2,321 Forum Posts by "Musician"
At 9/12/08 09:55 PM, Super-Yombario wrote: I guess if he NEEDS 3D models, but he'll have to pay serious cash to get good ones.
Why do you insist on making a complete ass out of yourself? He said quite clearly in the first post that he would pay 10% of his sponsorship money.
Do you understand basic code like variables, if statements, for loops etc? I'm asking because if you do it will be easy to explain the logic of the code to you.
To all the "smart guys" in this thread arguing over Flash's 3d capabilities. He never said he was going to make an actual 3d game. He's asking for exported 3d models in a jpg/gif/swf format. That was a big hint.
At 9/11/08 08:30 PM, liaaaam wrote: Why do you want to do this anyway?
It's kinda hard to explain, but put shortly: debugging. Converting vectors into bitmaps through actionscript after their placed on the stage is causing some problems. I'm trying to see if converting them beforehand will make a difference.
Is there a feature I can use to convert a vector image to a bitmap image INSIDE of flash?
At 9/10/08 10:57 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) What are their qualifications to speak?
2) What are their biases?
3) Are they just expressing an opinion...or are they attempting to manipulate me?
Good point Mason. Those are all questions that someone should ask themselves when debating.
In reality this is not a "conservative" philosophy but what is meant by the term liberal. The talk of classes and "leveling the playing field" is socialist. Now I'm not through the socialist term around as a negative. Marxist thought does provide a meaningful theoretical framework from which to study politics...but has been shown to have poor performance when applied politicaly.
Socialism works poorly in its purest forms, but so does capitalism. What the US currently has is a mix, we're capitalist, but we have many social programs. Education is an example of a successful social program working in the US.
Furthermore, I do not see where massive government intervention through open-ended entitlements has really helped.
The health care system in France is a spectacular example of a social program that has "really helped".
The sad truth is Obama will likely continue this trend. Afterall the person who set the precedent for wire-tapping international calls was the Democrat Woodrow Willson.
Are you trying to imply that every member of the democratic party holds the exact same ideals? Let alone that the Democratic Parties values have not changed at all in the last 100 years? Damn man, is this really your best argument?
One could argue that this shows that McCain is more of a uniter than Obama. Both parties have numerous competing factions. However, the Democratic party is far more divided than the Republican party and Obama ran a campaign that split the party in two. Biden as his choice has done little to restore "party unity". In fact Obama's decision not to vett Hilary at all further alienated a wing of his party.
See, this is the exact problem. It's not about party unity, it's about making responsible decisions. The modern VP acts as a close advisor to the president. Obama's choice of Biden shows that he cares about having an experienced advisor at his side to help guide him in office. McCain's choice shows a desire for more votes... Call it "party unity" or whatever you want, it's still not an admirable decision.
On the other hand Palin's selection I think is more than just a superficial grab for votes from women. I think that it is an attempt to steal the "change" message from Obama. Obama actively sought national office rising through Chicago politics with the presidency in mind and he choose a path through Washington; again his actions are at odds with his message. McCain picks someone who is as far away from Washington as you can get.
If he's trying to steal the change message from Obama he's doing so poorly. Palin is basically Bush. She's an extreme right christian evangelical who things god should be taught in schools and rape victims should be forced to bear children. She's younger and maybe you could argue she's removed from politics, but Obama makes his message based on policies that differ from those of the Bush Administration, as well as being removed from the corruption of politics.
I think that healthcare costs can be brought down without implementing Universal Healthcare.
Well Obama's plan in a nutshell is to build on top of the existing private and public systems. Extending programs like Medicare and Medicaid while creating new similar programs. McCain on the other hand wants to try to lower costs by trying to provide incentives in the private center. I doubt McCains plan will shatter the Oligopoly currently held by the health insurance companies.
Have we not learned anything? We need to do away with the Bush tax cuts and cut spending...not add another massive government program that will equal to Social Security, Medicare or Defense spending. Think of it this way; you're in a boat taking on water and you've got a bucket. What do you do? Scoop water out or scoop water in? George Bush has spent the last eight years scooping water in...Obama wants to keep doing what Bush has done
Unfortunately, McCain's economic policy is about as ruinous.
Rome fell because the people of Rome asked for everything, and because the Roman Senate gave them everything. The fall of the US will most likely be similar. Both of the current candidates have irresponsible spending plans, and the reason is because they want to please their voters. Voters like to hear that it's good for the US if taxes are cut, even when spending is high, and the politicians will provide it for them because they want to be re-elected.
Now, Obama says frequently says that "something is stirring in the nation", but really nothing is. The American populous is just too delibrately ignorant to hear the real message of change, which is that we need to increase taxes or cut spending, or we'll go bankrupt.
That as it is, I don't agree with Obama's plan to cut taxes, I believe they need to be raised in order support the new social programs that we need, but I definitely agree with Obama's choices in spending, being choosing to cut military and increase social spending in crucial areas like Healthcare and social security.
We do not have an unfair tax structure in this country and the rich pay their fair share. The top incomes pay 35% of the income tax while the bottom pays 10%. Furthermore, it is well proven that the top earners provide the tax revenue for this country.
It depends on how you define "fair". I think it's fair that someone with more expendable wealth should have to pay more in taxes to cover for someone with less expendable wealth.
If you really take a close look at spending under the Bush years you'll see an expansion of federal social spending. If these programs really are beneficial...why is our economy tanking? Musician has studied this and truly believes this is the right direction. However, he has been mislead in that his candidate has been able to frame the discussion on the economy as having happened because of a drain from Iraq. What Obama does not want you to know is that expansion of federal programs is a huge contributor to our budget woes.
I never said that the drain on the economy was exclusively due to Iraq. For the most part Mason, economic issues in the private sector (like the housing market) are un-affected by spending choices in the public sector.
This is actually out-right wrong. Obama has accepted large checks from Hollywood and industry
-Most importantly, Obama doesn't accept money from personal interests. He runs a campaign from money donated to him by the US population, which means that he represents the people, and not corporate interests, something that cannot be said about the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
Hollywood? So he held a fundraiser... that's different from accepting money from personal interests. As for industry, you'll have to provide a source. All in all, the fact is Obama has never received money from a registered lobbyist during his campaign.
...after he promised to accept only public funds.
He never made that promise Mason. It was a misrepresentation by the media. Obama never explicitly stated that he was going to accept public funds, only that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement".
At 9/8/08 02:05 AM, n64kid wrote: But America was founded on it. Move to France if you don't like the American ideology.
That's a terrible argument. Even if America was founded on the philosophy "You're on your own", it doesn't matter because America 200 years ago isn't America today. Time moves forward. Values change. Ideologies change. America shouldn't be hindered for the sake of tradition.
Trickle down economics works, and keeping the free market flowing without government interference and wealth distrubution leads to higher standard of living for everyone. McCains policy would help the country as a whole.
Define "works". Every time trickle down economics has been implemented by in the US , the wealth gap between the rich and the poor has subsequently increased. I agree that trickle down is great in theory, but it's based completely on the assumption people follow incentives, which is a risky assumption. In reality the nation as a whole benifits more from Obamas tax plan which redistributes the wealth and brings the rich and the poor closer together.
Elaborate.
The case of Jose Padilla. Warrentless Wiretapping. etc.
1) Palin has more executive experience than Biden, McCain and Obama.
Doesn't count for much unfortunately. It's still only 20 months of experience in charge of a state with a smaller population than most large cities. You can't claim she has more experience in politics in general then Obama, Biden, or McCain.
2) What's wrong with securing votes to get into power and help the country with real policies?
Well, the biggest problem is that Palin is an extreme right evangelical christian, contrary to McCain who's allegedly supposed to be preaching a more moderate message. It shows that he cares more about winning than his actual policies.
Which will cost 500 billion a year, which is basically an increase in our total Federal spending by over 20%
Source? if you're right and it is 500 billion a year then it's not going to be much of a problem seeing as medicaid and medicare would both be obsolete and not needed after universal healthcare is implemented... and they total to over 500 billion.
Obama wants a war with Pakistan
Source?
and to continue the war in Afghanistan.
I don't agree with everything he does, but at the end of the day he's still ending at least one ridiculously expensive war, something which McCain isn't doing.
Obama also flip flopped on his previous immediate withdrawal plan.
Expand on that. Also, provide a source.
He used to, but stopped for the time being.
Source?
Listening to someone else's opinion before making your own decision doesn't make you a bad voter. It opens your mind to multiple political viewpoints, which makes you a more informed voter.
On topic, I plan to vote Obama. my reasons in a nutshell:
-I dislike the conservative philosophy of "you're on your own". A society needs to be considerate of it's lower and middle classes, and not just its upper class. McCains policies on taxes, healthcare, what have you, all reflect his lack of consideration for the working class.
