Troy Davis Executed

[AGBF]

Does someone want to go ahead and reference Hitler so we can claim Godwin's Law and be done with it?

Uh...that would be you.

Deb/AGBF

 

[iheartscience]

[quote="thing2of2|1316721344|3023203

Oh really? How is President Obama irresponsible? Do enlighten us!

spending money that we don't have!! ,and still wanted to rob more money from the rich whom are already paying most of the taxes in this country. thank God we will have a new President in 2012... : thing2, i still love ya even though you made the mistake of voting for Obama in 2008...

Yep...thank you... Well said!

Yes, thankfully we'll have a new Pres in 2012. [/quote]

LOLZ! So true to form, no Republicans were interested in the facts. Thanks for proving my point!

 

[iheartscience]

Does someone want to go ahead and reference Hitler so we can claim Godwin's Law and be done with it?

Uh...that would be you.

Deb/AGBF

SNORT! That too!

 

[sillyberry]

Does someone want to go ahead and reference Hitler so we can claim Godwin's Law and be done with it?

Uh...that would be you.

Deb/AGBF

No, for Godwin's Law to apply, Hitler or Nazis have to be used as analogy. I, in fact, didn't do that.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned, just bored. It's disheartening that what could have been an on-topic interesting discussion has devolved into generic partisan name calling. From both sides. It's the plague of all internet discussions, in my experience.

But the more appropriate thing would have been to just not open the thread any longer, so I should have done that.

 

[iheartscience]

Does someone want to go ahead and reference Hitler so we can claim Godwin's Law and be done with it?

Uh...that would be you.

Deb/AGBF

No, for Godwin's Law to apply, Hitler or Nazis have to be used as analogy. I, in fact, didn't do that.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned, just bored. It's disheartening that what could have been an on-topic interesting discussion has devolved into generic partisan name calling. From both sides. It's the plague of all internet discussions, in my experience.

But the more appropriate thing would have been to just not open the thread any longer, so I should have done that.

Are you forgetting your previous post about President Obama's approval ratings? Or was that nonpartisan?

 

[MissStepcut]

Agreed, but I prefer elected officials with a solid grasp of the facts and concepts of basic science.

I have never met one, but dare to dream, I suppose.

What I learned in DC: officials on both sides only care about staying in office. They'll take any position that furthers that goal. The only "science" they understand is party line. Both sides have some utter crackpots. Both sides have highly intelligent thinkers who are forced to talk in sound bites to be heard. People who try to distinguish one party from the other based on the soundness of their policies just sound terribly naive to me.

 

[MissStepcut]

nm sillyberry said it herself.

 

[sillyberry]

Does someone want to go ahead and reference Hitler so we can claim Godwin's Law and be done with it?

Uh...that would be you.

Deb/AGBF

No, for Godwin's Law to apply, Hitler or Nazis have to be used as analogy. I, in fact, didn't do that.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned, just bored. It's disheartening that what could have been an on-topic interesting discussion has devolved into generic partisan name calling. From both sides. It's the plague of all internet discussions, in my experience.

But the more appropriate thing would have been to just not open the thread any longer, so I should have done that.

Are you forgetting your previous post about President Obama's approval ratings? Or was that nonpartisan?

It was a direct counterpoint to the idea that he currently has the power to sway public opinion and reverse Troy Davis's execution. When you look at his approval ratings, the latest indicating that only 47% of the population has a favorable opinion of him, that is relevant to the question. So, yes, I think it was actually a non-partisan statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/not-just-job-approval-obama-popularity-slips/2011/09/07/gIQA31EejK_blog.html

ETA: I did say "And we will have to agree to disagree about how inspiring our president is. Writing his own speeches, or not." Which I think was a pretty non-controversial, non-name calling way to express an opinion since I didn't think it was overall relevant to the topic. But, for fairness sake, and so I didn't look like I was hiding something, I wanted to include that bit.

 

[MissStepcut]

For what it's worth, SB, I didn't think anything you've said in this thread is partisan. Seemed like a pretty uncontroversial statement of the facts, from my perspective as a fellow law-type.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|
LOLZ! So true to form, no Republicans were interested in the facts. Thanks for proving my point! [/quote]

facts?? we are at 9.1% unemployment.

 

[mrscushion]

For what it's worth, SB, I didn't think anything you've said in this thread is partisan. Seemed like a pretty uncontroversial statement of the facts, from my perspective as a fellow law-type.

Really true. I learned a lot from your posts and I think it's remarkable how even-headed you respond to goading. If more people like you were posting in these threads, political threads in ATW would not have been abolished and this whole website would be more interesting.

 

[mrscushion]

Oh DF-I love how you Republicans don't let facts get in the way of your convincing "arguments"! In case you're actually interested in the facts, here's a nice infographic comparing the amount of $ spent by President Bush vs. President Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Don't get me wrong, I read this graphic with interest and forwarded it it to friends when it appeared in the NYT, as well, but I do have some questions about it. For instance, I think that while Bush was the sitting duck president responsible for TARP and the 2008 stimulus, Obama was right there with him. Also, the Bush tax cuts are being continued for at least Obama's first term, and so are the wars...so I think it's a little misleading not to attribute any money to O there. I understand the infographic is about policies initiated. Still, I think it's facts, represented in a liberal way.

ETA: I'm sorry I just contributed to a thread jack.

 

[ksinger]

As I've re-read this thread, I keep coming back to the ire at the president for not doing....something. That and the hyperbolic near-stroke-inducing emotion that this issue seems to inspire. It occurs to me that the level of emotion and ire is not unlike the frothing of some anti-abortion folks. Abortion is legal. Executions are legal. Both involve life and death issues. Both have people running around like chickens wanting to bypass legality and make it STOP. Interesting.

The hubs couldn't think of a sitting president commenting on a state execution case, and also thought it would be wildly inappropriate, not to mention pointless political suicide. So do I. I think Obama handled this one correctly by hands off.

Do we really want the president to weigh in on every issue like this? To weigh in on other things too - like abortion - from his bully pulpit? I don't. I don't recall Bush doing it either. But everyone who wishes for a president to do that may get a bit more than they bargained for if someone like a Perry gets elected, but HE won't be doing so in a direction most in this thread would care for I'd wager. So careful what you wish for.

For the record, I think it would be better to just dispense with executions, for a number of reasons. But right now they ARE legal in some states, and only those states themselves, or a ruling by the supremes, is going to change that. It won't be by the pres, and it won't be by public opinion outside of the state in question, frothing madly to circumvent that state's laws.

 

[AGBF]

As I've re-read this thread, I keep coming back to the ire at the president for not doing....something. That and the hyperbolic near-stroke-inducing emotion that this issue seems to inspire. It occurs to me that the level of emotion and ire is not unlike the frothing of some anti-abortion folks. Abortion is legal. Executions are legal. Both involve life and death issues. Both have people running around like chickens wanting to bypass legality and make it STOP. Interesting.

The hubs couldn't think of a sitting president commenting on a state execution case, and also thought it would be wildly inappropriate, not to mention pointless political suicide. So do I. I think Obama handled this one correctly by hands off.

Do we really want the president to weigh in on every issue like this? To weigh in on other things too - like abortion - from his bully pulpit? I don't. I don't recall Bush doing it either. But everyone who wishes for a president to do that may get a bit more than they bargained for if someone like a Perry gets elected, but HE won't be doing so in a direction most in this thread would care for I'd wager. So careful what you wish for.

For the record, I think it would be better to just dispense with executions, for a number of reasons. But right now they ARE legal in some states, and only those states themselves, or a ruling by the supremes, is going to change that. It won't be by the pres, and it won't be by public opinion outside of the state in question, frothing madly to circumvent that state's laws.

