Is Anyone Watching this Palin Disaster Unfold? What was McCain Thinking? - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 04:26 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
I don't know enough about Palin to comment. At first glance Jim's point about Palin, which you keep coming back to, seems a non-starter, but you'll have to take that up with him. Jim is here to fight Obama's cause. I am here to forward the cause of ambivalent neutrality.
My point is the question as framed and with the bold from Dig, has nothing to do with what is legal. It is pretty clear the Constitution grants the unborn no rights as citizens. You gain citizenship when you are born.

For other legal aspects it is also clear. Roe vs. Wade is the law at the moment. Changing the law is a political agenda of the religious right. So any question pertaining to the legal rights of a fetus or an embryo or a sperm and and an egg before, during and immediately after the successful burrowing of the sperm through the egg, is really a religious right political agenda issue. Which is looking to increase its political power through divisiveness and "religious political correctness."

So the question was bullshit, and rather than take a taste of the bullshit, Obama stepped aside. To take the bait only increases the political power of the religious right, and while you didn't like the answer, the answer was valid and complete, from Obama's perspective.

If you know you don't have the data or insight to provide an answer on the subject, and likely never will, how is it unsatisfactory to say you are not the one to make a call on the subject?

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 04:46 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
So the question was bullshit, and rather than take a taste of the bullshit, Obama stepped aside. To take the bait only increases the political power of the religious right, and while you didn't like the answer, the answer was valid and complete, from Obama's perspective.

If you know you don't have the data or insight to provide an answer on the subject, and likely never will, how is it unsatisfactory to say you are not the one to make a call on the subject?

Jim
I never said I didn't like his answer, I said he ducked the question, same as you just said.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #53 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 05:07 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post
Jim, Jim, Jim. I am not attacking Sen. Obama.

Dig's edit: As for being asked a politically charged question, given the setting, circumstances and questioner, what else should Sen. Obama expected?

This leads to the question...How prepared is Sen. Obama to lead if he can't anticipate something as basic as this?
Once again, if the question is a question that any answer assumes you think your relationship with god is somehow more valid than others, and you don't believe that, how is it viewed that Obama was unprepared when he said the answer is above his pay grade? I don't get it. The objective of the interview is to see how Obama thinks. In this case I thought his answer was a relief - no "elitist" implication that he is tied into the direct Bush-link to god and got the word on this subject.

As for the "legal" frame of reference for the question, it has been legally decided. Roe vs. Wade is the legal decision that all this right to life religious right political power is being built on resisting. To suggest this is a "legal" argument is two faced. It is a religious right grab for power move. Plain and simple. Divide and conquer, us vs. them, the Aryans vs. Jews, Whites vs. Blacks, etc. all over again. Pro-choice allows anyone to not have an abortion. Pro-live enforces a specific interpretation on others who may not agree. Big difference. Like making Christians believe in Allah as I see it.

Religious organizations have shown over and over in history that they do not have the skills needed to wield political power to bring peace. Why do we have to learn this over and over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post
In addition to the usual reasons I come here, I am also seeking some enlightenment and education. FTL has had a profound effect on me and I would describe my political awareness prior to these happy days at BWOT as somewhere in the neighborhood of a 15 watt bulb. Now I feel llike a 40 watter, aspiring to 60! I read what everyone says and try to sort it out but sometimes I have questions. I want clarification so I ask.

Given the vociferousness of the lefterly side of this happy band of palaverers, I have no choice but to ask of those who post.

As for the right, I could ask Jay but he mostly talks in graphs which are too small for me to read and comprehend. If I ask the others, the left side swings into action like a fire horse hearing the bell so I just save a step and go directly to the source.
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue until you agree the conservatives are no longer "conservative" because their interpretation of the United States Constitution is conservative - they are now "conservative" because they are pandering to the religious fanatics who call themselves Christians in this country to "conserve" their political power. Like the Crusaders the religious right in America is looking to tell people from all faiths and beliefs how to run their lives. That this somehow appeals to the conservatives of old is bizarre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post
Obama seems nice enough. He is acknowledged to be just right of Karl Marx but if everyone says that's ok, then I'll consider him.

Like I said previously, I voted for the Dem. candidate in the last two presidential elections. Are you certain you want me to do so again?

Dig's edit: I tried to edit once but it didn't appear.

Once again I'll try. Regarding the "politically charged question", given the setting, circumstances and questioner, shouldn't Sen. Obama have been prepared to provide an answer? Does this speak to his readiness to lead?
The objective is not to get you to vote one way or another. It is to keep the evaluation of facts just that, evaluation of facts, even if they affect the outcome of an election or could be presented with a spin one way or the other. In this instance there was a suggestion that Obama was not prepared to give an answer. I don't think that is true. His answer is merely "I don't have an answer to that question." Which I believe is a truthful answer and no amount of preparation will make it any more truthful or meaningful. It could become more politically pandering, but I doubt it would be more honest and to the point. But you wanted him to squirm more. Sorry. I think he did a good job deflecting the intent and spirit of the question.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #54 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 05:11 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
I never said I didn't like his answer, I said he ducked the question, same as you just said.
"Ducked" sounds like you think he did a half job. It has a derogatory connotation. In this case he did answer, and the answer was direct - "I don't know." I fail to see how that is actually ducking in the manner of ducking the question McCain was asked at a town hall meeting - "Is it true you called your wife a cunt in front of some reporters.." to which McCain said the meeting was a family event and such language was not appropriate. That was ducking.

Answering "I don't know" to a question like "when did time start" is being truthful and honest and straight forward. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #55 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 05:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post
So if I stipulate that Sen. Obama's non answer was really an answer, is Gov. Palin really favoring "Creationist indoctrination" (my quotes for paraphrasing purposes)?

Sounds more like an early lesson in how to answer (or not answer) land mine type questions.



'Creation science' enters the race

GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 27, 2006
Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."...

yadda yadda

...In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

The full article is here.
She apparently should be using Obama's response - "I don't know" instead of just blubbering and bullshitting about the subject endlessly.

In the end, she isn't against it, which means she would stand for American children being taught absolute bullshit in schools. That does nothing to prepare them to compete with other kids who are not being taught religious dogma cloaked as science. How do you lead the world in scientific discovery when you are teaching the next generation of minds that science is some anti-Christ propaganda?

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #56 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 05:46 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
"Ducked" sounds like you think he did a half job. It has a derogatory connotation. In this case he did answer, and the answer was direct - "I don't know." I fail to see how that is actually ducking in the manner of ducking the question McCain was asked at a town hall meeting - "Is it true you called your wife a cunt in front of some reporters.." to which McCain said the meeting was a family event and such language was not appropriate. That was ducking.

Answering "I don't know" to a question like "when did time start" is being truthful and honest and straight forward. Jim
I'll say the same thing I said to Dig: Pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
So the question was bullshit, and rather than take a taste of the bullshit, Obama stepped aside.
IOW, he ducked it.

Look at your two quotes here. He either stepped aside or he provided a direct answer. It cannot be both. Listen, we all saw the same thing, we all essentially agree on what we saw. And you may think the question was "bullshit", but it was predictable given the venue in which Obama volunteered to participate. Dig's point is that he is dismayed at how unprepared Obama seemed in response to a question that was easily foreseen.

My take on it, for what it's worth, is this. The Obama team anticipated and prepared for the topic, of course, but Mr. Warren provided an unexpected twist in the way he worded it, posing a tangible legal query, rather than an abstract spiritual one. Obama wisely decided to duck the question, and fall back upon the answer he was prepared to provide for the question he was expecting, rather than the one that was asked. There was little else he could do, since he wasn't about to provide the answer that Mr. McCain did.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #57 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 06:52 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
I'll say the same thing I said to Dig: Pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick, pick.



IOW, he ducked it.

Look at your two quotes here. He either stepped aside or he provided a direct answer. It cannot be both. Listen, we all saw the same thing, we all essentially agree on what we saw. And you may think the question was "bullshit", but it was predictable given the venue in which Obama volunteered to participate. Dig's point is that he is dismayed at how unprepared Obama seemed in response to a question that was easily foreseen.

My take on it, for what it's worth, is this. The Obama team anticipated and prepared for the topic, of course, but Mr. Warren provided an unexpected twist in the way he worded it, posing a tangible legal query, rather than an abstract spiritual one. Obama wisely decided to duck the question, and fall back upon the answer he was prepared to provide for the question he was expecting, rather than the one that was asked. There was little else he could do, since he wasn't about to provide the answer that Mr. McCain did.
"Stepped aside" and ducking may have accomplished the same thing for you, but in my estimation the two tactics are not the same. I gave you an example of ducking, which to me is finding some deus ex machina to get you off the hook, like McCain did when asked if he actually called his wife a cunt as has been reported by several witnesses and he replied the town meeting was not a place for such language. That is dodging the question.

Stepping aside is saying "I don't know" or "I don't have an answer" or being more direct and saying "the question is bullshit and I am not inclined to wallow in your favorite flavor of bullshit tonight." We already know it is not Obama's style to respond aggressively when there it may not be in his longer term interests to do so. So, he said, and I believe this is likely truthful, that he doesn't think it is up to him to make a proclamation on the matter. Not a dodge, and not a useless but potentially entertaining for others at his expense, aggressive response.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #58 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 06:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
What is human rights if not a legal issue? Humans determine human rights, and they (we) do it through legal systems. "At what point does a baby get human rights?" is an issue entirely resolved by the rule of law. He twisted a straight-forward legal question into something metaphysical, which rendered it essentially unanswerable (IOW, he ducked it). Given the circumstances, it was a wise tack. There was little else he could do.
Normally I would agree with you on that but history has said that our government does not exactly consider human rights in that kind of black and white fashion. We look at human rights in a very subjective, non legal, very political and very personal fashion. Otherwise we would has a very specific policy on how we addressed the actions of both OUR citizens, prisoners parked say in some Cuban Island or far away in Darfur. Or even in the womb. There is no pat legal answer to the question.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #59 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 07:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
I have a very simple answer to the question:

Human rights of parasitic life forms should defer to those of their hosts.

Thus ends my presidential campaign.
Now I think we both agree completely. Why I would never be a politician.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #60 of 423 (permalink) Old 08-31-2008, 07:05 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Ducking the question is doing something, anything other than providing a direct, forthright response to the exact question asked. Obama quickly assessed the situation, and realized that providing a direct, forthright response to the exact question asked would not be prudent. Spin it any way you like, use whatever words you make you feel better about it. I'm not attacking Obama, he ducked the question, and it was the right thing to do.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Sarah Palin DP Off-Topic 103 09-01-2008 01:16 AM
    rear seats fold & unfold, help !!! khmer00ml320 W163 M-Class 1 03-19-2006 01:12 PM
    An Unnatural Disaster Alfa Off-Topic 25 09-12-2005 09:19 AM
    DVD success - Michael Palin - Sahara flick is worth the wait Thomas.Schumacher G-Class 5 04-14-2005 08:39 PM
    Key for my '98 won't unfold shkeller55 W163 M-Class 8 12-25-2002 06:35 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome