Four More Years...

Hi holmes,It's almost as if we're having two different conversations. For instance: Other than thinking this hasn't become a significant enough issue to be worth paying attention to, I have no position. If in your view there's enough evidence to reach that conclusion, then fine. I don't hold the honesty of any politician in high regard, so you haven't exactly caught my interest yet. I have no idea what this means. Did the issues you raised about Bush and Enron and Ken Lay and Cheney and notes come up in the debate or not? But not as hilarious as you assigning me positions on issues on which I haven't commented. How you get this from my question "Did Enron-gate come up?" is beyond me. Perhaps, but the title he chose was Four More Years..., which broadens the scope. I thought Nader's entry was just the impetus that raised berberry's concern levels about Bush's reelection chances. You could ask berberry, I suppose.--Percy

quote:

---

If in your view there's enough evidence to reach that conclusion, then fine. I don't hold the honesty of any politician in high regard, so you haven't exactly caught my interest yet.

---

It's not just my opinion, and is this entire thread all about YOU? I wasn't even talking to YOU. YOU WROTE ME!Can you stop writing your opinions to me, debating points I make to other people when/if you have NO interest in them. You said the facts were debatable. Certainly conclusions of illegality are... the facts are not! That's all I ever said.

quote:

---

Did the issues you raised about Bush and Enron and Ken Lay and Cheney and notes come up in the debate or not?

---

Well I can't say really, and who can. I mean does anyone really have a transcript or something we can read which would be evidence? Oh sorry, I don't really care about this topic anyway.*

quote:

---

But not as hilarious as you assigning me positions on issues on which I haven't commented. How you get this from my question "Did Enron-gate come up?" is beyond me.

---

Sorry for poor paragraph structure. That sentence was actually referring to your earlier assertion that it wasn't really an issue for the democrats in general during the election, and not your question regarding last night's debate in specific.

quote:

---

which broadens the scope.

---

Just for you? Why does "Four more years..." not include facets of Bush's administration of this country that other people may feel is important?Either way the first post was clearly about Nader which would certainly open the door for commentary from his position.But you are the one that has thrust this topic upon me, and painted me into believing that is some major issue. I don't think so at all. All I did was bring it up to TC, then you made a false claim. Sorry if I felt I had to rebut your false claims.If you are interested, the major issues as I see them are:1) The Bush doctrine. This concept of unilateralist action, and pre-emptive military action, is to my mind quite dangerous and reversing strides the international community has taken toward world peace. It has already set very bad precedents, and weakened relations with important allies.2) National Security. His doctrine aside, he has done a terrible job creating real security. The number of intelligence failures allowed to go unpunished is just a small part of the picture. We are still at an equal level of threat that someone can hijack a plane because he has not acted on point security.3) Health Care. Universal healthcare is a necessity. The idea that socialized healthcare for profit is better than socialized healthcare not for profit is just kind of silly to me.4) Balanced Budget. This guy does not tax and yet he spends on frivolous pursuits. The fact that he went from black to red and it just keeps going down is the opposite of what I like. I am actually quite conservative when it comes to economics.5) Tax Reform. He actually believes it is best to tax people who work and not tax people who invest. That is so backward I do not know where to begin. He is also against streamlining the tax code. I was actually with Dick Armey for simplification (althought I would have liked a slightly more graded one than he proposed).Notice Enron is not on my top 5. It's probably not even in my top 10. I never said it was.*- now to answer your question, as an honest debater does. No, if I remember right they did not mention Enron or Ken Lay by name at all during the debates. I was saying that they did discuss his dishonesty. The Enron issue plays to that characteristic and the Democratic Party does bring up Enron with regard to that from time to time.[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-27-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi holmes,This is just the type of discussion I was hoping to avoid by keeping my replies brief and to the point. I never felt right about disengaging from you in other discussions by simply not replying to you, so I was trying to be polite and explain why I was disengaging. Instead now we're in the middle of one of these pointless blame games. Pretty childish, huh, but hey, it's Friday and I don't feel like working! Threads are a conversation between a group of people. There are no restrictions on who can talk to who.But more importantly, if you examine the Message List for this thread you'll see that you were replying to the Message 15 subthread that I started. Anyone is welcome to join any conversation with me, but I just wanted to correct your misimpression that I barged unwelcome into your conversation. You mentioned something I hadn't heard about Bush, and it seemed like a real scandal could affect the election, so I asked what you had. You told me. I replied, in effect, that it didn't seem like much, and I thought that would be it. Instead, you've hounded me and hounded me to explain why I don't find your evidence convincing. I seem to have a lot in common with the democratic candidates for president, who evidently don't find the issue sufficiently compelling to even bring it up in a nationally televised debate. Why do you think that is, holmes? Let met get this straight. You've made this big deal over something that not only isn't in my top 10, it isn't even in your top 10? Sheesh! --Percy

quote:

---

But more importantly, if you examine the Message List for this thread you'll see that you were replying to the Fat Cat Heaven! (Message 15) subthread that I started.

---

Well I will totally apologize if my responding to someone that was responding to you is somehow a response to you. I did not realize posts with topic headers were actually subthreads. I am not saying any of this sarcastically. I was only trying to make a point with TC and was not about your subthread.

quote:

---

You told me. I replied, in effect, that it didn't seem like much, and I thought that would be it.

---

I did not hound you to come to my conclusion. You appeared to be saying that the facts and not just the conclusions were debatable. It is this distinction which I have been asking you to make, and what I have hounded you for an answer on. I have even said if it is just the conclusions I have no problem.I am uncertain why you keep dodging that direct question, unless your problem is with the points of fact, and yet you do not want to have to answer (with evidence) for calling my points into question (for which I have provided plenty of evidence).

quote:

---

I seem to have a lot in common with the democratic candidates for president, who evidently don't find the issue sufficiently compelling to even bring it up in a nationally televised debate. Why do you think that is, holmes?

---

Ohhhhhh percy. This is really sad. Did you even watch the debate? Kucinich and Sharpton kept trying to raise new points of argument which either the moderators or Kerry and Edwards cut off. Indeed there were points brought up by the moderators which Kerry and Edwards cut off... AND there were issues that Kerry and Edwards tried to discuss but were cut off by the moderators.All of them seemed pretty miffed that the moderators kept coming back to gay marriage as like THE focal point of possible debate. It was that or what is the difference between Kerry and Edwards. There was even an interview with one of the moderators afterward where she said those were the questions she was trying to get answered.Why didn't they mention it specifically? They didn't mention EVERYTHING and Enron is certainly down on the totem pole as I myself pointed out.

quote:

---

Let met get this straight. You've made this big deal over something that not only isn't in my top 10, it isn't even in your top 10? Sheesh!

---

If someone came on and said they were against Kerry because he believed in evolution and that was obviously wrong, because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE for evolution... it's all fallacies and contradictory facts no one can really know... you'd probably address that comment whether it was part of the election or not. (Which by the way they did not address faithbased programs in the debate and that is an issue, right?).If you admit that the points I made were correct, they are substantiated, then there is no problem. If you try to end on statements which make it look like there is some sort of question about these points, then I cannot let it rest... because it is a fallacy on your part.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh, holmes, this is really sad. You already know I didn't watch the debate. I'm just going by what you told me just previously in Message 77 where you said they didn't: Moving on: I haven't addressed your facts because you presented a moving target. This is just one of the reasons I'm so reluctant to debate with you. You start with one claim, then make it less and less outrageous in successive posts all the while disclaiming how could someone object to something so reasonable. I just don't want to have anything to do with it. For example, in this thread you started with this: Which by the done you were done with your refinements had become this: This is one reason why, unless a topic is central to my primary interests, that I'd prefer not to debate you. It's just too much work. Oops, halftime's over, gotta go...--Percy

quote:

---

I haven't addressed your facts because you presented a moving target.

---

All I did was shorten my comments because I get lazy writing the same thing again. In fact in rewriting I may have even changed the order of the list. My only purpose was to refresh your memory that there were questions still unanswered. Pick any list, and the points are covered.In fact of both #1's you listed the points within each were clearly supported to point of what should be common knowledge (are you really questioning those points?). So what's the difference if they read slightly differently (mainly in length)?I like the way you make out like it was my changing points that made you not answer the first time I asked my question. That makes lots of sense. If you answered, I wouldn't have had to rewrite the list.

quote:

---

This is one reason why, unless a topic is central to my primary interests, that I'd prefer not to debate you. It's just too much work.