-US citizens have seen major breaches of their rights under George W. Bush policies, which McCain intends to continue.
-Palin... McCains VP choice basically shows that he cares more about bringing in more votes from the bigoted evangelical extreme right republican base, then he cares about the policies he was formerly preaching. Not to mention, it totally undermines his argument that Obama is inexperienced.
-Obama plans to implement a lighter form of Universal Healthcare, something that the US desperately needs.
-Obama plans to increase taxes on the top 1% of the US and cut taxes for 99% of the US, while at the same time ending a very expensive and strenuous war. Furthermore, he plans to cut the bloated military budget to allow more spending to be allocated to social programs that will benefit the US infrastructure.
-Most importantly, Obama doesn't accept money from personal interests. He runs a campaign from money donated to him by the US population, which means that he represents the people, and not corporate interests, something that cannot be said about the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
At 9/7/08 07:36 PM, adrshepard wrote: Of course! Demographics and identity are pretty much always the strongest rationales for association. Anyone who is in a position we can sympathize with is going to have more pull with us than someone who is totally unrelatable. Ideology (or sometimes reality itself) makes little difference.
That's a bold claim. I'd like to see some evidence to justify it. Just the other day I discussed McCain's campaign with Mr Hays, a former teacher of mine who just happens to be black man who was born into poverty. A little further while back, I discussed the same topic with grandfather who just so happens to be a white man who grew up under the same, or similar, living conditions that I did... so if what you say is true, why is it that I find myself much more sympathetic to the views of my former black history teacher than those of my own grandfather?
The answer is that people do not sympathize with anothers views simply because they belong to the same demographic, and idealogy makes all the difference.
What do you think has driven racism, nationalism, and cultural unity for all of human history?
Social Darwinism.
Time and time again history shows that if you want people to unite, you don't convince a diverse group of people to set aside their differences.
I can think of several times that throughout history that diverse peoples have set aside their differences. France and the US colonies during the Revolutionary War and Russia and the US during WW2 just off the top of my head.
Unfortunately, you can't apply classical logic to value systems and morality. You're making a subjective judgment about what is "acceptable," and I'm saying most people would differ in that judgment. There's no fallacy there, unless you're questioning how I would know the opinions of all those people.
If that's the point your making then it's still an argumentum ad populum fallacy, since you're trying to use a majority opinion to support your argument. If you're not making a point to support your argument, then it's completely irrelevant. Either way you look stupid.
For the sake of argument, let's say that targeting Muslims at airports does make them second-class citizens as you claim. What are the dire consequences?
How about the fact that they're treated as second class citizens? How about state sponsored racial discrimination? Those both seem like dire consequences to me.
Please. You know it's never a question of one or the other.
What are you talking about? Order and freedom are at opposite sides of the spectrum. To have more of one you have to lose more of the other. It's always a question of one or the other.
That's why Saruman's Franklin quote misses the point. The value of civil liberties may not change, but security risks certainly do. The consequences of inadequate security today could entail far more loss of life and suffering than the worst case scenario of the late 1700s. Maybe a man then has a small grenade and a single shot pistol. Today one man can carry enough explosives to kill dozens of people, more if he uses a vehicle.
This is just fear mongering. Any jackoff can go to a hardware store and buy parts for a bomb, then kill a dozen or so people. We don't do a full background check on anyone who wants to buy a pound of sugar, why not? Because we have deterrence, among other things, to keep order in our society. We don't need to give up our rights to live relatively safely... even our technologically modern age.
Fine, we can settle this without subjective arguments. Simply explain how a policy that doesn't mandate searching all Muslims, in addition to normal security risks, will be safer than one that doesn't. Sooner or later, you're going to have to say that the Muslim demographic doesn't pose the most threat, and that simply isn't true.
You're trying to put me in a corner using something that I never said. I never said that not searching muslims wouldn't be safer. What I said is that it would be ineffective, since the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, and you'd be wasting time and resources on searching every muslim that went through. It's also incredibly racist, and it would be sad for our country to sponsor such a thing.
At 9/7/08 07:06 PM, fuzzles1992 wrote: why not let them prance around in their obviously flawed faith?
Because this is a forum for debate, if they don't want their faith questioned then they shouldn't post it here.
At 9/7/08 03:23 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, its called common sense. People take up causes based on how well they relate to it. Most Americans are not Muslim/Arabic
First of all, saying that your argument is right because it's "common sense", is a fallacy. Secondly, are you implying that a Muslim/Arabic citizens are more likely to sympathize or agree with the actions of terrorists BECAUSE they're Muslim/Arabic? By that logic, does being a Christian make you likely to agree with the actions of Joseph Kony and the LRA?
and its not bigotry but a simple fact that Islamic terrorism poses a significant security threat to the US.
I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean it's an excuse to treat a group of people as second class citizens because of the color of their skin.
Add the fact that the "harassment" occurs only in one place, the airport, and there's really nothing left that could get most people to care.
I don't find it acceptable to harass people based on the color of their skin at all, or in any amount. If most people think otherwise, it doesn't necessarily make them right, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.
Who says they don't search based on those indicators as well?
I never said they didn't, stop putting words in my mouth.
Equally effective, my ass. So it's impossible for a terrorist to pass through airport security now? Where's all this super-confidence in the government coming from? Shit, even a maniac like myself doesn't think that the watch, suspect, and no-fly lists are perfectly integrated into airport security, let alone that the guards will always utilize them perfectly.
Maybe not. Irrelevant anyways since even if discriminating against arabs and muslims could be implemented effectively, it doesn't change the fact that civil liberties will always be more important than security.
Plus, this isn't racist in the least degree. Forbidding all Muslims/Arabs from using American Airports would be racist, unless of course there were no way to search them. This is a very accomodating policy that manages to get the job done while doing away with all the debilitating PC bullshit.
Racism: Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices
If you discriminate against someone in any way at all simply because of the color of their skin, you are racist. That is the definition of racism.
And as far as using "airports" and "efficiency" in the same sentence, get real.
Cool argument bro.
At 9/6/08 10:36 PM, adrshepard wrote: If that doesn't do it for you, then you're way out of touch with what most people would consider an acceptable measure.
Ah, the first sign of a closed mind. Assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of touch. Bravo, your bigotry really shines through here.
On the note of searching every arab/muslim that passes through airport security... not only is it blatantly racist, it's also a huge waste of resources. It's much more efficient and equally effective to search based on actual indicators, which don't pertain to race or religion.
At 9/5/08 12:05 PM, TheMason wrote: On this point my friend...you do not have me. See the section you quoted has not been changed since 1945.
Right, it was a bad assumption that the charter had changed. However, Russia would still not be able to vote on anything that falls under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which is the only kind of resolution that would have been passed through the UN anyways. Furthermore, the UN is an international forum, even if Resolutions you still call attention to the Issue through caucus with other countries. It wasn't unreasonable for Obama or McCain to ask for the issue to be brought to the UN.
poxpower, in this scenerio does the "hitler monument" have any practical use? because if not I see no reason why we wouldn't destroy it.
At 9/4/08 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote: If partisanship is the issue then McCain is more of your man than Obama. According to The Washington Post, Obama voted along party lines 96% of the time. Biden 96.6% and McCain 88.3%. To put this in perspective:
Percent of the Senate that voted along party lines more than the candidates:
Biden: Only 6% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.
Obama: Only 9% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.
McCain: Only 62% of the Senate voted along party lines more often than him.
SOURCE
His voting record was before the nomination. Before the nomination he had very different views from what he's preaching now... for example, he used to be against waterboarding, that view has changed. He used to support abortion, he's changed his view on that as well. So, the voting record certainly can't be used as an accurate figure for McCain, when McCain only whored out to the Republican party just recently.
Furthermore, it's not about partisianship, it's about McCain's policies which basically mimic those of the abysmally unpopular Bush Administration.
Furthermore, I have looked at the Obama plan and there is nothing new about it. In fact in terms of economics Obama seems like he's going to be more of a third Bush term than McCain. See where Bush messed up was when the .com bubble burst, the market took the budget surpluses of both the federal and state governments with it. Bush in response to this (and 9/11) increased government spending on the military and entitlements (his perscription drug benefit added over a Trillion dollars to the budget). This increased spending was during a time of shrinking tax revenues.
Despite the fact that you're completely ignoring McCains other Bushy policies and focusing simply economics, You're forgetting the fact that Obama plans to put money into social programs (which directly benefit the US infrastructure, something that Bush has neglected) and not Department of Defense projects.
Obama wants to increase spending (healthcare anyone?) which means taxes are going to have to go through the roof. Now it is pretty much economic law that higher taxes reduce economic activity...which essentially will mean that Obama will not be able to collect enough tax revenue to pay for his "change".
Obama is cutting taxes for everyone but those who make more than 600,000 a year (the top 1% of the US). In fact, anyone making less that 110,000 a year (more than 60% of the US) will receive a larger cut from Obama than they would from McCain. Not only does this pay for expensive (but necessary) programs like healthcare, but it also works towards balancing the severely unbalanced wealth distribution in the US. Something that McCain's economic policies would only make worse.
Furthermore, in a time of war two government programs are taking up about half of the federal budget: Social Security and Medicare. We could go to war with N. Korea and Iran in order to come close to spending as much on the military as we are these entitlements. And Obama wants to add a third massively large program to the federal budget?
Considering the fact that the Military budget (kept seperate from the federal budget) skyrockets above both of those, and also considering the fact that Obama plans to end an incredibly expensive and strenuous war, I don't think such a plan is unreasonable.
At 9/4/08 11:02 PM, Sabado-Karate wrote: See, these leftists can protest against McCain and against Republicans all they want, and nothing bad will happen to them, despite Republicans being still in power. What they don't realize is, if other people went protesting against the Communist Party in China or against the Communist Party in Cuba, that they would get at least 20 years in prison, at the very least.
Thus, they shouldn't exercise their right to protest? There seems to be a gap in your logic.
Oh, and also for you consideration Mason. McCain also called for a resolution through the UN.
McCain called for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Russian aggression and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgian territory.
At 9/4/08 08:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Oh really?
Yep, the examples you have cited occured in all cases at least 20 years ago. Things operate differently now in the UN. In it's current state, Article 27 Section 3 of the UN charter reads as such:
3) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Feel free to plug your ears and say "LALALALALA"
At 9/4/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote: should be a glaring warning that Obama has no idea about how to deal with Russia. Does he realize that Russia has a VETO on the Security Council? That he is proposing an impotent "solution". I'm sorry, but after hearing this I lost all comfort with the idea of Obama being Commander-in-Chief and Chief Diplomat. This shows he has very poor judgment when it comes to foreign policy matters.
You do know that according to the UN charter, a party to a dispute must abstain from voting... Russia wouldn't be able to use it's veto power against the resolution. I guess Obama knows more about foreign policy than you do Mason.
At 9/1/08 03:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Jesus was alledgedly conceived out of conventional wedlock, and he never cried, only leaked healing fluids from his eye socket.
Someone should tell the Christians that.
I dunno what the punchline is here though.. I could name at least a dozen gals that had kids in high school, and half of those were on purpose.
Jeez, you must be living in a very..er "Christian" community. I can only name one pregger off the top of my head from my highschool. I think the point is that even though I agree it shouldn't effect Palin since it was her daughter and not her, it probably will effect her. I mean, the evangelical christians will basically see this as a huge violation of "Christian family values".
Like I said though, it's stupid. My personal beef is with the stupid pro-life/anti-sex argument all together. So it doesn't effect my vote.
At 9/1/08 02:52 PM, JoS wrote: She kept it though, which plays into Palins pro-life views.
You're forgetting that sex outside of marriage makes baby Jesus cry.
At 9/1/08 02:37 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Am I the only person who thinks that the marriage that her daughter is about to go through is going to be done down the barrel of a shotgun with both McCain and her Mother on the trigger solely in the name of 'conservative family values'?
Nope, those are my thoughts exactly. I feel really bad for whoever knocked her up. The daughter was also probably pressured into keeping the baby.
Hah... woo. Sorry about the double post, I can't remember the last time I've laughed so hard. I fucking cried. This story reminded me of the rumors circulating about her last child with downs not actually being hers. It seriously makes me wonder.
Once again, this shit is utterly hilarious. Thank you so much OP.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
At 8/30/08 12:31 AM, TheMason wrote:At 8/29/08 11:00 PM, Musician wrote: ...No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.My point was that writing legislation is not necessarily a relevant skill set that a president needs. That is probably close to the bottom. Your above "response" does not really respond to anything I said.
Federal is not exclusively limited to the president or the executive branch. So no, I never did say the presidents duty is to write legislation. And furthermore...
And no Obama has not set or implemented policy. That is not his mandate or authority as Senator. He has voted on it thereby attempting to approve or deny a law. But he has not been a position to "implement" which means put into practice. I would caution you not to be too sure of yourself that you lecture others what the job of the various branches are...you may be on unstable ground.
Obama has written and passed bills which in turn have become laws. In doing this Obama and the other members of congress have worked to set the policy, or laws, of the US.
he senate's laws are faithfully executed.
*sigh* Upholding the law is the job of the judiciary...not an executive. I am sorry Musician...you are simply wrong on this.
The Judiciary Branch enforces the law, by making sure it is abided. The Executive branch upholds the law by making sure that the laws passed by Congress are executed faithfully.
A governor spends a significant part of their job (I study political science for a living) implementing federal policy. This involves a president (or his secretaries) or governor interpreting the laws handed to them by the congress or the federal government. Often times this involves actually fighting federal policy which requires a rather intimate understanding of issues at the federal level.
She's recieving a set of rules from a higher branch of the government, that doesn't take the kind intimate understanding that you're trying to imply it does. Ultimately, what it comes down to is she only has experience from working at a state level. She doesn't have the experience Obama does from working in Washington.
*sigh* If Obama tries to make the case she is inexperienced it will probably bite him in the ass.
1) As governor of Alaska she has energy policy experience.
2) As governor she gets experience dealing with other countries...thus she has more foreign policy experience (dealing with other governments).
3) The lack of federal experience could be good thing. She does not have the Washington "stank" on her. However, as governor she gets experience: implementing/putting into practice federal law, national security (commander-in-chief) and dealing with foreign governments.
2 years. 2 years. 2 years. 2 years. Do I have to say it again. She has 2 years worth of experience doing all this. That's not alot. Even if you make the argument that she is more experienced than Obama you CAN NOT make the argument that she is experienced. Which makes everything else moot and pure masturbation. McCain picked an inexperienced VP, proving that he believes an inexperienced president could run the country.
Obama
Community Activist
State Legislator
One-term Senator w/opaque record
Palin
Journalist
Mayor
One-term Governor in a time of war and heightened tensions with Russia.
I will concede that she does not have that much more experience than Obama.
Wait. Stop there. You got it Mason. There's not a point in saying more because that is it. She is inexperienced. And like I've said before, her being inexperienced completely undermines McCains former comments on Obama.
The idea that being a governor provides a person with better or relevant experience for being president than being senator is something that resonates with the public. So it is not that much of a stretch to say that McCain has a pretty good shot of selling Palin as experienced.
My guess is that former governors haven't been sold as experienced simply because they were governors.
Look Mason, if you're just going to argue semantics with me all day, then this isn't going be a meaningful debate at all. I suggest you atleast concede on the point that McCain is being somewhat hypocritical by trying to sell Palin after all his comments against obama.
At 8/29/08 11:25 PM, TheMason wrote: The president does not write legislation so Obama's legislative experience is not really necessary for being the chief executive. Furthermore, a senator does not really set policy...setting policy means implimenting law. Obama has done none of that at any level.
First of all I never said the president writes legislation, I said the president sets policies, mostly by which I meant Obama deals with the decisions of the Executive Branch, and thus by your logic has executive experience. But you would be wrong anyways since the president is allowed to write legislation, he's just not allowed to introduce it. Also the Senate does in fact set the laws of the United States, contrary to what you have heard. And yes, Obama has written and passed bills and as such has "implemented" US national policy.
A governor actually does this. They receive federal funds and must set the policies to spend those funds in accordance with federal law.
The word your looking for is uphold. The governor must uphold the laws set at a federal level, this does not give her federal experience. And at a federal level, it is the executive branch's to take care that the senate's laws are faithfully executed.
Furthermore, governors also work with other governors and even representatives from foreign countries...especially a state that is in close proximity to Canada and Russia.
Ultimately, the state has no power over the foreign policy. And this also does not give the governer any federal experience.
Like the national and international focus of the office of any governor. The fact that they get commander-in-chief experience with the military...which should be important in a candidate with no military (or related) experience. The final fact that a governor is often the one who sets the policies of the federal government when it comes to things like roads, education and strategic resources (oil, uranium).
And? Your point? none of this qualifies as federal experience. I haven't put a spin on things at all. You on the other hand have.
Ummm...any attack on Palin as being inexperienced may blow-up on Obama. If McCain can convince voters that being governor provides experience that is relevant whereas the senate does not.
