| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Obama Flips on NAFTA | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 22 2009, 02:41 AM (620 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Apr 24 2009, 01:37 AM Post #26 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is always reprehensible to state something untrue about another person. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 24 2009, 01:39 AM Post #27 |
|
Cheers
|
Its not untrue, its just unprovable. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 24 2009, 01:43 AM Post #28 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So you honestly believe that Bush intentionally lied about wanting mandatory emission standards, when all along he really only wanted voluntary emission standards? Why would he go to such trouble to lie only to shift to a position that is more congruent with his base's interests?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 24 2009, 01:47 AM Post #29 |
|
Cheers
|
Is that a serious question? Why would a politician lie while campaigning? TO attract votes. Or at the very least to neutralize an issue in a campaign that may be important to some swing voters. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 24 2009, 08:29 PM Post #30 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course it's a serious question, Jon, and you are avoiding it. Specifically you are claiming that Bush lied in this instance, not that in general he is a liar or that politicians in general are liars. What "swing voters" would he be looking to attract by promising mandatory emission standards rather than first proposing an incentive system to encourage voluntary reductions? You really think he was trying to court the environmentalist whackos? Is that the swing vote you are thinking of? As if they were really split between him and Gore over the means of achieving pollution standards? ![]() Why would he risk alienating those in favor of incentives to reduce pollution through a voluntary system? Why would he lie about all along planning to implement a more moderate and attractive policy? It makes no sense, Jon. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 25 2009, 04:02 AM Post #31 |
|
Cheers
|
To think only fringe whackos are interested in limiting pollution is a misread of US politics. His stance in his 2000 campaign document essentially neutralized the issue. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 25 2009, 10:21 AM Post #32 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Once again you miss the point. Many people across the political spectrum are interested in the environment, but it seems obvious that not many of Bush's base would have been as interested in government mandated reductions as would have been interested in a program of government incentives to optimize voluntary reductions. Yet you claim Bush LIED about wanting mandatory reductions in order to appease some swing voters or "neutralize the issue". Do you really think that a (neo) conservative espousing a government mandate over a voluntary incentivized program would "neutralize" the issue? How does that either neutralize the issue or gain swing voters that an incentive based program would not? Why would Bush LIE about it -- knowing full well he was always intending to move toward a voluntary program. You keep ignoring the basic point here, Jon. You have to give some plausible answer if you are going to state he deliberately lied over he changed his strategy to achieve the same goal. I am beginning to think you really do understand the point, but can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 25 2009, 10:37 AM Post #33 |
|
Cheers
|
When its obvious you're just playing games, IT, I sometimes don't feel like wasting any time with you. It can be quite tiresome. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 25 2009, 10:57 AM Post #34 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jon: You are the one who made the claim that Bush lied, not me. If you cannot plausibly defend your position, don't make outlandish claims. That's no game. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 25 2009, 11:34 AM Post #35 |
|
Cheers
|
Yes, IT, you stumped me with your tough questions like why would a politician lie during a campaign. Uncle! Uncle! |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 25 2009, 11:34 AM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You know it's kind of funny. You claimed Bush lied about Kyoto. I asked you about that. You changed and said he lied about mandatory emissions. I asked you about, suggesting that he proposed voluntary emissions You quoted his candidate statement where he said he would establish mandatory standards, with the implication that this was the lie. I offered what seems to be a reasonable interpretation that it was not a lie, but a strategic change in policy to arrive at the same place via a better path. You then start in on your stock personal attacks and red herring hypotheticals. I try to draw you back to the topic of whether Bush lied. You then continue with personal attacks against me, ignoring my question, admitting that it was just opinion on your part, and creating a nonsensical argument that I should have to also be concerned with your contentions that Obie also lied or I was being somehow inconsistent. So I called you on all that, and tried again to bring you back to the real question of whether Bush actually lied. You then offer some lame "all politicans lie" argument, as if that shows you are right in claiming that Bush lied about emissions. I again called you on that, and asked the obvious question of why would Bush lie about mandatory standards when he really wanted the much more palatable voluntary incentives. You tried to dismiss that questoin, and gave profoundly unsatisfactory answers about swing voters and neutralizing issues. I pointed out why those answers were so profoundly unsatisying, and you tried to make a straw man argument (fringe whackos) out of what I actually said. So I again called you on that, and for the third time tried to bring you back to the topic. At which point you got pissy and accused me of playing games. Really Jon -- I'd love to hear your interpretion of this discussion about whether Bush lied. It should be instructive for future conversations. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| musicasacra | Apr 25 2009, 06:06 PM Post #37 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I offered that comparison to clarify IT's discussion style to a member who seemed to have an incorrect impression of IT. I offered it to clear up any misunderstanding. This is the second time I've seen my use of "academic" twisted and used for attack against IT. IT didn't use the term, I did. So you can say I'm full of it for using the term offered simply to clear up an incorrect impression, but I don't see why you would go after him for it. Ok, now you guys can go back to your debate. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








6:03 AM Jul 11