Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mavourneen:
I live about 15 miles from the Capitol. I have no interest in seeing him on tv.

Meh...I watched Dirty Jobs instead.

I predicted his speech would be the same caca he's been spouting for years. And I see this AM that it was exactly that.
A tax cut if you buy insurance? Woo hoo.

Wake me up if someone interesting comes along.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.

Mike Rowe in 2008!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
For those of you who missed it, here's the summary of it: "Give war a chance".

Everything else was filler.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.

---

I couldn't agree more.

You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mavourneen:

I am informed.
I know what is best for me and mine.
I didn't vote for him.

Check out the 5th post in this thread from me from September. Mike Rowe for President!

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23789

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That is too funny about Mike Rowe, though I tend to agree with Dream about him being a front man.

---

Quote:

---

Bush's speech...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.

---

Which isn't really saying much...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Barring the fact that any FIFTH grader could have done a better job delivering it...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

And if you buy into the demagoguery of either party, well, then, you're not actually, truly informed at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
That guy and the subway rescue....incredible story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
One question I do have to ask, why the two party system? Why does it have to be one or the other ultimatly in charge? I don't really get it.

---

Quote:

---

This guy literally had only a few seconds in which to act, and he didn't hesistate. It's quite an incredible story, and I'm glad he got some air time in front of a national audience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Multiple parties would fragment our psyche, and force us to consider shades of grey...we would stand helpless at the buffet of political possibilities, unable to choose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

Read: people who don't agree with me are ignorant morons (I believe it's vital to quote Cartoon, as he has a habit to change his words after the fact to discredit others).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

One question I do have to ask, why the two party system? Why does it have to be one or the other ultimatly in charge? I don't really get it.

---

Quote:

---

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument ­ the "weak or non­committal."

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well­trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth.

---

Quote:

---

And I am not just saying that because Cartoon happened to agree with me earlier.

---

Quote:

---

Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?

---

Quote:

---

Hmmm. I guess it's time to dust off this video that was making the rounds before the 2004 election (I was hoping that someone had YouTubed it, and they had ). It's a comparison of Bush's speaking ability during the 1994 Texas Governor debate and the 2004 Presidential debate. Different than reading a teleprompter, but if 2007 State of the Union Bush is less impressive than 1994 Governor Debate Bush, that would really suck for AURaptor's claim.

Anyone have any links to SOTU 07 video footage that we can compare?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.

---

Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.

---

I couldn't agree more.

You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

So, people are only "turly informed" if they agree with you?

I agree though, if people were better informed, November's elections may well have been different. We may have gotten rid of even more of the "do nothing congress". I imagine if people were better informed, the last couple Presidential elections would have been quite different as well. I think it's safe to say if everyone knew then what we know now, Dubya wouldn't be let anywhere near the White House.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, yes, it was a strawman. All Cartoon said was that there are people in the US who whine instead of informing themselves about the issues. And I doubt anyone will disagree with that. Your response was then to rephrase Cartoon’s argument to mean something that he did not say, which would allow you to criticize him. That’s a strawman.

---

Quote:

---

You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

---

Quote:

---

If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:

- Bush SOTU '07, Illegal Immigration

Soup, now I'm worried about Mr. Bush. He may have serious problems, and we should try to help him, not ridicule him (and I mean this in a very non-sarcastic way). Of course, I didn't really find a lot on Dr. Joseph M. Price (stupid broken links) - I'm not sure whether the Dr. is because he's a professor, or because he actually has a doctorate - but, still... Bush 1994 (and even Bush 2000) were just wow. Wow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

But still, limiting the choices to two parties seems, silly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShinyEd:

something MODERATE...could call it The American Moderate Party?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
We need the 'American Whatever' party. (Whatever the issue is, we'll consider it from whatever point of view that best serves the people!)

Crap. I hung a name on it....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.

---

Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.

Thanks for pointing that out though, I hadn't read Storymarks post, I largely skimmed this thread you see.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.

---

How else is this to be taken except 'if they knew what they were talking about they'd stop whining'?

Just so we're clear, whining is the word that tends to be attributed to a position that one disagrees with .

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).

---

In other words if people were informed the election would have gone differently, people wouldn't have voted democrat and would have voted republican, like Cartoon does. Or, as I said, you either agree with Cartoon or you are uninformed.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth.

---

Actually I directly quoted him, right there for all too see, and now given clear reasons as to why I made the assertions I did, so try again, because this accusation is clearly erroneous. Oh and it's also a Strawman and a Red Herring because you both made up my argument and motivation for me.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?

---

Before commenting on the address, probably, but Cartoon wasn't talking about the address, he was talking about the election, it's right there in the quote if you care to take a look.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the “American ﺦ Party.” The Party formerly known as ...

---

Quote:

---

While I disagree with the vast majority of things I read on the internet, I've never once resorted to the tactics of these individuals, and their comments say more about themselves than they do about those who disagree with them. Those with whom I disagree, yet conduct themselves in a respectful manner (several persons in this thread come to mind) are worthy of my time. Those who don't, are not.

---

Quote:

---

Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that? ... Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?

---

Quote:

---

Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No. I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony. Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
How do I classify THAT response?

---