Uh ohh....don't look now

[sirs]

The Obama implosion is appearing to have some severe fallout, country wide

[Michael Tee]

McCain's got more guts than Obama.  He's more of a fighter.  I'll give him that.

[Plane]

I have not voted a straight ticket for a long time.

Our Dem congressman is really doing everything I want , except becomeing Republican.

He even skipped the convention.

Would voteing a straight ticket make a positive message strong enough to put up with the idiot the Republicans are running for his seat?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would voteing a straight ticket make a positive message strong enough to put up with the idiot the Republicans are running for his seat?


That would be if you think that voting for someone you consider is an idiot is in any way positive.

[Cynthia]

McCain's got more guts than Obama.  He's more of a fighter.  I'll give him that.

Ok...going to "duck" on this one....but couldn't help but reply

I suppose this means that he DESERVES to be president.

 






One can "deserve" to be a dog catcher. IF one has worked hard being trained for the job of a dog catcher, then it seems to me that  the person deserves to get that job? Does the dog catcher deserve to be the dog catcher "after" being hired? Dog catcher was hired.....elected in office....so therefore he/she DESERVES to be dog catcher at that point in time?

 Obama/McCain are in this run" together and they both indeed deserve to continue that run together until the end. ..and yes, imo, they both deserve to win.
 But, can we not say that they both deserve to win because they've worked so hard to get said job?

I wonder if people are saying that Obama deserves to win based on his race or that McCain deserves it because "it's his time, he fought hard for this county".

Those are real words expressed around the water cooler, no doubt. Can anyone really say those thoughts are not valid? Everyone has opinions, and deserve to have those opinions. Anyone who works hard to get any job deserves to get that job.

So, Sr. Semantics is going to have to  run for office before the jury comes back in with a well deserved decision.

[Plane]

Would voteing a straight ticket make a positive message strong enough to put up with the idiot the Republicans are running for his seat?


That would be if you think that voting for someone you consider is an idiot is in any way positive.

That is the delemma, the person is less and the party is more , but that isn't how I want it.

I have twice now voted for Jim Marshall because he has been a good congressman and still is , but he is unaccountably a Democrat , something like Zell Miller the party has run off and left him , I wonder if he thinks it is comeing back?

[Xavier_Onassis]

As I have said before, "deserve" is a weasel word, utterly useless in any logical discussion.

You can easily argue that a person would be a better choice for a job based on specific abilities or traits or experience, but once you use the word "deserve" you are in the territory where personal value judgments rule, and no logical discussion is possible.

Every year, I have had students come to my office amd tell me that they "deserve" a higher grade than they have earned. Some "deserved" a better grade because they said they studied soooooo hard (I should call their roommate, wife, husband for a reference), or because they were making a higher grade in their other classes (this was rarely true when I checked with other professors), or the college had given them a scholarship and this meant that they "deserved" that higher grade: they had been defined as "A" students, and who was I to contradict that?

I never changed a grade that did not have the points, and I never had a single student go to the grade disputes committee.

"Deserve" is a weasel word that queers any logical argument.

I want to see things in DC change, and I see little chance of this happening with a phony "maverick" who bragged about being in agreement with the bungling, incompetent Juniorbush 90% of the time, including the extremely bad decision on invading Iraq. Palin will have no real power unless McCain croaks. Her expertise is in Alaska, and we should do Alaska the favor of returning her there, where she is an asset. McCain has hired lobbyists for many important jobs in his campaign, so he is quite unlikely to not listen to them.

Change is coming, but McCain is not anyone who will deliver it. He's a McSame as Juniorbush on many, many policy matters: prolonging war, rattling sabers and rewarding the rich for, well, being rich.

The US has no business trying to defend Georgia or  Ukraine from the Russians, because (a) in the case of Georgia, they started the war with the Russians and lost it, and (b) there is no chance that as tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is, the US cannot win a war on Russia's borders. Georgia and  Ukraine do NOT belong in NATO, where they would only be a liability for all the other members and an asset to none.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is the delemma, the person is less and the party is more , but that isn't how I want it.

I have twice now voted for Jim Marshall because he has been a good congressman and still is , but he is unaccountably a Democrat , something like Zell Miller the party has run off and left him , I wonder if he thinks it is comeing back?

===========================================================
If the party is less to you, then vote for the man.
If the party is more, then vote for the party.

Your own personal single vote is quite unlikely to swing the election. It COULD, but the odds are it won't. So you could vote for the idiot and if this Congressman actually won, it might send him a message that you disagree with the party, but it also could send the mesage that you prefer idiots, and make him behave in a more idiotic way.

I think that I would vote FOR the guy I agreed with against the idiot (or the less idiotic), and then write him a letter telling him exactly what you think on whatever issues you consider important.

You seem to have numerous hangups on cultural issues.

I would also run any letter through the spell checker were I you. It will make your letter more convincing.

[Plane]

That is the dilemma, the person is less and the party is more , but that isn't how I want it.

I have twice now voted for Jim Marshall because he has been a good congressman and still is , but he is unaccountably a Democrat , something like Bell Miller the party has run off and left him , I wonder if he thinks it is coming back?

===========================================================
If the party is less to you, then vote for the man.
If the party is more, then vote for the party.

Your own personal single vote is quite unlikely to swing the election. It COULD, but the odds are it won't. So you could vote for the idiot and if this Congressman actually won, it might send him a message that you disagree with the party, but it also could send the mesage that you prefer idiots, and make him behave in a more idiotic way.

I think that I would vote FOR the guy I agreed with against the idiot (or the less idiotic), and then write him a letter telling him exactly what you think on whatever issues you consider important.

You seem to have numerous hangups on cultural issues.

I would also run any letter through the spell checker were I you. It will make your letter more convincing.

Better?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am unclear as to what "better" means here.

[Plane]

I am unclear as to what "better" means here.

Spell checked!

[Xavier_Onassis]

You did, in fact, spell "better" correctly.

Congratulations!

It's dilemma, not delemma, by the way. Otherwise, just fine.

[Cynthia]

"You can easily argue that a person would be a better choice for a job based on specific abilities or traits or experience, but once you use the word "deserve" you are in the territory where personal value judgments rule, and no logical discussion is possible."

Xavier, I have tried to define my use of the word, DESERVE as a personal value judgment all along. That was my point to BT. I did not intend to use it as an argument "punch-point" from the beginning.   I was clearly making a personal statement, which I do believe is my right on this board, as well. Bt wasn't happy with my term of deserve, and I tried to explain that I was simply stating a "personal opinion".



There have been times on here when folks like Sirs (with all do respect, Sirs) refuse to pay any attention to the facts that have been presented by the other personon any given topic. I have yet to see Sirs step on the pedastal of his partyline to listen to what is really happening in a given situation. (the classroom). So, I take the boards serious tone of debate with a grain of salt.  Some men on here want to win the debate. Period. I have tried to discuss, listen learn, discuss again...weigh issues, concede. Hey, I am a newbie here when it comes to politics. I don't have the seasoned political knowledge that you all have. I suppose that's a good thing in a way...as I want to find facts that make sense to many...not stand on a platform for the sake of putting down the other platform.  When some folks on here make others feel like sh*t or refuse to take the debate to a level of a good discussion/debate... that, I find the definition of debate shifting.

Is there really a debate group online that can be pure in that definition? I doubt it. Too many personal responses, feelings and heart-felt emotions. So, I stick with BT's group. He has held this group together for years. I just wish we had more newbies on board to give the group a flavor.

Ok imo.....thus far.
I am not going to enter the NCLB ACT debate here anymore...It's useless. I have tried to show detailed facts on the issue of the act, and it seems that some people(sirs being one) just are not willing to hear these points, no matter what. Perhaps it's party line pride. Oh well., that ok....Sooo,  I will be here as a team mate and pal of the board. 

Cindy

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was in no way criticizing your use of the word "deserve".

It is my opinion that it is basically a weasel word no matter who uses it.

=========================
You know far more about NCLB than anyone else here, because you have personal experience with it.

I think that higher standards in the schools are absolutely essential for the progress of this country. This is very hard to do, because the general temper of American culture is that intellectuals are divorced from reality, anti religious, and probably weirdos, like the Dr Emment Brown inventor character in the Back to the Future films. People in this forum have actually argued that Sarah Palin, with her BA in Journalism from the U of Idaho is intellectually superior to Barak Obama, who has an advanced degree from Harvard and has taught constitutional law. Of course, they have not been to either the U of Idaho (and it is not a bad university at all) or Harvard, but there is a categorical difference between a BA and someone who has taught graduate classes and even undergrad classes. Anyone in education knows this.

The main difference between Harvard and the U of Idaho is that Harvard is a lot harder to get into. Once you are in, I imagine that a dedicated student could get as good an education at one as the other. However, it would be the sort of person who competes against excellence itself, rather than one who competes against other students. The competitiveness factor in Idaho would be lower, I am pretty sure.



It is nearly impossible to change anyone's mind about anything political once the talk show types have pronounced upon any such topic. They will drone on and on and on over something as stupid as how flags and such are disposed of. We know that both parties have to generate a huge amount of what can only be described as patriotic trash, and that nearly all of it is doomed to go to a landfill.

The sane response would be "so what?", of course.

[BT]

People in this forum have actually argued that Sarah Palin, with her BA in Journalism from the U of Idaho is intellectually superior to Barak Obama, who has an advanced degree from Harvard and has taught constitutional law.

Who has argued that?

You know far more about NCLB than anyone else here, because you have personal experience with it.

Perhaps being too close to a subject can be a disadvantage.

Or do you disagree that Cynthia has taken the entire NCLB debate as a personal attack on her own performance in her profession?