---

Yeah, I can relate. You start by discussing Enron apparently as an issue people should be concerned about (and alluding to Republicans not caring about it)... TC says Republicans are taking care of Enron... I ask him if he is willing to take that investigation wherever it leads (alluding to Republicans not really going to do so)... Then you come at me suggesting there is no real evidence... and by the end of your refinements you make out like you never cared about things like Enron and it isn't an issue in this election.This of course begging the question why a guy who says he is so like the cadidates he'd never mention Enron, did in fact mention Enron.Ad hoc always fails you percy, and so does trying to play neutral when your obvious purpose is to ignore evidence that one of your statements is wrong.So yeah, if you don't care to address whether the points are right or not (pick either list), then we're done. I'd almost be grateful if you never replied to any of my posts outside of science again... you can't seem to figure out what you actually care about or think.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Does that make two people now that Holmes doesn't want to reply to him?

Yes, I did indeed start this topic with the intent of finding out what impact you all feel Nader will have on this year's election. Given that so many Nader voters in 2000 said they probably would have voted for Gore under other circumstances, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to propose that had Nader not been involved Gore might well be president today.It doesn't really matter to me if the topic takes a different turn, especially since this is the FFA forum. But my own preference is to stick to one specific point when discussing politics, and this was the point I wanted to discuss.

Honestly, it wouldn't have taken that many. If you assumed that one percent of the Nader voters in Florida had voted for somebody else (instead of not voting at all if Nader wasn't a choice), and that about 60% of those people had voted for Gore instead of one of the other guys, then Gore would have indisputably carried Florida.Or that's what I heard, anyway. I guess we could dig up the data and do the math ourselves.

I suddenly wake up at 4 AM realizing I forgot to do something critical before quitting work last night, so I come down to fix it and, what a shock, a reply from you! Uh, I don't think so. Let's take a closer look, shall we? Significantly, you go from "Bush was close friends with Ken Lay" to "Bush knew Ken Lay."And you go from Bush "lying...that he really didn't know a man he had previously called 'Kenny Boy'" to no mention.That the former Governor of Texas knew the head of one of the largest companies in Texas is no surprise. In fact, what would have been surprising is if he didn't know Ken Lay. Yet you cite it as "evidence"? Even if Bush and Ken Lay were "close personal friends" I wouldn't put any stock in it because I have no way of knowing if they mean it or if it's just political-speak where everyone they know is a "close personal friend."The rest of your evidence is of a similar nature, nothing hard, just implication and inuendo. Congress is seeking evidence, Cheney won't turn over papers, Scalia hasn't recused himself, Ken Lay influenced the White House on energy policy, and the energy companies scammed CA. Now you're just making it up. I never discussed Enron, not even after you introduced the Enron-gate issue. I suggest you reexamine Message 15 from me and going forward if you think otherwise. And I had never even heard of Enron-gate until you brought it up. I have no idea what makes you think we were discussing it. In Message 24 after your initial mention of the issue I asked: You gave your "evidence" in Message 33, and in Message 35 I said: And that was that. And to you this is a discussion of Enron-gate? Sheesh! You're making it up again, holmes. I've never made any statement about my level of concern about the Enron collapse and it's aftermath, but I have been very clear all along in saying that your Enron-gate issue doesn't blip on my radar. I suggest you reread the thread. You're making it up again. I suggest you read Message 78 again. Here, I'll quote it for you: Gee, what do you know! I never said I'd never mention Enron! Why would I say that since back in Message 15 I mentioned it in my quip to Crash. We're talking about your issue, holmes, which isn't mentioning Enron in a quip, but is Enron-gate, a potential scandal involving inappropriate influence of elected officials. You're making it up yet again. If we're talking about Enron-gate (and I feel I have to keep making sure of that, because you're statements are so bizarre it's like we're having two different conversations, like we're talking uncomprehendingly past each other), then it is impossible that one of my "statements is wrong" because I haven't made any statements regarding Enron-gate. Unless you count where I say I don't believe there's enough to go on yet. On the contrary, I *do* know what I "care about and think." I think your "evidence" isn't worth much, and I don't care about the issue at this time and am not interested in discussing it. But, hey, ain't we having fun anyway? By the way, I see berberry has weighed in that he was primarily interested in the Nader impact. My stance on this hasn't changed from Message 4, which is that the Nader impact is minimal because it appears the Democrats are intent on nominating the man Bush could probably beat anyway. I thought your points about why Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for Gore were pretty much on the money, partcularly the first one about not carrying his home state. Interesting that Leiberman didn't do better this year - his widespread appeal in 2000 (TN notwithstanding) seemed to presage a more impressive showing in a shot at the ticket's top spot this year.--Percy

quote:

---

Does that make two people now that Holmes doesn't want to reply to him?

---

Actually I think it makes 4: Syamsu, Rrhain, Percy, and someone whose name I forgot at this point. Granted I have cut some slack for the first two already, and for Percy it is just for political topics.Once it appears useful communication is almost never had, it just seems to make sense not to waste anyone's time starting something. I've noted before that I never respond to Brad McFall's posts. Even if it is brilliant I can't tell what the hell he's saying and so why bother him...[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-28-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

what a shock, a reply from you!

---

Why should it be a shock? You keep trying to throw an innuendo grenade at me before jumping into your escape pod. It ain't gonna be that easy.

quote:

---

Significantly, you go from "Bush was close friends with Ken Lay" to "Bush knew Ken Lay." And you go from Bush "lying...that he really didn't know a man he had previously called 'Kenny Boy'" to no mention.

---

Hahahahahaha... those are superficial differences at best. And as I said the whole purpose was to remind you that there were questions on the table, and that you could pick any of the lists. Your charge only makes sense if I am changing the nature of the points, not shortening them down and saying you can use the earlier/longer ones. Sheesh.

quote:

---

Even if Bush and Ken Lay were "close personal friends" I wouldn't put any stock in it because I have no way of knowing if they mean it or if it's just political-speak where everyone they know is a "close personal friend."

---

Meaning you never looked at the links. Boy you'd grill a creationist that pulled this on you. In the links Lay HIMSELF made the close connection, as well as one of his managers discussing their close ties.

quote:

---

Congress is seeking evidence, Cheney won't turn over papers, Scalia hasn't recused himself, Ken Lay influenced the White House on energy policy, and the energy companies scammed CA.

---

Note: I have repeatedly said that these points are points of fact, and YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW A CONCLUSION OF ILLEGALITY FROM THEM. It is your apparent dismissal that there is such a thing as real evidence energy companies scammed CA, when it is FACT, or that Ken Lay was attempting to influence policy, when it is FACT, that is all I am concerned about.If you want to say it isn't conclusive of illegality, fine. But that those facts are facts, is not. It's like a creationist saying there are no transitional fossils, or that radio dating is rigged for a preset conclusion. Even innuedo that they are "possibly wrong" is dead wrong.

quote:

---

Now you're just making it up. I never discussed Enron, not even after you introduced the Enron-gate issue. I suggest you reexamine Fat Cat Heaven! (Message 15) from me and going forward if you think otherwise.

---

One of us is seriously slipping here. Yes, please check out message 15. Better yet let's start with crash's post you were "quipping" about...

quote:

---

What I love is that Americans are more concerned about somebody getting beer money from the guvment than about corporate accounting fraud, outrageous salaries for failure CEO's, and unprecidented Christmas present deregulation for the energy industry.

---

Notice that crash mentions: corporate accounting fraud, and unprecedented Christmas present deregulation for the energy industry.Goddamn if that isn't what I am talking about, especially De-reg-u-la-tion for the ENERGY INDUSTRY. He didn't say Enrongate, and I NEVER said Enrongate... but if those are not talking about the issue I was talking about (effects of energy policy deregulation), then I must be insane.Looks like someone is concerned about deregulating energy policy after all.To which you "quipped" back:

quote:

---

Right you are! The Enron's, WorldCom's and Martha Stewart's of this country can rest easy knowing that attention is focused elsewhere.

---

Is it just me or is that an ENRON in your post? Hmmmmm, he talks about some of the same points I brought up and then YOU replied by mentioning ENRON. That pretty well leaves you being either concerned with Enron's collapse and its aftermath (accounting issues), or their connection to deregulation issues. Unless you were concerned about Lay's severence package from Enron?Thankfully it seems we can widdle things down:

quote:

---

You're making it up again, holmes. I've never made any statement about my level of concern about the Enron collapse and it's aftermath, but I have been very clear all along in saying that your Enron-gate issue doesn't blip on my radar. I suggest you reread the thread.

---

That second sentence seems to indicate your initial quip was not concerning Enron's accounting fiasco, which led to collapse and aftermath. That leaves only two options, with the more likely being Energy deregulation... Or what else were you referring to in crash's post when you mentioned Enron?But let me say I do agree that the Enron collapse is not the issue. I never mentioned it as an issue either. In fact the posts of mine you glossed over, which addressed your question of favors for contributions, was that it was the UNTOUCHED DEREGULATION of the CA ENERGY INDUSTRY which was the favor. They TURNED THEIR HEADS even as CA GOT SCAMMED.Don't believe me? Here is your quote from post #24:

quote:

---

Am I correct in concluding you believe there's been an inappropriate exchange of favors for donations?

---

Yet in your last post you skipped over MY DIRECT REPLY IN POST #32, which reads:

quote:

---

I believe the nature of wrongdoing is more along the lines of not doing something (turning their heads), than actively helping them commit a crime...
PS--- and the influence of energy policy is only a small piece. The scandal regarding the price gouging of Californians by Bush's pals (including Enron I believe) to which he looked the other way is perhaps more important.

---

Now maybe the confusion was in my wording in the PS? The first sentence I suppose would have been clearer if I said "RECENT influence of NATIONAL energy policy being formulated by Dick Cheney", but at the time I figured the second sentence was good enough to set the date back at the mess caused by unrestrained deregulation of CA energy policy.Either way I am uncertain where you got the idea my "Enrongate" had anything to do with the collapse of Enron, as every single link I gave was about the history of the CA energy crisis due to state deregulation, and the emerging connection to Bush through Ken Lay on that crisis, as well as Lay's STATED future aspirations for national energy policy (which do set a pretty good precedent for what the Cheney papers may hold).So to recap... my "Enrongate", which I set out in #32 (and you did not mention) is about the protection of deregulation efforts which occured long before the attempt at establishing national energy deregulation, and long before the collapse of Enron. I'm sorry if the evidence (which Bush's and Lay's own people supplied) ties Bush into it.

quote:

---

I thought your points about why Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for Gore were pretty much on the money, partcularly the first one about not carrying his home state. Interesting that Leiberman didn't do better this year - his widespread appeal in 2000 (TN notwithstanding) seemed to presage a more impressive showing in a shot at the ticket's top spot this year.

---

Thanks. My assessment of why Lieberman really bought the farm this time is that his position was so close to Bush's (that was one of MY problems with them in 2000) that he didn't seem a choice for change. Specifically his support for the Iraq War, and staunch defense of Ariel Sharon (yeah yeah we don't have to get into that). Every time he was asked about these issues, he folded like a house of cards. That did not spell confidence.Or maybe it was because he was a jew? Since you missed the debates you missed a bizarre turn as Larry King was not bothering to look at Kucinich while the guy answered a question. So Kucinich said "Larry!" to get his attention back. Everyone laughed and then Larry King said (as an excuse) "I can look at someone else while listening to you talk. It's an old Jewish trick." At which point Sharpton told him not to get into ethnic stuff like that. That had to set Jews back in politics a number of years... Jewish tricks? Now they'll all seem sneaky even if they are looking at you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"Widdle"?

You know, I don't think I'm as dumb as this conversation, and I don't think you are either, though I'm assuming anyone reading our exchanges already long ago decided we're both hopeless. I hope the reality is that trying to reconstruct meaning and intent is far more difficult than it feels it should be, 'cause if not, well, it ain't pretty!I never said your facts aren't facts. I never said your facts *are* facts. I never said.All I said was that for me your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions. And I said that what you presented didn't arouse my interest. And I said I wasn't interested in debating this further. Of course I didn't look at your links.When you're driving and someone cuts you off, I'll bet you follow them down the highway. Were you a bulldog in a former life? --Percy

quote:

---

All I said was that for me your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions.

---

But, but, but... Why the... You understand this is the answer I was looking for?I had a post specifically stating that I could not tell if you were doubting the evidence or the conclusion or both, and I just needed that answer... it was all I was looking for.And if the above is the conclusion you came to based on the evidence, that is fine. I also said this. If you think all of this back and forth has been stupid, then blame yourself. You could have written the sentence above, when I asked if that is what you meant or not.

quote:

---

Of course I didn't look at your links.

---

Then your statement about your conclusion above is meaningless as you were clearly unaware of evidence before it came up, what was being discussed when it came up, and never looked at it once it was presented to you. You rip on creationists who exhibit this kind of intellectual laziness, yet continue to state conclusions... shame on you.

quote:

---

When you're driving and someone cuts you off, I'll bet you follow them down the highway.

---

Nahhhhhhhh. I'm actually pretty even tempered in real life, you'd be surprised. But I'll tell ya...I'd rather be that than a person who makes statements like "your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions" when I never looked at and never would look at (once actually presented) that person's evidence.

quote:

---

Were you a bulldog in a former life?

---

Nahhhhhhh. I'm a scorpio in this one. Intellectual dishonesty sets off my intellectual defense system. It's a bad habit. I know it. But it doesn't make me wrong... just more annoying than I need to be.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)