Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty argued earlier against the idea that FDR misled the public about his intentions on getting the US involved in WWII.

No, I said I wanted more than a single sentence from a single speech that Penske found amidst the cartoons and photoshopped images on a website somewhere.

For a lawyer, you don't read too good.

He also was skeptical about the fact the public buses where flooded during the Hurricane. Was he not questioning "common knowledge at these junctures"?

No, since there is a big difference between "common knowledge" and "images posted by Penske." As a relative newber, I suppose it's possible that you haven't noticed this yet.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What use is there in posting evidence if you are going to misread it in this fashion?

And I thought you might bother to read The Economist.

I read the article (or at least the portions cited in that ridiculous Blog article) and I did not misread it. But this is all so ridiculous. The Economist did not draw the conclusion that Bush doctored the numbers. They said there are facts that make it seem possible and there is reason to believe that is was in their interest to do so. But unlike you, they never implied that they had a smoking gun (conclusive evidence), so they did not make any conclusions.

Know one knows whether Bush intentionally inflated the numbers except for people in the Bush administration. And at this point no one seems to be talking. So we really don't know do we?

Of course you seem to think that it is a fact. Are you privy to inside sources at the White House that I am not aware of?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, since there is a big difference between "common knowledge" and "images posted by Penske." As a relative newber, I suppose it's possible that you haven't noticed this yet.

well I know a little something about photoshopping, and I know that people wouldn't think to make the image if there wasn't truth there.

See smoke? look for fire!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I said I wanted more than a single sentence from a single speech that Penske found amidst the cartoons and photoshopped images on a website somewhere.

For a lawyer, you don't read too good.

Why would we care what you want? To most everyone else this was common knowledge. It was like you were asking for a cite showing that Thomas Jefferson was the third president. Why would we find such a cite for you; something we all know to be obviously true?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, since there is a big difference between "common knowledge" and "images posted by Penske." As a relative newber, I suppose it's possible that you haven't noticed this yet.

You demand a cite to demonstrate to you something we already know, and yet, you seem to think that I should conlude that Bush intentionally overestimated the numbers, where all you have is conjecture and no direct evidence.

Any thing negative about Roosevelt, you need more than one cite (more than that speech as if that wasn't enough and even though everyone on the board is saying it is common knowledge) but you make a negative conclusion about Bush based purely on speculation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would we care what you want? To most everyone else this was common knowledge. It was like you were asking for a cite showing that Thomas Jefferson was the third president. Why would we find such a cite for you; something we all know to be obviously true?





You demand a cite to demonstrate to you something we already know, and yet, you seem to think that I should conlude that Bush intentionally overestimated the numbers, where all you have is conjecture and no direct evidence.

Any thing negative about Roosevelt, you need more than one cite (more than that speech as if that wasn't enough and even though everyone on the board is saying it is common knowledge) but you make a negative conclusion about Bush based purely on speculation.

2 as to everything, except I would change "a negative conclusion" to "biweekly warped insane charges."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are the rest of you just Dems because it is cool, but in reality are just greedy capitalists that don't care about people that are more unfortunate than you?

Said the real estate speculator. (I know, I know . . . you help people.)

Speaking of which, looking into some properties in New Orleans?

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
If I was poor I would take their money. Hell I would take their money now.

I think Kennedy really cares. He may be a pig, but he is a pig that does care about the less fortunate. Is there really any evidence to show he is corrupt. I don't think he has ever gained financially from his public service.

Am I wrong?

I am emailing Mary Jo Kopechne to get her thoughts. I will let you know what I find out.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Nagin, Blanko and the NO city and State of LA governments would need 50 or 60 years to achieve the same result. Perhaps the government should turn the city over to Starwood.

Maybe we're giving Nagin a bum rap.

Of the purportedly hundreds and hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome, the final actual total was SIX.

Yes, SIX.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would we care what you want? To most everyone else this was common knowledge. It was like you were asking for a cite showing that Thomas Jefferson was the third president. Why would we find such a cite for you; something we all know to be obviously true?

