ExiledInIllinois Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Little difference between the far right and left. Yep. Just as the case with Hitler's "left"... He had Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Anyone remember the last time gas was under $2 a gallon? If you said "election day 2006" you'd be correct. But it's totally a coincidence. The oil companies would never dream of influencing elections. Neither would a major retailer that employs thousands. PTR Don't I wish. At one time prices could be jerry rigged to influence elections. Now the fact is that global demand is jacking it up and so I wouldn't expect the price to go anywhere near as low as 2 bucks. That's why this off shore drilling is so much bull sh--. The demand (global) isn't changing so if we drill offshore or anwar, we are not going to dent the world market, just add to American oil company profits and we'll see little or no decrease in gas prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Person who makes the claim has to back it up. Why? Should I have couched in PC and better said, "I have heard that...". I understand that captious response is the norm today. See also Whitehead's small essay "Minds in a Groove". The detection and appreciation of the big picture is waning. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 i just like labeling things so i can keep them organized as either "For me" or "Against me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 OR, if Israel attacks Iran (and they try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz), we could see $8.00 a gallon gas by the election... Israel isn't stupid enough to attack before election day They'll wait patiently and strike sometime between November 5th and January 19th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 The detection and appreciation of the big picture is waning. Sad. And the ability to "man up" and admit when one is wrong. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Oh goodness. If Wal-mart hates obama, you know he's got to be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Why? Should I have couched in PC and better said, "I have heard that...". I understand that captious response is the norm today. See also Whitehead's small essay "Minds in a Groove". The detection and appreciation of the big picture is waning. Sad. Uh, because logically, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim - just like it does everywhere (e.g., God is a flying spaghetti monster, prove me wrong). This is a standard convention we're talking about here - I have a hard time believing you haven't encountered it and don't know why it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Oh goodness. If Wal-mart hates obama, you know he's got to be awesome. Wal-mart doesn't like Obama because he took down one of their own (Hillary) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Israel isn't stupid enough to attack before election day They'll wait patiently and strike sometime between November 5th and January 19th You are correct. They will certainly wait until after the election to attack. My mistake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Don't I wish. At one time prices could be jerry rigged to influence elections. Now the fact is that global demand is jacking it up and so I wouldn't expect the price to go anywhere near as low as 2 bucks. That's why this off shore drilling is so much bull sh--. The demand (global) isn't changing so if we drill offshore or anwar, we are not going to dent the world market, just add to American oil company profits and we'll see little or no decrease in gas prices. Why is it BS? What's wrong with obtaining more oil? The BS about drilling in ANWAR or off our shores being an "environmental" problem is BS. It's an unflattering - and wrong - estimate of our citizens and out technology. But it is certainly a voting bloc to be pandered to, the sappy young environmentalists inculcated since their entry into school- and witness Pelosi and Reid refusing to bring tapping our resources to the floor of Congress. Votes, votes, votes. American oil company profits are happily taxed by the Feds and the States. They love those profits. Any increase fills revenue agencies' coffers, and of course, like all business taxes, they are passed along to the end user. You might address the population's lust for cheap foreign goods - we buy them from the same folks who up global demand for oil, then blame politicians of any stripe, and they end up holding billions of US Treasury obligations. They hold us by the short hairs...why do you think President Bush visits the Olympics in Bejing? You are old enough to remember the comic strip, "Pogo", and the words "We have met the enemy, and it is us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Gas might be going back up soon. TS (possible Hurricane) Eduardo is in the Gulf and heading towards Houston... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Gas might be going back up soon. TS (possible Hurricane) Eduardo is in the Gulf and heading towards Houston... Oil went down $4 a barrel. Eduardo is expected to miss or skirt the major drilling areas and may barely make Cat 1 upon landfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Uh, because logically, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim - just like it does everywhere (e.g., God is a flying spaghetti monster, prove me wrong). This is a standard convention we're talking about here - I have a hard time believing you haven't encountered it and don't know why it happens. Uh, it's not a standard convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 And the ability to "man up" and admit when one is wrong. Sad. "Yes, “within the Centre and the Party of freethinkers [the Liberal Party] there are undoubtedly elements who are interested in universal and equal suffrage”, said Vorwärts. But it is not these elements that lead the bourgeois parties, not the petty artisans, not the semi-proletariat, not the semi-ruined peasants. They follow the lead of the liberal bourgeois, who try to keep them away from the struggle by making compromises with reaction behind their backs, by corrupting their class-consciousness and not really defending their interests. To draw these elements into the struggle for universal suffrage it is necessary to arouse their class-consciousness, to win them away from the vacillating bourgeois parties. “Within the Liberal [freethinking] Party they, the elements interested in universal suffrage, form an impotent minority, which is forever being fed with promises and then always duped once again, and whose political energy is completely paralysed. If, however, the freethinkers and the Centre are really to be forced to make concessions to democracy owing to the threat of losing votes, then it is the class struggle, which weakens the bourgeois parties, that is the only means of pushing the reluctant bourgeoisie to the Left.” For the political facts long ago proved that reaction is less hateful to the freethinkers than Social-Democracy. “We must therefore not only ruthlessly castigate the sins of all the bourgeois parties, but above all make it clear that the betrayals of the freethinkers and the Centre on the question of the franchise are a necessary consequence of the class character of these parties.”." http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/12b.htm Digest that. Big picture...the sheep are led... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Uh, it's not a standard convention. Come on man, Bluefire is correct on this one. Define that convention any way you like, but it is typically how a dialog/debate progresses. If a person puts forth a statement, the onus is on him/her to back it up with facts. Not on the other person challenging that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Come on man, Bluefire is correct on this one. Define that convention any way you like, but it is typically how a dialog/debate progresses. If a person puts forth a statement, the onus is on him/her to back it up with facts. Not on the other person challenging that statement. No. You should indeed challenge a literal, seek and discuss a declarative statement. You must ask why a man repeats an utterance he read, you must ask why he applied it to a situation. It doesn't matter if it was an exact quote - although I realize that that is no longer accommodated. That there seems to be no room for words uttered without strict, nibbling scrutiny being flung from various sources. All is parsed to whatever end the parser wants, totally missing the thought the utterer meant. By all means, declare victory for yourself. And enjoy the future. The pesky big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 You are correct. They will certainly wait until after the election to attack. My mistake... The bigger question is will Bush wait, or will he succumb to Cheney whispering in his ear to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 The bigger question is will Bush wait, or will he succumb to Cheney whispering in his ear to attack. Do you really believe that or are you just being, um....PastaJoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Do you really believe that or are you just being, um....PastaJoe? Do I believe the neo-cons want to make a military strike on Iran before they leave office and lose their chance, you bet. The question is whether Bush is smart enough to resist them after being burned by their push to invade Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts