packsaddle

Eagledad, you do not understand this interaction. I have not attempted to 'debate' TheScout. I'm still not engaged in a debate. Read my post in which I asked my questions. Not a single one of those questions is a challenge. Each and every one of them is a request for information. He made a statement in which I have an interest. I've engaged in applied, basic, private, public, and now academic research. I merely wanted to know the evidence or source of support he had for his assertions. His assertions were many and so were my questions. I never said that I disagreed with a single one of his assertions. I merely want to know on what basis he makes those claims so that I can DECIDE whether or not to agree with him. I have given him many chances to bring the data, evidence, or sources of support to this forum. He hasn't. Instead, he has attempted to direct the discussion away from my questions. The closest he came to answering is his statement that he doesn't have time to do the research. It is not a clear statement that he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his assertion. That statement leaves its interpretation to the reader. He basically tried to brush me off. His later explanation that he only intended the original assertion to be a generality is pointless. DUH! Of course it was a generality! THAT's part of my reason for asking for the evidence in the first place. Left to interpret his disinterest in actually doing research, I must conclude that his statements about people who DO research must be based on nothing whatsoever and if I hypothesize that his approach is from one of prejudice, he has provided no evidence to the contrary. But even prejudice can have a basis and he hasn't even provided his evidence for THAT. I am still waiting for some evidence for his assertions. Or else an explicit admission that he has no basis for them. Edited Part: typo, and a word change.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisa, I would tend to agree with your assessment. For me, I have many interests in many issues. However, because I am so involved with science and science education, a single issue, while perhaps not enough to persuade my support - nevertheless may be capable of losing my support. In this case Republican support of teaching creationism in science classes is a disqualifier. Otherwise I might be open to other avenues of persuasion.

Again you attempt to avoid the questions. You are hoping I will answer the new question that you just asked in order to open a new line of argument and 'hopefully' everyone will forget the questions I have asked. It is a cowardly approach and, I might add, transparent to everyone who has ever engaged in discussions of ideas. You're not fooling anyone. The best approach for you is to either: Answer my questions and provide the support for your statements, OR admit that you don't have support for your statements, OR merely withdraw in silence with your unsigned form in hand and ready to begin an exciting career in the service sector (private, no doubt).

Although I had actually hoped you would bring to this thread some substantial evidence, your response was sadly what I expected. You are still trying to side-step things. Since you don't seem to remember what the statement was that I was asking about, here it is again: "We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway." THAT was the statement that you wrote. I asked direct, relevant questions about it. Whether or not I disagree is not yet relevant. I am asking for you to give evidence so that I SHOULD BELIEVE YOU. If you cannot substantiate your claims, that alone is sufficient to dismiss them. The onus is on YOU. As for the statement, "To tell you the truth I am too lazy and do not care enough about the subject to do any actual research." The committee would save time and merely exit without another question and without signing the document - the candidate is a charlatan.

YOU made a statement and I asked for you to back it up. You cited a trend in life expectancy that could just as easily be explained by greater cleanliness. You cited not a single line of research, public or private, that you can demonstrate as contributing to that rise in life expectancy. But I didn't ask about life expectancy. You initiated that subject as a lame (and obvious) way to finesse your lack of evidence. In an oral prelim you'd be on your way toward dismissal right now. I asked you direct, relevant questions about your claim and you have not answered a single one of those questions. As a historian I expect you to have real evidence for the claims that you make. Where is it? Answer my questions.

"We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway." It depends but 'we' don't ALL know this. Where are your data? What are your measures of efficiency? How are they calculated? What research is it that you think is totally and completely private? What years were they in which we 'seemed' to get along well without government research? You said there were many years. How many?

That's the spirit, GWD! The 'FAIR TAX' will fix all of this. You have a great day too! BDB, it's not spelled out anywhere. It's the view that emerges by taking the actual policies and stances that ARE spelled out either in words or deeds...and put them together. Is this not obvious?

My family tree has branches. So I wouldn't know.

OGE, during my years living in the mill village and starting a family, I was surrounded by poor, relatively uneducated people whom many might have called, 'rednecks', probably in a disparaging tone. But I found most of them to be thoughtful, modest, generous, and deeply-caring people. There were, to be sure, some who didn't care about much of anything and just a few who were of criminal intent. But I could have said the same thing about the well-educated, middle-class communities in which I have since lived. Actually, I could add that it often seems that the more money some of us have, the more often that's all we care about. But that makes perfectly logical sense, I suppose. Edited part: typos, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

BDB, Now THAT is the every-man-for-himself approach with which I am so familiar. I would just LOVE to see that approach adopted across the board for all social problems. But there is no way that conservative groups would allow it across the board. For one thing, it means that every adult, every young person, every child, every baby, every fetus, and every fertilized egg...would have equivalent individual 'tough luck' status and jeopardy, left to whims of luck, nature, and personal responsibility by the person or the parents. It also means complete rejection of public education, something that I have actually advocated in these threads. I think I am probably alone on that, sigh. And the same goes for most other social concerns. We talk a good talk about high-minded morals regarding single cells but in practically the same breath turn our backs on that organism once it has reached a multicellular stage. This, to me, is not moral relativism, but rather moral hypocrisy. But I'm probably in a minority view on that as well.

Apache Bob, do you think McCain will take NC easily or do you think it's going to be close? A note about policy: neither candidate has credible, realistic policies regarding energy, the economy, health care, probably other issues as well. These are some of the reasons for my pessimism.

I think NJ is right about the 'red herring' of experience. Think about any election where a challenger wins over a sitting president. People tend to raise the 'experience' thing when it supports what they already think or intend to do. "I don't think Obama is unstoppable." I think Obama is easily stoppable. As a matter of fact, I think that the negative aspect of race, alone, is capable of stopping him. It is present and will wield a heavy hand at the polls. I may have grown up in a different time but I still see those forces everywhere. I might have been more optimistic but after what the Republicans did to McCain in 2000, I'm pessimistic. That was the lowest of the low. Edited part: Wow, this could have come a few minutes ago and saved me this edit. I just found out that Palin supports teaching creationism in science classes. That pretty much does it for me. There is no way I can support McCain/Palin.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisabob, My answer to your query is that I have no idea. The choice seems to have given priority to political strategy. On some basis, though, she must have been judged superior to every other Republican, male or female. If you don't think it was based on her experience, what could it have been? While listening to a talk show today, I heard one caller state that he KNEW the levees would fail during hurricane Gustav. He knew this because he knew that the Corps of Engineers had constructed them from newspapers. The levees were papier-mch. He was serious about this. So when you ask your question, the answers could be almost anything, perhaps even something about newspaper.

Eamonn, I can feel your pain. Maggie might have been tough as boiler plate, but...she was HOT! A matter of perspective, perhaps. The one that I still shake my head in wonder at is Blair: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-397106/Proof-Blair-Bushs-poodle---president-calls-My-boy.html Wow. But Jeff Foxworthy is still famous. I always wondered why people around these parts thought so highly of his jabs at THEM. I laughed but looked nervously at my gun-fanatic-Confederate-flag-waving neighbors and wondered why THEY were laughing. Go figure. But I would like to correct one thing. The original connotation for 'redneck' was more descriptive than disparaging. I grew up among country folks who worked hard outside all day and had perpetual sun-burned necks. Most of them were decent, honest, hard-working people. Some of them were and ARE what people in these forums would call 'liberals'. And at least a couple had Ph.D. degrees, for what that's worth. The few ignoramuses who spewed hatred and prejudice (and flew the Confederate flag) gave the rest of the rednecks a bad name. And made that flag a symbol of hate and prejudice. Again, it may be a matter of perspective and if someone didn't LIVE through that time, they might view it differently. Guess which political parties all those guys belong to now.

Heh, heh, Eamonn if you're reading this, they hijacked the OTHER thread, the one about McCain's VP. I just brought this one back to life to see if that other fight could move and take root in its proper habitat.

It proves nothing. It demonstrates that when measures go only half-way to address a problem, you only get half-way solutions.

Yes, the 'trickle-down' economics that David Stockman so eloquently exposed after he finished with the job. This approach has been continued since Reagan with the same spectacular success in providing for those who worship Mammon (and incidentally providing for the national debt). My reference to the Darwinian approach has nothing to do with people dying in the streets. I've been waiting for someone to take me to task for misapplying the namesake, to no avail. I'll keep waiting. But in natural selection, selection does not necessitate death. It necessitates differential reproduction. This is most effectively accomplished for sexually-reproducing eukaryotes by applying some kind of pressure on pre-reproductive individuals (children). In the case of neo-con(federate) thought, this translates into differential income and wealth in lieu of genes. (There actually are some of you who think this IS related to genetics - shhhhh - they're called 'racists') And they are the genesis of the Southern Republicans of modern times, still alive and well I might add, evidently, after what they did to McCain in 2000. OK, back to saying 'nice' things about people. Edited Part: Just looked up COBRA and yes it does help, between jobs at least. It wouldn't have applied to me because at that time we had no savings, no money, just some job prospects for the future. All we had was the ability to incur more and more debt. Or is that the idea with COBRA?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I find it interesting that THAT other thread about McCain's VP selection degenerated into a re-fight of the civil war and ESPECIALLY that self-described history buffs who hijacked it have not done the research to take their arguments to the old threads that have already covered much of this ground. I am reminded of Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And in this case it's the history buffs who are not remembering the past...another one of those delicious ironies. Just for fun, I also resurrected another old thread where this issue was discussed even before this one.

I find it interesting that THAT other thread about McCain's VP selection degenerated into a re-fight of the civil war and ESPECIALLY that self-described history buffs who hijacked it have not done the research to take their arguments to the old threads that have already covered much of this ground. I am reminded of Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And in this case it's the history buffs who are not remembering the past...another one of those delicious ironies. Just for fun, I'll also resurrect another old thread where this issue was discussed yet again.

OK, OGE, I just have one quick correction. No matter how many times I have to write it, it's FLAVOR-AID, not Kool-aid that Jim Jones used for his terminal communion. Sheesh. OK, back to the election. I think I can say some good things about the selection of Palin now. McCain clearly chose the most qualified Republican there is - to be the VP candidate. This much is clear. First of all Palin is obviously far more qualified to take the reins of leadership for our country if something happens to McCain, far more qualified than any MALE Republican. The male Republicans have shown themselves to be ineffective, incompetent, or just plain crooked, that's pretty obvious...every last one of them, and Palin is clearly the superior choice. But Palin is also clearly the most qualified Republican woman. Far more qualified than, say, Rice, or Dole, or Jean Kirkpatrick. Yes, I know Kirkpatrick is dead but I mention her to emphasize that even dead, she'd be a better choice than the Republican males. H'mmm what about Christine Todd Whitman, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Nope, those don't even come close to comparing to the qualifications of Palin. Rice is too shallow and inexperienced. Dole too narrow in her view of the world. Whitman and Hutchinson are also fairly narrow as well as shallow....in comparison to Palin. Yep, I might think of some others but Palin would top them all. Just a note about Feds and their insurance. I was, up until recently, also under one of the optional plans available to Federal employees. Under that plan I was covered, like scoutldr, by a private company and program of my choice, and for which I paid a premium each pay period. I had previously been covered by another private program while in industry and just before going with the Feds my coverage through a state agency was with the EXACT same insurance company as I had with the Feds. In each case I was terminated from the previous program and I had to start over in the new one, even when the insurer was the same. There was nothing portable about any of it. And wouldn't you know it, when we started our family, in between positions, we were totally uninsured and I paid everything out of pocket. This is where the Republicans' Darwinian approach can have the greatest effect. If my child had had some sort of defect there would have been no way I could pay those costs. I would have hocked everything to try, though, and it would have put an economic shackle on this family that I doubt we ever could have overcome. As it was it pushed us to the edge. We almost were selected against. In the pure Republican every-man-for-himself approach, this selective pressure will work very well. Universal health care, on the other hand, will, in the above scenario, allow the proliferation of defects, perhaps all the way into the middle-class. Now there's something to think about.

Sarcastic? Moi? I was just asked to serve on a legislative advisory panel so I'll be cruising into your area frequently this fall and winter. I'd be honored to supply you with a lively discussion any ol' time. And I'm still on the prowl for those invasives in Lake Greenwood. I heard a rumor that they were intentionally introduced...for food. Interesting. Would you eat a benthic organism that grew in Lake Greenwood sediment? I think I'll take the bar-b-que.

gwd, I admit it is a pleasure to have a choice between honorable candidates. And I really am torn on the issues. On one hand, I really like the idea of big government dictating morality. That puts me squarely in the Republican camp (anti-choice). Besides, I'm male and never could have faced this issue anyway. Who cares? And if someone I care about really wants to 'choose', I can fly them to some place where the choice still exists. This is all purely conjecture anyway, because while the Republicans had the whole ball of wax for 6 years, they did almost NOTHING about this issue. I suspect they aren't really that sincere about it anyway. Maybe that's a negative, maybe a plus. Depends, I guess on how one values honesty. I could say something similar about spying on the citizenry, it gives me a secure feeling to know that criminals have fewer tools to commit crimes. At the same time, I kind of like my privacy, and the Republicans seem to want to remove that. And don't forget about GUNS - one of the defining issues of our time. We really need guns. We need more of them. Everywhere, schools, churches, courts. What a perfect world.... I believe in fiscal responsibility. If you can't afford something you shouldn't borrow (steal) from future generations to buy it now. But that was before I read David Stockman's admissions about the Reagan economic policies. They really thought they could spend the government into a position in which we couldn't afford social programs like welfare. They were wrong. Things turned around during the Clinton administration and people were horrified by the thought of using surpluses to pay down debt. Heaven forbid! And I guess in a way, heaven did. Bush sure showed us how to turn that around again. Don't get me wrong, I have significant investments in overseas and multinational corporations so sending trillions of dollars overseas has feathered my nest. I guess I should tip my hat to Bush for these obscene deficits but that 'fiscal responsibility' thing still worries me. That said, McCain is pledged to continue those costly policies so I suspect it will be gravy for me when he gets in. Health care is really a non-issue. We (some of us at least) wring our hands when people who can't affod it get sick and die. Even if I didn't have a morbid fascination at the way the Republicans have cleverly adopted a Darwinian view of the world, I would still have to affirm the presence of the great majority of Americans who reject anything like universal health care. Praise Mammon from whom all blessings flow. Education is also a non-issue. What there is as an issue is being determined by the states. Energy is one of my favorites. Neither candidate has anything close to a realistic energy policy. It's a toss-up between non-policies based on profound ignorance or worse. Interestingly the American people seem to think otherwise. I suspect that the laws of thermodynamics are going to eventually make themselves known in very profound ways. I'll probably be dead, though, before that happens (hint: new motorcycle, really high speeds, post-reproductive thrills). However, our children may get to experience those fabled interesting times. I plan to explore these things a bit more next spring when I teach that course again. I guess those are the high spots for issues. Things like stem-cell research and gay marriage are not really issues at the federal level. Thanks to all our dollars going elsewhere, a lot of research is also going elsewhere. The gay marriage train has left the station. No longer a real issue at all - kind of like birth control decades ago. The real questions have to do with Congress. The Republicans may not get their majorities back. I'll just keep my fingers crossed.

Edited part: I think someone in another thread just claimed they were the color guard. Confirmation anyone?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks Trevorum, you're one of the few who can get away with that. So Scoutldr, do you find the discussions in that other thread full of information, or perhaps uplifting? Do you think you can influence even a single mind by contributing to it? You've tried there, after all. I like the McCain I knew back in 2000. I felt great sorrow for what Republicans did to him during that campaign. I was ashamed of them as a matter of fact. McCain's restraint in response was admirable, I consider it superlative. I still think McCain is a decent, honest, honorable guy. I don't know Palin from Adam's dog. I like Obama because he's very bright, decent, honest, honorable, and obviously has some personal knowledge of what it's like to live as a regular citizen. I like Biden because (after having to forgive an occasional foot-in-mouth) he's extremely knowledgeable of the world, from local to foreign. He also is very bright, decent, honest, and honorable. I wish he was at the top of the ticket. I also liked some of the other candidates with their variety of strengths (and some weaknesses). There isn't even a campaign aid for even the least likely candidate that couldn't bring greater honesty and integrity to the office than George W. Bush did. He and his band of cronies have no honor. And sadly, I think the next administration is going to be shackled to Dubya's mistakes. Therefore, I stand by what I've said for a very long time. I am going to vote for McCain/Palin. Someone please convince me otherwise. Edited part: typo, and OGE, I'm wondering about your comment about Godwin's Law (now that Trevorum essentially made this one conform to it, tee hee). Were you commanding us to do that (the Law part) or did you really think we'd hold back, really? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OGE, I haven't dignified that other thread with a single word. I consider such charged discussions a waste of time. The reason (and I think it will apply to this one as well) is that every individual in such discussions is there to defend their own idea, whatever that is, and not to examine it. There is no sincere and objective desire to have a real discussion. I'll be surprised if such occurs in this one. But I wish you luck.