Yours is a logical position in theory. The only problem with its logic in practice is that when the right wing idealogues are in power they do not sit on their hands and keep their mouths shut, waiting in silence. They grab as much power for as many of their pet causes as they can, often on the sly without the oversight of Congress. Years later we find that the CIA was doing the secret bidding of some conservative president in godforsaken corners of the globe. I trust that Rick Perry would do that whether or not President Obama spoke out on behalf of Troy Davis, just as George Bush did! George Bush had people flown all over the globe to be tortured in
foreign prisons in contravention of US law. You think I should fear Rick Perry if I allow President Obama to speak out against the death penalty when George Bush ran off with the constitution: invading the sovereign country of Iraq without provocation; wiretapping American civilians without warrants; setting up tribunals in Guantanamo that tortured in contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1954; extraditing people to secret prisons abroad for torture? I fear Rick Perry because I have seen George Bush, not because President Obama might set a bad precedent!!!

Deb/AGBF

 

[dragonfly411]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

If you want to help stop future executions, please support my law school's Center on Wrongful Convictions:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/contribute/donate.html

Funny you should mention this, Miss Stepcut. I am the federal state policy advisor with the US DOJ who manages federal grants on wrongful conviction review. We're in the midst of announcing our FY 11 awardees. In case anyone is interested, here's the (now closed) FY 11 solicitation: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/11WrongfulConvictionSol.pdf..

My agency also offers grants on capital case litigation: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/CCLI.html

 

[dragonfly411]

As I've re-read this thread, I keep coming back to the ire at the president for not doing....something. That and the hyperbolic near-stroke-inducing emotion that this issue seems to inspire. It occurs to me that the level of emotion and ire is not unlike the frothing of some anti-abortion folks. Abortion is legal. Executions are legal. Both involve life and death issues. Both have people running around like chickens wanting to bypass legality and make it STOP. Interesting.

The hubs couldn't think of a sitting president commenting on a state execution case, and also thought it would be wildly inappropriate, not to mention pointless political suicide. So do I. I think Obama handled this one correctly by hands off.

Do we really want the president to weigh in on every issue like this? To weigh in on other things too - like abortion - from his bully pulpit? I don't. I don't recall Bush doing it either. But everyone who wishes for a president to do that may get a bit more than they bargained for if someone like a Perry gets elected, but HE won't be doing so in a direction most in this thread would care for I'd wager. So careful what you wish for.

For the record, I think it would be better to just dispense with executions, for a number of reasons. But right now they ARE legal in some states, and only those states themselves, or a ruling by the supremes, is going to change that. It won't be by the pres, and it won't be by public opinion outside of the state in question, frothing madly to circumvent that state's laws.

I agree that perhaps it isn't the place for the president to step in, although he technically has the power to make sure that the law is properly enforced. I feel like people worry that he treats things casually. That's my take anyways.

When it comes to presidential involvement with issues like abortion and the death penalty, I do expect them to voice their stances on the subjects, and to voice whether they agree or disagree, because that is human. What I don't expect is a step in for every individual case.

On the other hand, if there is an exceptional case, where justice may not be being served properly, or there is any kind of doubt, I would expect some attention to be brought to it. I would especially expect that if the general population becomes very involved, the way they seemed to with this case.

 

[iheartscience]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution.
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.)

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

 

[dragonfly411]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution. Both of my grandparents are republican, and believe in evolution. How are they anti reality?
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.) So what is wrong with that being stated, if he is, and how is it anti-reality?

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

Thing - You cannot put everyone into one pot and call them anti reality. Global warming is happening yes, but there is also a repeated pattern of warming and cooling in this earth over time, as evidenced by tropical climates during the age of dinosaurs followed by an ice age, and now another warmer period. Is that denying facts or is it noting a repeated pattern that may not be a continuous, forever ongoing global warming caused by the human race? Sure humans are probably CONTRIBUTING, but they are not THE CAUSE of global warming. That's like saying that because Dinosaurs ate vegetables and pooed that they were the soul cause of their tropical climate... I mean really.
http://www.universetoday.com/38454/researchers-say-sun-cycle-alters-earths-climate/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html


President Obama has made many financial moves that, yes, are viewed as irresponsible.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/28/obamas_spending_addiction_110741.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/8/obama-spending-hits-new-records/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259691/obamas-spending-spree-numbers-andrew-stiles
Our country is in debt, and in the middle of a financial crisis, and he's about to take a 10 day vacation that may not cost astronomical numbers, but will cost the country money in security. At at time when many Americans are facing unemployment, or working two, three, four jobs to scrape by, or are losing homes, he's continuing to spend. Yes. I view that as irresponsible.

 

[PinkTower]

Just wanted to mention what happened yesterday in Georgia in case you haven't heard.

Fact is.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/22/us-usa-execution-idUSN2250765020080522

 

[iheartscience]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution. Both of my grandparents are republican, and believe in evolution. How are they anti reality?
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.) So what is wrong with that being stated, if he is, and how is it anti-reality?

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

Thing - You cannot put everyone into one pot and call them anti reality. Global warming is happening yes, but there is also a repeated pattern of warming and cooling in this earth over time, as evidenced by tropical climates during the age of dinosaurs followed by an ice age, and now another warmer period. Is that denying facts or is it noting a repeated pattern that may not be a continuous, forever ongoing global warming caused by the human race? Sure humans are probably CONTRIBUTING, but they are not THE CAUSE of global warming. That's like saying that because Dinosaurs ate vegetables and pooed that they were the soul cause of their tropical climate... I mean really.
http://www.universetoday.com/38454/researchers-say-sun-cycle-alters-earths-climate/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html


President Obama has made many financial moves that, yes, are viewed as irresponsible.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/28/obamas_spending_addiction_110741.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/8/obama-spending-hits-new-records/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259691/obamas-spending-spree-numbers-andrew-stiles
Our country is in debt, and in the middle of a financial crisis, and he's about to take a 10 day vacation that may not cost astronomical numbers, but will cost the country money in security. At at time when many Americans are facing unemployment, or working two, three, four jobs to scrape by, or are losing homes, he's continuing to spend. Yes. I view that as irresponsible.

LOLZ sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about with your dinosaurs pooing "example." Also, past warming and cooling periods do not explain the rapid climate change currently occurring. Please do post any evidence (and by "evidence," I don't mean opinion pieces from right wing sites and blogs) you can find of the current climate change NOT being man-made. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Again, I point you again to the infographic detailing spending by both President Bush and President Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday Where was your outrage when Bush was waging unfunded wars and adding new Medicare benefits while cutting taxes? Our country was in debt well before President Obama took office in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And you know what got us out of that one? GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Your links to right wing opinion pieces aren't particularly compelling evidence. I prefer FACTS and NUMBERS and such.

As for your grandparents believing in evolution-great! Perhaps they should run for national office, since Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, etc. don't believe in evolution!

President Obama is NOT Muslim. (Again, not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim.) Republicans saying he is Muslim both ignores reality AND is bigoted and xenophobic. Actually, that about sums the Republican party up, amirite?!

Any more questions for me?

 

[ksinger]

As I've re-read this thread, I keep coming back to the ire at the president for not doing....something. That and the hyperbolic near-stroke-inducing emotion that this issue seems to inspire. It occurs to me that the level of emotion and ire is not unlike the frothing of some anti-abortion folks. Abortion is legal. Executions are legal. Both involve life and death issues. Both have people running around like chickens wanting to bypass legality and make it STOP. Interesting.

The hubs couldn't think of a sitting president commenting on a state execution case, and also thought it would be wildly inappropriate, not to mention pointless political suicide. So do I. I think Obama handled this one correctly by hands off.

Do we really want the president to weigh in on every issue like this? To weigh in on other things too - like abortion - from his bully pulpit? I don't. I don't recall Bush doing it either. But everyone who wishes for a president to do that may get a bit more than they bargained for if someone like a Perry gets elected, but HE won't be doing so in a direction most in this thread would care for I'd wager. So careful what you wish for.

For the record, I think it would be better to just dispense with executions, for a number of reasons. But right now they ARE legal in some states, and only those states themselves, or a ruling by the supremes, is going to change that. It won't be by the pres, and it won't be by public opinion outside of the state in question, frothing madly to circumvent that state's laws.

Yours is a logical position in theory. The only problem with its logic in practice is that when the right wing idealogues are in power they do not sit on their hands and keep their mouths shut, waiting in silence. They grab as much power for as many of their pet causes as they can, often on the sly without the oversight of Congress. Years later we find that the CIA was doing the secret bidding of some conservative president in godforsaken corners of the globe. I trust that Rick Perry would do that whether or not President Obama spoke out on behalf of Troy Davis, just as George Bush did! George Bush had people flown all over the globe to be tortured in
foreign prisons in contravention of US law. You think I should fear Rick Perry if I allow President Obama to speak out against the death penalty when George Bush ran off with the constitution: invading the sovereign country of Iraq without provocation; wiretapping American civilians without warrants; setting up tribunals in Guantanamo that tortured in contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1954; extraditing people to secret prisons abroad for torture? I fear Rick Perry because I have seen George Bush, not because President Obama might set a bad precedent!!!

Deb/AGBF

Well, unless you want to actually SEE a Perry in office, you'd best quit asking Obama to commit what amounts to political suicide when he's already on the ropes. It would accomplish nothing, and give his political foes endless fodder. In this case at least, he is behaving exactly as I hoped he would - by NOT being an ideologue. Besides - he may actually NOT agree with you. Did you ever think of that?


There is a world of need out there, injustices abound. You could drown in a sea of constant outrage over the way the world is. I've decided my time is better spent NOT doing that. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm not willing to have a stroke over it. There are no brownie points given at the end for how much I FELT and how much I SUFFERED over a situation beyond my control. I prefer doing what I can over personal angst any day.

I give my support to the ACLU right now, because I see the need for what they do - defending abortion rights, keeping creationism out of the schools, things near and dear to my heart. Oklahoma is about as bad as Georgia, so I'll focus HERE. It's a better use of my money and my time.

 

[MissStepcut]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution.
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.)

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

NOT ONE of these things are an official position of the Republican party. This is akin to a conservative telling you, "General Democratic Principles include an anarchistic drug policy, with heroin being sold legally next door to elementary schools." I resent your commitment to polarizing the discussion.

 

[HollyS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis_case

Forgive me for asking, but exactly WHAT makes you think that justice was NOT served? Or are you opposed to the death penalty, regardless?

He had his day in court, numerous stays of execution, and because of pressure from the public and notable public figures, he had a hearing to determine if evidence was fabricated or coerced. The findings of the various courts, which have heard everything his defense team had to say, have ALL upheld the conviction. Since neither you nor I were in attendance at his trial, or his hearings, we have only our opinion about the proceedings . . . not direct knowledge of anything being unfair, untrue, or fabricated about the process or the evidence.

And, frankly, no President should open his mouth in opposition to a particular state's laws. Perhaps Mr. Obama had advisors smart enough to stop him if he had been so inclined.

Sorry, Deb. But I just don't get the why of your upset. Unless it isn't him so much as execution as punishment under the law. I can understand a moral repugnance for that, even if I do not think the same.

 

[HollyS]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution.
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.)

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.




Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

Oh, for pity's sake, stick a fork in it and call it done.

As this thread proves, I'm not the only one fed up with this anti-Republican rant of yours.

Learn to live in peaceful cohabitation here on PS with people who don't agree with you. WE DON'T HAVE A POLITICAL THREAD ANYMORE. Remember?

 

[iheartscience]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans.
2. They don't believe in evolution.
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work.

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.)

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

NOT ONE of these things are an official position of the Republican party. This is akin to a conservative telling you, "General Democratic Principles include an anarchistic drug policy, with heroin being sold legally next door to elementary schools." I resent your commitment to polarizing the discussion.

They may not be on the official party platform, but when the majority of the national leaders are subscribing to them, you can't dismiss them.

ETA If multiple national Democratic leaders were actually saying heroin should be sold next to elementary schools, I wouldn't get my panties in a twist if a conservative called them out for being anarchistic drug pushers.

 

[iheartscience]

And my commitment is to correcting falsehoods. If that contributes to polarizing the discussion, so be it.