Even if he does convince them of that, can he convince them that she has gained enough experience in the 2 years she's been in office to lead a country? especially after he's been attacking Obama for not being in politics long enough? Unlikely if you ask me.
This may work since there has not been a senator president since Ford, but there has been three governors.
And? That just means the senator presidents don't get elected, not that senator presidents are incompetent. To argue that you'd have to show that previous senator presidents were worse than governor presidents, which McCain isn't going to do.
*sigh* Experience being commander-in-chief, dealing with foreign nations, implementing federal policy, appointing officials, etc.
being a commander-in-chief is only one of the responsibilities of being the president. Also, like it has been said before, she only has 2 years of said experience. You could have someone who's been governer for a month and argue that he/she has more "commander-in-chief" experience than Obama... doesn't mean they have a a lot of experience.
At 8/29/08 07:01 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Wrong.
Actually he's right. Evolution is fact
At 8/29/08 10:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, the National Guard set-up is a federal program. Furthermore, the job of governor deals with the federal government a great deal in terms of she has to execute federal law in everything from education to roads to utilizing natural resources to the military. In many ways a governorship provides better experience than the Senate. There hasn't been a president who has been a senator since the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford presidencies. Since then we've had Carter, Clinton and Bush.
So? Obama has to deal with policies set by the executive branch, does that mean he has executive experience? No, obviously when i say federal experience I mean setting policies/writing legislation at a federal level. If you didn't think that's what I was talking about, now you know.
I know you're suspicious of me "spinning" things. However, you're ignoring significant structural arguments that show your own "spin" to be built upon unstable support.
Like?
No, it is not really a moot point. See, I'm arguing: "If Obama attempts to portray McCain as a hypocrite by attacking Palin's inexperience...it could be a double-edged sword because it could highlight the notion that Obama has less experience than a governor who has been in office only one year less than he has been in the Senate."
See here's the problem. Nobodies saying Obama will attack like that. What Obama will say is "Obviously, inexperience really doesn't matter to John McCain, since he's chosen an inexperienced VP". And there will definitely be truth to that.
It has not even been 24 hours since her selection has been announced. We will see in the next few weeks whether or not the electorate approves of McCain's choice. The electorate may very well agree with either one of us.
In the end...who knows at this point?
I realize we're just speculating at this point. There's nothing wrong with that.
Step back and look at what is going on. Think like a professional politico and step back from your own ideology. You believe McCain is a hypocrite...so of course you're going to see him as a hypocrite.
I believe McCain is a hypocrite because he bashes Obama for being inexperienced and then picks a VP that is inexperienced. When you pick a VP you have to say to yourself "this person could run the country if I die or become disabled". McCains actions contradict what he's been saying.
However, if you notice that many, many, many of the pictures floating around the media is of Palin with the troops over in the AOR (Area Of Responsibility). That is going to highlight her experience.
Her experience of smiling in front of the camera?
At 8/29/08 09:58 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: And you've been doing what this whole time? The exact same thing, therefore that joke from before... oh wait. And yes it will be easy to find actual debate in my post and even easier to find your off shot ramblings in threads that in some cases completely derail them. While your at it go ahead and reply to this and continue my joke, and point because they are in fact interlaced.
How about actually clarifying your stance instead of saying "blah blah if you look closely in my previous posts you'll find my point is clear blah blah".
Because you do not understand the purpose or intentions of it therefore there is no point to argue a frivolous debate without one of the debaters knowing the conditions of the debate.
I'm over here, your over there, and so we have zero ability to connect on this because of this gap.
Has anyone ever told you that your posts are generally incoherent? I don't speak SuperDeagle.
At 8/29/08 09:42 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Do you really want me to spend 15 minutes shifting through yours and my posts to prove this false? Do I need to remind you that the past few times we've had an arguement that you not only never provided any points to allow debate, but did nothing other than take jabs at me and ending up leaving after I call you out on it?
Knock yourself out. Even if you can find one time where you were engaged in a real debate with another user, most likely it's a very rare occurrence. And even if it isn't (which it probably is), it doesn't change the fact that you're contributing absolutely nothing to this thread.
Yes, you dolt and this is why you don't get the above comments. You seriously can't understand simple concepts. You yourself have proven this in this very thread and many others.
Of course I have. On that note, why exactly is it that you have chosen to ignore that previous on topic debate we were just having about John McCain?
