The Lexington Project

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
what, to you, makes a good judge?

i don't think you dislike Obama. i did think you were playing off of Deep's Obama hysterics, and i felt that the comparison to Kennedy was well off the mark. i do appreciate your clarification, and the NIMBY phenomenon is well documented, whether it's oil wells or windmills. i'm sure McCain wouldn't want to have oil wells obscuring the view from his various properties in Southern California.

i don't think Obama's church seeks any of the financed, political influence that Dobson et al were given by Bush. one crazy preacher does not make a church.
 
What amazes me is that the Supreme Court continues to handle the issues put before it fairly.

It amazes me that you think so, to be quite honest. There have been some terrible legal decisions made by this SCOTUS. I'm not even talking about just the really obviously bad (See: Alito), but the recent Kennedy-penned beauty on child rapists and capital punishment was, frankly heinous. Deserving of a C on a law school final.
 
i don't think you dislike Obama. i did think you were playing off of Deep's Obama hysterics,

Perhaps you could lower your rhetoric a bit.


I certainly don't dislike Obama.
Did you not see the post in here where I said I was 55% leaning to voting for McCain this week and a couple of weeks back I was 53% leaning to voting for Obama. I expect my opinion will change before November.

If the GOP had control of the Senate and House. I would be at 85% + leaning to Obama.

At least Diemen was written that he thinks I don't hate Obama, you seem to be putting forth complete nonsense. Please do a search of this thread and re-read my posts objectively.

To mention concerns or ask questions about the likely next President is not attacking.

If there is a specific post that you believe is in error, please quote it.
 
Perhaps you could lower your rhetoric a bit.



because i'm the only person who thinks you've been over-the-top in nearly all your Obama-related posts?

anitram wrote something quite eloquent to you in another post, and given that i need to get home, i'll just quote that.

[q]eep what really bugs me is that your over the top, histrionic reactions to just about every single thing about Obama makes me really just want to skip over your posts. Because they read like a hell of a lot of outrage for the sake of being outraged and little substance to boot.[/q]

if you'd like, i can pull out several dozen over-the-top posts after i watch Michael Phelps clean up tonight.
 
do you want to derail this thread with petty misrepresentations?

because i'm the only person who thinks you've been over-the-top in nearly all your Obama-related posts?

anitram wrote something quite eloquent to you in another post, and given that i need to get home, i'll just quote that.

[q]eep what really bugs me is that your over the top, histrionic reactions to just about every single thing about Obama makes me really just want to skip over your posts. Because they read like a hell of a lot of outrage for the sake of being outraged and little substance to boot.[/q]

if you'd like, i can pull out several dozen over-the-top posts after i watch Michael Phelps clean up tonight.

Well that is a classy response - to pull things "out of context"

I did reply to her
alright,

It seems like most people in here see this election as a clear choice.

Right now, I am only at about 55% leaning to vote for McCain.

A few couple of weeks back, I was leaning to voting for Obama.

My biggest hesitation on Obama, is that there is not any real track record.

His lack of executive experience. When people bring up "race" with me they are so off base. I support affirmative action. I know that people of color, and women are not given equal opportunities.

I also know for these things to get better, we need to have role models from those groups.

I have not read his books. I have not read McCain's books, or Clinton's books.

I have read quite a bit about all of these people and parts from their books.

Honestly, I don't put a lot of credit in these books. W could have had a wonderful book put together in 2000. I still knew I did not want to vote for him.

He had no track record or experience that impressed me at all. His Governorship of Texas was unremarkable.

W has always been in favor of faith based programs, and I know he was pandering for their support.

So, it is in Obama's book. It still can fit the definition of pandering, or smart campaigning.

She seemed to be satisfied with my response.


here is the link http://forum.interference.com/f199/us-2008-presidential-campaign-debate-discussion-thread-6-a-186940-23.html

I have posted what could be considered "pro" and "con" things about most of the candidates

pulling "selective quotes" will verify that.


Some Obama supporters seem to be sensitive to anything that questions anything but full on support.
 
It amazes me that you think so, to be quite honest. There have been some terrible legal decisions made by this SCOTUS. I'm not even talking about just the really obviously bad (See: Alito), but the recent Kennedy-penned beauty on child rapists and capital punishment was, frankly heinous. Deserving of a C on a law school final.

So should they be put to death? It appears that the decisions that we agree with, we do not give much thought to. They certainly have been supportive of gitmo prisoners.
 
Some Obama supporters seem to be sensitive to anything that questions anything but full on support.

You noticed that? LOL

And to think, after six years of you and I being in this forum, I am being accused of feeding off of you. LOL MY how the world changes when there is a void of dissent in the forum.

If a few more of the right leave, you will be the right. HAHA:applaud:
 
I can't think of a single Obama supporter on this forum that "seem to be sensitive to anything that questions anything but full on support."

well, maybe one. . .maybe. But that's all.

I think those supporting Obama on this forum may sometimes be misunderstood. I, for one, while always having liked Obama am nowhere near is rabid in my support as some might think.
 
I can't think of a single Obama supporter on this forum that "seem to be sensitive to anything that questions anything but full on support."

well, maybe one. . .maybe. But that's all.

I think those supporting Obama on this forum may sometimes be misunderstood. I, for one, while always having liked Obama am nowhere near is rabid in my support as some might think.


I did not imply "all' or say "most" or 'many'.

I only said 'some'.

As for you sir,
you are the "poster person" for rational, level headed thinking and proper forum decorum.
 
So should they be put to death? It appears that the decisions that we agree with, we do not give much thought to. They certainly have been supportive of gitmo prisoners.

The legal reasoning is not just terrible, but it is WRONG. The eighth amendment has NOTHING to do with victim's rights or violating the victim by having them testify, etc. It's baffling why this was in the judgment at all.

And you're just assuming that I don't give much thought to decisions that I agree with. I agreed with the DC gun ban decision's reasoning and gave it a lot of thought. I approach this from a legal reasoning POV not from the actual end result POV. And from there, this SCOTUS has often been terrible. Alito in particular is appalling.
 
The legal reasoning is not just terrible, ...
Alito in particular is appalling.

One more thing we can agree on

Alito is my least favorite
and it was pathetic watching his confirmation hearing.

I am glad we have a new Senate
that will not let a nominee like him get by again.
 
That got settled a few pages back.

And "some" have been trying to kill (figuratively) the messenger, ever since..

The problem with electric cars are that the batteries are about half the weight of the car and run down too quick.

A lighter more powerful battery makes electric cars viable.


as for their two plans

here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor

McCain and Obama share energy goals, not methods
The candidates would take very different steps to greater energy independence for Americans.

By Ariel Sabar | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the June 30, 2008 edition

Washington - John McCain and Barack Obama know that most Americans need look no further than the gas pump for proof of America's energy crunch.

With fuel topping $4 a gallon and oil at a record price, energy now ties the economy in polls as voters' top concern, and the presidential candidates spent the past week trying to outflank each other on an issue that's thinning billfolds from Maine to California.

Their plans share key goals – less reliance on foreign oil, a push for cleaner fuels – but their methods differ sharply.

Senator McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, wants 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and an end to the federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. He would use market lures – tax rebates for electric cars, a $300 million prize for a better car battery – to promote alternative sources of energy. He would offer motorists immediate relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal gas tax.

Senator Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, opposes new offshore drilling and is wary of nuclear power. He would double auto fuel-efficiency standards within 18 years, subsidize development of ethanol, and force power companies to generate one- quarter of their energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources by 2025.

An opponent of the gas-tax holiday, Obama favors a "windfall profits" tax on multinational oil companies.




Obama really does not offer anything



so score one for McCain
an experience player that knows how to move the ball


not just sit on it and hope time runs out.
 
do you want to derail this thread with petty misrepresentations?


it's already been derailed. and there are many culprits.

but the answer is no, not particularly.



Some Obama supporters seem to be sensitive to anything that questions anything but full on support.


no, deep, just insane questions that are unhinged. every last Obama supporter in here has criticized some aspect of his candidacy. i know it makes it easier to paint everyone with the same brush, but that's simply not the case, nor has it ever been. and the more left field your objects are, the more it seems like there is one thing about this candidate that is an issue for you.
 
And to think, after six years of you and I being in this forum, I am being accused of feeding off of you. LOL MY how the world changes when there is a void of dissent in the forum.



oh come on.

this is not about dissent. this is about putting forth good or bad arguments. this is about leveling good or bad criticisms.

it pains me to see formerly thoughtful posters resorting to whining because they haven't taken the time to think through their posts and feeling put upon because people are going to call them out on their poorly constructed arguments.

dissent is always tolerated, bad thinking is not.

or is it now that we have to treat everyone in what the right would once have called "PC" -- that we have to give equal time and respect and light stroking and encouragement to all points of view, regardless of their basis in fact or adherence to rules of logic. it doesn't matter what you say, it just matters if you say it!
 
[q]Obama really does not offer anything[/q]


this would be a good example of a poor argument. you've offered nothing but an article that highlights differences in the two candidates, yet you dismiss the content of the article for an judgment that has nothing to back it up.

how does doubling auto efficiency standards and requiring power companies to vastly increase alternative sources of energy amount to "not offer[ing] anything" especially in comparison to the science fair-like offer of $300m for an electric car?

how else am i to take your dismissal?
 
it's already been derailed. and there are many culprits.

but the answer is no, not particularly.


no, deep, just insane questions that are unhinged. every last Obama supporter in here has criticized some aspect of his candidacy. i know it makes it easier to paint everyone with the same brush, but that's simply not the case, nor has it ever been. and the more left field your objects are, the more it seems like there is one thing about this candidate that is an issue for you.
My observation seems to be that left-people get much more partisan over Obama and the right is lukewarm towards McCain. It isn't so much that "dissent" or what is really just criticism isn't tolerated, it is that it gets dismissed rather than discussed. It's past the primaries and all the focus seems to be about Obama, there aren't that many undecided people on the forum and the arguments have been set since the primaries.

Dismissing deep as Sting2-lite is partisan thinking.
 
Corn ethanol isn't a reliable alternative - droughts, floods, etc. can wipe out a crop and render it useless for that season.

I'd like to explore this issue a little more as well. South America, particularly Brazil, produces a sugercane-based ethanol. Corn makes about two units of energy for every unit used to produce it. Sugarcane-based ethanol makes eight units.

Obama supports a large tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, a tariff which may be illegal under WTO rules, depending on where you look. He also supports big subsidies for the much less efficient corn-based producers...the multinational corporations from his neck of the woods. At the same time, our prices for staple foods and corn-fed beef continue to spike.

McCain is in favor of dropping the tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, and dropping the subsidies that go to wasteful corn-based ethanol.

Obama's energy policy linked to ethanol interests - International Herald Tribune
 
[q]Obama really does not offer anything[/q]


this would be a good example of a poor argument. you've offered nothing but an article that highlights differences in the two candidates, yet you dismiss the content of the article for an judgment that has nothing to back it up.

how does doubling auto efficiency standards and requiring power companies to vastly increase alternative sources of energy amount to "not offer[ing] anything" especially in comparison to the science fair-like offer of $300m for an electric car?

how else am i to take your dismissal?
How much is that going to cost the American consumer? Is tougher regulation of an industry that is already adapting due to market forces the right way to go? Are there better ways of reducing emissions for less cost? How can America position itself to make money off carbon trading? Are state based initiatives a better way to go? How much federal level projects are required?

I would vote for a candidate that has a bright-green agenda, I do not find self-flagellation in pursuit of carbon neutrality a turn-on.

Discuss people, is government getting involved in what people drive actually going to impact carbon emissions in a serious way.
 
I'd like to explore this issue a little more as well. South America, particularly Brazil, produces a sugercane-based ethanol. Corn makes about two units of energy for every unit used to produce it. Sugarcane-based ethanol makes eight units.

Obama supports a large tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, a tariff which may be illegal under WTO rules, depending on where you look. He also supports big subsidies for the much less efficient corn-based producers...the multinational corporations from his neck of the woods. At the same time, our prices for staple foods and corn-fed beef continue to spike.

McCain is in favor of dropping the tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, and dropping the subsidies that go to wasteful corn-based ethanol.

Obama's energy policy linked to ethanol interests - International Herald Tribune



this is one of my biggest problems with Obama, in that he's quite friendly with what should be known as Big Corn. while ethanol -- sugar or corn -- is a worthy field of endeavor, the bigger picture, as i see it, is moving the economy off of oil itself. gas tax "holidays" or more offshore oil digging certainly don't address the big picture here. the high price of oil will drive up consumer demand for greener technologies among consumers, as well as demand -- and funding, i hope -- for better public transportation alternatives for citizens. McCain wants to fund roads, not rail, and i see this as a big mistake. he has no proposals to reduce the use of cars nor the increase of energy efficiency, and he also opposes federal subsidies to the wind and solar power that Obama favors, which is interesting considering that McCain favors nuclear subsidies, which makes him sound more like a shill for Big Nuke Power than someone who's serious about reducing emissions. and, in fact, McCain receives more from Big Oil than any member of the Senate other than Kay Bailey Hutchinson. this is not to oppose nuclear power, but it is to oppose subsidizing nuclear power at the expense of other industries.

what's most noteworthy, though, is that this is an issue where both candidates present a huge step away and forward from the horrible, horrible energy "policies" of the Bush administration who once said that conservation was simply a matter of personal choice, or that the American "way of life" -- i.e., SUVs -- was "sacred" and needed to be defended after 9-11.

this is an issue where both candidates are an improvement from the present, but if you truly believe that the only answer to the climate crisis is a total overhaul in lifestyle, then it's clear who you should vote for.
 
it pains me to see formerly thoughtful posters resorting to whining because they haven't taken the time to think through their posts and feeling put upon because people are going to call them out on their poorly constructed arguments.

dissent is always tolerated, bad thinking is not.

