DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on January 26, 2008, 06:11:49 PM
-
see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.abortion.html
-
LOL.....and there's Crane trying to portray messers Obama, Clinton, and Edwards as supposedly vastly different Democrat options. Hysterical
-
Awww. Sight for sore eyes! I really wish Biden had had the "All-Star" media coverage that Obama and Hilde currently have. What a shame.
Sirs - A quick-glance at their stated positions on a handful of headline rgabbing topics does not bring into the equation voting records, what bills they have authored if any, what committees/subcommittees they have been involved with, the length of their political careers, etc. More factors than what is gleaned from the above weigh into Crane's observation, I'm sure. Hopefully more weigh into yours, as well.
-
Sirs - A quick-glance at their stated positions on a handful of headline rgabbing topics does not bring into the equation voting records, what bills they have authored if any, what committees/subcommittees they have been involved with, the length of their political careers, etc. More factors than what is gleaned from the above weigh into Crane's observation, I'm sure. Hopefully more weigh into yours, as well.
Obviously "experience" and committee memberships were not what I was referring to m. Voting records, and bills supported are, as are their positions on nearly every major issue. I never said or implied that they worked "in concert" with each other. They have their own tweaked versions of UHC, and who/when to tax "the rich", but other than that, their differences on the issues, and how they'd address then are again largely cosmetic. Or hadn't you noticed?
-
It would take a while to determine what they voted on the, major bills, once you accumulated a list of "important" bills. Unless, there is a website already that has this?
-
I have no doubt that any of the major political issues that required legislative voting on, they're all on the same page. Their rhetoric alone demonstrates that position
-
It would take a whike to determine what they voted on the, major bills, once you accumulated a list of "important" bills. Unless, there is a website already that has this?
You can wikipedia most of the candidates. It will give you their history, and offers links to websites that maintain all sorts of records on candidates.
The Washington Post has a by-member breakdown of voting records, along with other nifty info:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/
Obviously "experience" and committee memberships were not what I was referring to m. Voting records, and bills supported are, as are their positions on nearly every major issue. I never said or implied that they worked "in concert" with each other. They have their own tweaked versions of UHC, and who/when to tax "the rich", but other than that, their differences on the issues, and how they'd address then are again largely cosmetic. Or hadn't you noticed?
Ha, I like my intial italicized. So if voting records and bills supported are what you referred to, did you ever factor in that some of them may not have voted one way or another on x bill yet maintained actions due to their positions on committees, etc. in regards to the topic of x bill that could shed light into the view they held?
You stated in a prior thread: The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing. It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer.
Of course, as members of a particular party they will have similar views; if you wish to denounce a whole due to that, well go right ahead but don't hide it under the "they're all the same" nonsense. It appears rather foolish when the differences at that point, under those similar issues, are key, and you brashly attack the whole without giving proper thought to the true differences.
Nuance, sirs. Grasp its basics. It can be your friend. Really. :P
I have no doubt that any of the major political issues that required legislative voting on, they're all on the same page. Their rhetoric alone demonstrates that position
You know, if any lefties or moderates said that about republicans you'd be shouting "source it". So, sirs, source it.
-
ahhh, the ever famous "conservatives can't understand 'nuance'" tact. Well, suffice to say, when someone says they believe X, I tend to go with what they say. When they ALL say they believe x, I don't think nuance is required to understand that they all believe x. As I said, the differences, which I'm sure there are, are largely in the delivery. The mssage however is pretty much a clone of each others
-
Actually I know of several that can understand nuance. Some are in this forum.
That doesn't mean that because x can that you can ;D ;D ;D
-
Nice thing about this, is nuance isn't required. Same message, simply different packaging