Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems - Page 10

tolbiny · #91 10-03-2007, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality in nature is a moot point when discussing child rearing because, well, homosexual creatures in nature would have a hard time having children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that extended families rear children quite frequently in nature homosexuals rearing children is not at all a moot point.

pvn · #92 10-03-2007, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Republican problems don't result in creation of a socialist welfare state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's just a matter of the welfare recipients being different.

saucyspade19 · #93 10-03-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Republican problems don't result in creation of a socialist welfare state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's just a matter of the welfare recipients being different.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] libs

The standard cogent, thoughtful counter-point. Enjoy moveon and keep drinking the kool aid.

Copernicus · #94 10-03-2007, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stock market record highs
Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month
100,000 jobs created last month
Core inflation stable
Consumer spending up
Construction and housing starts up

The only negative I was oil at $80 a barrel, but then even with gas prices reflecting that, a lower percentage of income will be spent on gas than in 1980.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... you're promoting the changes that have happened since the Democrats got control of Congress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if there were any changes, the lag in economic effects of legislation makes your point ridiculous. Layer on top of that there have been no changes, and that the Democratic controlled Congress has the lowest approval rating in history, and youre simply embarassing yourself.

Copernicus · #95 10-03-2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im not talking about any religion, particularly since Im an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you. Believe what you want. Read my posts here and on SMP and find anything that is supportive of religion or the religious. I am as hard an atheist as there is. 

[ QUOTE ]
And Ive already discussed why the nuclear family is a relatively new phenomenon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not coherently. At any rate, as your concept of the nuclear family didn't even exist in the natural habitat of human beings, it can't be a "natural" family unit by any standard. Coherent enough for anyone with reading comprehension abilities. Your conclusion that the nuclear family is not "natural" is not supportable, nor is the opposite conclusion. Given the fact that nature has done a pretty good job for herself, and that the nuclear family has proven to be the most productive and stable, I tend to lean toward it being natural. 

[ QUOTE ]
However, to say that there is no such thing as "natural", in the sense that we are using the word, is preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foal beat me to the punch. Can you support that assertion? Is this where you say you don't think humans evolved, and that there is some "greater" imperative than evolution that defines what is "natural?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what path you are using to get there. Someone said there is "no such thing as natural". OI responded that in the context of this tread of course there is such a thing as "natural" since we are talking about human behavior which is governed by nature, including evolution. You are so off base in what youre reading into my statements you must be inventing things to be disagreeable.

pvn · #96 10-03-2007, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Republican problems don't result in creation of a socialist welfare state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's just a matter of the welfare recipients being different.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] libs

The standard cogent, thoughtful counter-point. Enjoy moveon and keep drinking the kool aid.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. "anyone who disagrees with me must be a dirty librul."

Copernicus · #97 10-03-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...

[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's news search or blog search for this "quote." Google's web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try broadening your search a little.

"It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.

That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.

This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”


Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached
to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.
American success in Iraq could mess all of that up."

bdk3clash · #98 10-03-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Stock market record highs
Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month
100,000 jobs created last month
Core inflation stable
Consumer spending up
Construction and housing starts up

The only negative I was oil at $80 a barrel, but then even with gas prices reflecting that, a lower percentage of income will be spent on gas than in 1980.

[/ QUOTE ]
The real problem I have with posts like this and and your "points" (which I can only make assumptions about since you don't state anything explictly) is that there really doesn't need to be much mystery or vague, anecdotal "analysis" of public opinion. In particular, I can't stand when pundits and other Beltway insider types talk about what the American public/typical voter/etc. cares about and what the "conventional wisdom" is because they're just factually wrong too much of the time to take their word for it.

So you end up with ridiculous moments like Andrea Mitchell of Newsweek claiming that most Americans want Scooter Libby pardoned on MSNBC (when 69% opposed a pardon) and such.

Similarly, you seem to imply some sort of groundswell of bad news for Democrats' electoral fortunes (I think) due to increasing public perception of "good news" for the administration on the economy ("Stock market record highs...
100,000 jobs created last month...Core inflation stable...Consumer spending up...Construction and housing starts up...") and the War in Iraq ("Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month.")

The excellent resource PollingReport provides specific, factual analysis of these issues. You can check out a bunch of different polls on from multiple sources on the Iraq War and all sort of other topics.

Specifically, if you'd bother to post actual data about how effective Americans feel the "surge"/escalation in Iraq has been and whether Americans trust Petraeus to present an accurate assessment of the reality of the situation in Iraq we might have a place to start a discussion. To get the ball rolling you can read this article and poke around PollingReport.

bdk3clash · #99 10-03-2007, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...

[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's news search or blog search for this "quote." Google's web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try broadening your search a little.

"It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.

That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.

This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”


Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached
to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.
American success in Iraq could mess all of that up."

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I don't think it's asking too much for you to provide links or some sort of documentation for your quotes and paraphrases? I mean, you made a very specific claim: that a Democratic
[ QUOTE ]
Senator/Congressman...said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that you placed the words "It would be very bad for us" in quotation marks. You can think I'm being petty or childish by screaming "Source!" or whatever, but try to look at things from my (and others') perspective and take the extra step to provide primary documentation (when possible) for your quotes and, most importantly, [/i]clearly[/i] indicate when you're summarizing and paraphrasing.

Anyway, could you specify what statements (let's stick to actual quotes, if possible) you disagree with or object to, and why?

Copernicus · #**100** 10-03-2007, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...

[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's news search or blog search for this "quote." Google's web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try broadening your search a little.

"It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.

That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.

This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”


Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached
to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.
American success in Iraq could mess all of that up."

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I don't think it's asking too much for you to provide links or some sort of documentation for your quotes and paraphrases? I mean, you made a very specific claim: that a Democratic
[ QUOTE ]
Senator/Congressman...said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that you placed the words "It would be very bad for us" in quotation marks. You can think I'm being petty or childish by screaming "Source!" or whatever, but try to look at things from my (and others') perspective and take the extra step to provide primary documentation (when possible) for your quotes and, most importantly, [/i]clearly[/i] indicate when you're summarizing and paraphrasing.
 yes, i think you are being petty. If it was some obscure reference than I can see distinguishing between " " as not being my words vs " " being a direct quote. this one was all over the news in July, and didnt expect anyone in such a well informed forum as this to not know what I was referring to. 
Anyway, could you specify what statements (let's stick to actual quotes, if possible) you disagree with or object to, and why?

[/ QUOTE ] what statements where? If you mean Clyburn's or Schumer's statements, I don't disagree with them at all. Progress in Iraq would be a problem for the Dems as a party on many levels. Note I am not saying they "hope for defeat" (though I do believe that Schumer does) or that they are "unpatriotic", just addressing the pragmatic reality that Iraq is a major platform for both parties, and the less negative things the Dems can say about it, the worse off they are in elections. They rode the coattails of a "quagmire in Iraq" to majorities. They haven't done anything about it since except posturing, and their poll numbers reflect it. Take away the underpinning of it being a quagmire in the first place and you divide the party, get some obvious flip-flop-flips, and those are problems.