If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.
 
McCain is in favor of dropping the tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, and dropping the subsidies that go to wasteful corn-based ethanol.

But McCain doesn't support higher fuel efficiency standards (according to his website). Obama does. That will have a much larger impact than tarriffs.
 
If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.



no, you're not the formerly thoughtful poster i was thinking of, but i did find that post very whiney. i find it more productive to speak in generalities than to single people out in a semi-anonymous forum like this. likewise, you'll notice that mods go to great lengths not to single individuals out and instead suggest broader correctives to behaviors rather than individual smack-downs. that strikes me as more productive, and so i sought to do the same thing.

i do not think deep is on the right. when it comes to the single issue of Obama, i think deep more often than not is trying to get a rise out of certain, younger posters on here, and i think there's a weirdness that's creeped into many of his posts that could have been pulled from, say, the Michelle Malkin website. deep maintains my respect in all other subjects, which is why i (and many others, i'm far from alone on this) find him so puzzling when it comes to one BHO.

"as for whining ... the truth hurts?" eh? i'm sorry, but not even close, and that's not a particularly mature line of thought. the quality of conservative thought on here has rapidly declined since the departure of NBC. it's as if he was singlehandedly holding up a house of cards that's now collapsed. i'm sorry if liberal posters outnumber conservatives. i'm not sorry that the liberals in here tend to frequently outargue the conservatives. i'm also not sorry that, at the end of 8 years, and quite possibly through the natural evolution of things, that conservative ideas about national security, energy, the environment, race, class, sexuality, etc., all have come up bankrupt. it is not a good time to be a conservative, not compared to 15 years ago at the height of the "Gingrich revolution." the climate is hostile to conservatives right now, and i think you're seeing that mirrored here in FYM. after 8 years of Bush, do you not expect the liberals to look at you (the collective "you") and say, "look, obviously NOTHING has worked. we are fundamentally WORSE now than we were in 1999. your ideas have been implemented by a party that has had total control of all branches of government up until 2006, and the ideas have FAILED."

the truth hurts? i'd ask the same of the conservative.

as for your own sense of persecution, i don't know what to tell you. you're someone i've always sought to engage and who i've always sought to try to engage on the merits of an argument, or not. you're obviously not STING. you're not the college-aged reactionaries who spout soundbytes and then get mad when people get irritated. you're not all that conservative, even if you'd like to think you might come off that way. you're someone who i think looks at the issues and thinks about them, and as such, and as one of the louder voices in here, i have always tried to engage you on a civil, intellectual level.

it's the ideas, i think. the conservative ones are worn out. defending them is hard work, and i don't envy anyone that task. but the worst thing a conservative could do is to make himself some sort of martyr for a cause that ever actually existed to begin with.
 
i have nothing to hide.

in fact, i think people are often too easy on me. i don't know why. if i piss you off, let me know.
 
If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.

Dread,

I'd prefer this was a PM but I can't figure out how to send them on the revamped forum (or maybe you've opted not to receive them.

I just wanted to say I, for one, appreciate your perspective and contributions in FYM. I don't know who it is that has been making you feel unwelcome here, but I sure hope it isn't me. I've always admired your posts--not least, because you're often hard to pin down or pigeonhole. I like that--it's the sign of a thinking person in my book. So I hope you'll consider sticking around. As Irvine said, it is a difficult time to be a conservative, but what's funny is--don't ask me why--I've never thought of you as conservative! Go figure, huh.

In truth, if all the conservatives left FYM I'm not sure how often I'd visit. A mutual congratulation society isn't that exciting a place for me.
 
My observation seems to be that left-people get much more partisan over Obama and the right is lukewarm towards McCain. It isn't so much that "dissent" or what is really just criticism isn't tolerated, it is that it gets dismissed rather than discussed.
Really? Because I just don't see that at all. Unless you mean that anything other than agreeing wholeheartedly with any criticism of Obama amounts to dismissal.

In this very thread, you have Obama supporters critiquing his support of ethanol and Big Corn. So where is all this dismissal happening?
 
Back
Top Bottom