my facts from politifact are incorrect?
You're trolling Sara. What is the point of this thread? You have been given your answers to your thread's question. Obama has made good on 96 promises. So in turn, he has in fact, accomplished something. End of story. What needs to be discussed further?
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:33 am
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:You're trolling Sara. What is the point of this thread? You have been given your answers to your thread's question. Obama has made good on 96 promises. So in turn, he has in fact, accomplished something. End of story. What needs to be discussed further?
Okay, you can't handle the discussion, fine. Move aside and let others respond whose egos aren't as needy as yours is. And stop trying to manipulate this thread to soothe your own insecurities. I will do fine here without your input.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:42 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:Okay, you can't handle the discussion, fine. Move aside and let others respond whose egos aren't as needy as yours is. And stop trying to manipulate this thread to soothe your own insecurities. I will do fine here without your input.
There is no further discussion needed. You asked a question. It was answered definitively. You attempted to refute the facts given to you and you were proven wrong by your own admission. This thread is dead. If you have something else to go on about...make a new thread. I'm sure plenty of people here will play along. Or...you could ask an admin to help change your thread title to correctly identify your agenda. How about..."I don't like Obama and I want to bash him"?
Pretty simple stuff really.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:45 pm
by Sarahnn
JawZ wrote:There is no further discussion needed. You asked a question. It was answered definitively. You attempted to refute the facts given to you and you were proven wrong by your own admission. This thread is dead. If you have something else to go on about...make a new thread. I'm sure plenty of people here will play along. Or...you could ask an admin to help change your thread title to correctly identify your agenda. How about..."I don't like Obama and I want to bash him"?
Pretty simple stuff really.
Thanks for the bad rep mark for trolling, I guess you showed me.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:55 pm
by JawZ
Sarahnn wrote:Thanks for the bad rep mark for trolling, I guess you showed me.
Your welcome. Tools of the forum...damn Phillip all to hell for implementing such features. lol
You reap what you sow. You come back and make a very partisan post filled with a hateful vibe. People are free to respond to you in any way they like as long as it's within the rules of engagement as spelled out in the TOS of the forums.
If you don't like negative feedback...don't post.
Also, it's very childish to bring up feedback as well as matters held in private discussions...just an FYI.