Indeed, an excellent standard to facilitate discussion. If we all adopt it, the board will be the better for it.

For example, it is common knowledge, accepted by millions (perhaps even billions around the globe) that "Bush Lied and People Died."

Just accept it (and stop asking for proof) so that we can all move on.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would we care what you want? To most everyone else this was common knowledge. It was like you were asking for a cite showing that Thomas Jefferson was the third president. Why would we find such a cite for you; something we all know to be obviously true?





You demand a cite to demonstrate to you something we already know, and yet, you seem to think that I should conlude that Bush intentionally overestimated the numbers, where all you have is conjecture and no direct evidence.

Any thing negative about Roosevelt, you need more than one cite (more than that speech as if that wasn't enough and even though everyone on the board is saying it is common knowledge) but you make a negative conclusion about Bush based purely on speculation.

2. The line in the speech I pulled was typical of Roosevelt's stump campaign rhetoric, all of which is part and parcel of a campaign that he ran that was based on not going to war in Europe. For that period this is as common knowledge as the fact that Hitler engaged in a campaign of genocide against the jews of Europe. Or, like the Palestinians, is Ty denying that historical fact too?????


As for the buses, the fact that Ty is still heding acceptance of them is beyond the pale.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Maybe we're giving Nagin a bum rap.

Of the purportedly hundreds and hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome, the final actual total was SIX.

Yes, SIX.

That's six more than died at the Starwood hotel chain's hotels.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty argued earlier against the idea that FDR misled the public about his intentions on getting the US involved in WWII. He also was skeptical about the fact the public buses where flooded during the Hurricane. Was he not questioning "common knowledge at these junctures"? Why should I have looked for cites to back this stuff up?

Why should I look up cites to demonstrate that the bond markets were disappointed in the 93 deficit reduction act? I am confident it happened. Why should I care if he believes it? If I spent my time finding cites to obvious facts that would negatively effect Tys twisted perception of reality it would be a 24/7 job.

The reason to look it up is because it is critical to your argument that the tax increases of 1993 were not necessary to balance the budget. That, in turn, is critical to your idea that the Democrats are intrinsically incapable of seeking to balance the budget (originally based on your incorrect statement that the Democrats had not voted a balanced budget in 50 years).

I assume you'd like to convince someone in that argument, perhaps me, for example. But, yes, if the only reason to look something up is to score points, and you don't want to convince anyone of your position, I do not believe those points will get you any frequent flyer miles and I'm sure there are better things to do with the time.

I did not see the discussion on FDR. Was it about the famous and oft-repeated line from him about "your boys will not die in any foreign wars"?

There has been a lot of work done on whether FDR had an actual change of heart or was purposely misleading in his campaign, and I think the consensus among historians is that he pushed the line early and kept to it, because it got big responses from the crowd, but that by the time of the election he had a pretty good idea war was unavoidable. Still, he may have believed it enough to wait for Pearl Harbor before getting in the war, even as England stood alone, and many think this delay was an enormous mistake that may have substantially prolonged the war.

[Captain]

What is all this stuff about buses? Just curious.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. The line in the speech I pulled was typical of Roosevelt's stump campaign rhetoric, all of which is part and parcel of a campaign that he ran that was based on not going to war in Europe.

That is absolutely true -- and was essential to FDR's election in 1940, since much of America at that time was strongly isolationist.

But what was/is your point?

[See Penske, that's one of the problems with your prolix style and use of photshops and hyperbole and babyjesuschrist superstars -- sometimes you actually have a point, and it gets lost.]

S_A_M

P.S. Fortunately for the world -- the Japanese took care of that problem by attacking the U.S.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ironweed
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Cut that shit out right fucking now
Because I know where you live.

Your rhymes are for shit,
and your persuasion is poor:
You know where I live
But don't call anymore.

(Sniff.)

Still, since I got bored
And started this mess,
My verses may bug you,
But at least I post less.