 

[Mayk]

This thread is a perfect example of why we have the issues in the senate and congree we have... No one can find the middle and everyone is bent on proving the other side wrong and it's their fault. Bottom line... Our country is in trouble we need reform for social security and we need a tax structure where EVERBODY pays not just the rich.. We need jobs and a rescue for housing... Not to mention the needs of our military protecting us or God forbid educating our children the future leaders of our country if there is anything left to run. Our President's approval rating is sinking faster than a diamond in a bucket of water and it is sinking for a reason. Even his own party is bailing. We need someone in the white house from the private sector who understands the basic needs of running a business where you use what's coming in to pay the bills. Everyone should pay taxes nor just the "rich" and ENTITLEMENT programs need to be revamped.

As for Troy Davis... He will face judgement with his maker... The victim in this case the dead police officer never got a chance. He died being a protector while this kid was running the streets with gangs where sooner or later he was going to be in the path of the judicial system.

As for all the spewing here.... That frankly is out of control it's sickening. I'm glad we don't have a political thread! Im sorry I said anything and I only said I didn't think he would say much... He didn't bother while we were being downgraded.

By the way... 28 years working in consumer goods... If something happened with my business that was big... I would cancel my vacation no matter my party affiliation... It's called responsibility! So I don't feel bad about my opinion. But it certainly wasn't "heated"!

I'm trying to undrerstamd why people here are not up in arms about that scum of a president from Iran who will be speaking at Columbia after the disgusting display he made at the UN yesterday... I am appalled and he should be escorted to the boarder and sent away packing...not enhjoying the comfort of NYC!

 

[TooPatient]

thing2...the NYT is way too left.. try watching Fox news...
btw; you Dems have one good candidate but too bad that she ain't running for President in 2012...

Funny thing about facts: they're not liberal or conservative-they just ARE. That's something the current anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-REALITY Republicans seem to forget.

I love how you are talking about facts, but then say that Republicans are anti-reality. Where's the fact in that? Please do tell.

General Republican Party stances:
1. They deny that climate change is caused by humans. What little scientific evidence there is shows this. The rest of the "data" was falsified.
2. They don't believe in evolution. Says who? All of the people at the conventions I attend do in fact believe in evolution.
3. They push for abstinence-only education, despite the fact that evidence and basic logic show it doesn't work. Not around here we don't. Parents should be able to teach their kids when and how is right for them. Schools should stay out of it. (VERY different from abstinence-only)

Not to mention the other gems such as:
1. President Obama was born in Kenya and is part of a vast conspiracy that began 50 years ago at his birth. Huh? Sure there are some, but I don't think even a majority believe this.
2. President Obama is Muslim. (To which I say, so what if he is? Last I checked, being Muslim is legal in the U.S., no matter what some Republicans would want.) Of course he is a Muslim. He went to a school where they followed Muslim traditions. By Muslim tradition, the mere act of saying the correct prayer (sorry, can't remember off the top of my head what it is called) converts you to Muslim. Is it a big deal? NO. With the exception of a few people who spoke on the tv/radio, I haven't heard anyone with an issue here.

Do you want citations? Because I will gladly provide those as well.

Still waiting on you to explain how President Obama is irresponsible!

Answered some "generalizations" in-line in the quote above.

My issue with politics on all sides is that people get so connected with "their side" that facts get blurred and twisted to fit some view of the world or other people. MOST of the time, I agree with the Republican candidate but when I see something that doesn't add up I am quite happy to discuss/debate it with others and (given a chance) will question the politician directly. Facts are facts. Period. They should be as accurate and complete as possible. Neither side should be let to get away with half-truths or lies to suit their politics.


ETA: In keeping with the desire for facts, I looked up the requirements to convert to be Muslim.

"A person becomes a Muslim upon pronouncing the shahadah in front of two adult Muslim witnesses." (This is said every day in prayers that would have been done in the school Obama attended, in front of at least 2 adults)

"Officially convert by pronouncing the shahadah (pledge of conviction of faith) in Arabic thus: "Ash HaduAllaa Ilaaha Il-lallaah Wa Ash Hadu Anna Muhammadar Rasullulah" which means "I bear Witness that there is no deity but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad if His Messenger". The pledge is to be taken in front of at least two adult Muslim witnesses."

I'm not linking the website where I got this information because it is religious. You can find it and others to confirm by doing a simple search on "Muslim conversion"

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|

Any more questions for me?[/quote]

yes,will Hillary run for President?