For pity’s sake, Riboflavin, incessant calls for cites do not an argument make. You wanna suggest Edwards is dishonest, that’s up to you to prove. I can’t prove a negative, and proving that someone hasn’t told any significant lies is a negative.
But for what it’s worth, Jesse Helms’s political machine ran Lauch Faircloth’s campaign against Edwards back in 2000, and dug up fuck-all on him. Given previous campaigns run by that team in North Carolina, if there’d been anything in Edwards’s past, I’m pretty sure they would’ve used it.
That’s the last cite I’m giving you until you learn how to argue. Lounging back and typing empty challenges, especially things like, “it sounds like campaign rhetoric to me,” is simply blowing hot air. If you’ve got something substantive to say, based on facts, by all means share.
What the hell are you talking about? You were the one who asked for this kind of test!
Gee. Maybe that’s why I said it was unreliable over and over. Ya think? Go back and reread why I offered it.
Maybe because I didn’t: I mentioned in my first post that he had a shitty sophomore year, but went on to graduate cum laude. You’re the one ignoring half of his record, not me.
Incessant assertions like “The man is squeaky-clean, honesty-wise” unbacked by fact or specifics do not an argument make.
You said “The man is squeaky-clean, honesty-wise,” so it’s up to you to support it, since you offered the statement. You and Evil Captor both seem to think that glowing statements about your candidate, like ‘he’s a better person’ or ‘he’s squeaky-clean’ have to be accepted as fact by other people, going so far as to mock me in steroe for asking for a cite on Evil Captor’s assertion. “Two guys who don’t like Bush say that Edwards and Liebrman are better than him!” simply doesn’t put any burden of proof on me.
That goes to Edwards’ congressional voting record, not to any kind of information about what policies he would implement as president. It is therefore absolutely worthless for answering the question “What policy differences can we expect based on this - for all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it’s not like Bush is seeking to disband the EPA?” which you posted it in response to.
That’s a collection of columns by Edwards, and they’re all vague, and therefore don’t answer the question posed of “Where are the specifics to this “$500 tax rebate to poor families”, and the details of the ‘tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy program’?”. It doesn’t have the specifics of Edward’s plan (what is an energy tax cut? - I don’t think I pay $500/year in something that could be called energy taxes, for example), and it doesn’t offer any explanation of how Bush’s tax breaks are ‘for the wealthy’. You’re trying to support your assertion that Bush provides tax breaks for the wealthy with Edwards simply asserting it, which is hardly worthy of being called an argument.
Also, the above cite contradicts your earlier claim that Edward’s plan includes “a $500 tax rebate to poor families to offset heating bills” - according to your own cite “I [Edwards] am proposing a one-time energy tax cut of $500 per family. This tax cut will put money into the pockets of Americans who will spend it where they need it most.” It’s not limited “to poor families” as you claimed, and the “to poor families” was rather key to how you were distinguishing it from Bush.
You also failed to address the broader question of what we could expect from Edwards in 2004, and this article doesn’t offer much, merely that what he’s proposed now definately won’t be what he does as president. An article about how “we need a strong but temporary shot in the arm for the economy,” doesn’t really have much bearing on what will happen 2 years down the road.
I think the problem is that I argue too well; rather than let you blather on about “The man is squeaky-clean, honesty-wise”, or recycle old comedy routines on ‘Bush is so dumb’, or blather on with campaign rhetoric about how he’d fix the economy without any specifics, I’ve called you on all of them.
Claiming “The man is squeaky-clean, honesty-wise” is blowing hot air. Claiming that an across-the-board tax cut is “for the poor” for your guy but any across-the-board tax cut is “for the wealthy” for the other guy is blowing hot air. Going on about “daddy issues” with no facts (not yours) is blowing hot air.
Sure: There really isn’t a substantive difference between any of the likely democratic candidates and Bush.
I’m talking about the fact that the SAT alone is not indicative of an intelligence difference (and I didn’t ask for SAT scores alone) combined with the fact that even your cherry-picked grades (“their lives diverged at the point where the evidence doesn’t support me” is cherry picking) and completely imaginary IQ test results don’t show a significant intelligence difference, much less one candidate being ‘dumb’ compared to the other.
I’m also talking about the rather more interesting fact that you haven’t, despite being asked over and over, explained how a difference in intelligence that your own evidence shows is at best marginal makes a signficant difference in the two candidates and what they’ll do as president.
So Bush made a 1206 on his SATs? I’m guessing that would be closer to a 1300 on todays recentered SAT. Gore’s would probably be somewhere around 1400.
Hell, I only got a 1300 on my SAT and I have a 140 IQ. Granted I was drinking before the test and I did much better percentage-wise on the ACT and on the GMAT, but I doubt George is an idiot. He simply inherited his father’s speaking ability. He also has a hard west-texas accent
Then let me pull out my crystal ball and show you visions of the future. Other than using my extra-special psychic powers, what would constitute evidence for what a senator would do as president, before he’s put forward a detailed campaign platform?
Cite? Two can play this absurd game.
I saw you ask me that once. It was a ridiculous request, since you were the one asking for proof that Gore was smarter than Bush. I provided you with the best available evidence of the type you asked for, provided you with some educated guesses where some of your requested evidence wasn’t available, and provided some analysis of the evidence. Your inability to recognize the difference between SAT scores and unwillingness to recognize that it’s harder to earn good grades while you’re working one or two jobs in addition to grad school is really not my problem.
And there’s no way I’m going to argue that a difference in intelligence indicates a difference in presidential ability. First, I never claimed that. Second, given your unwillingness to understand numbers, I’ve had enough beating my head against a wall for one week.
I cite the Sierra Club website, which you earler used, and which makes no mention of an attempt by Bush to actually disband the EPA; one would expect the Sierra Club to mention such an attempt. Do you want me to cite something about Bush not seeking to disband the FBI, too?
Something better than a link to his voting records, such as statements by him on what he’ll do as president. A campaign platform would be good, though he obviously doesn’t have one yet, but what would be required is something indicating what he plans to do. Going to what he’s voted for as a Senator is pretty well worthless; senators don’t get elected by the same pool of people as presidents, and very often a senator running for president will not run with the same platform he used while running for Senate. For example, Al Gore’s voting record as a Senator from Tennessee would not predict the platform he ran for president and VP under, most notably he had an A rating from the NRA for his voting, but ran on a plaform in favor of gun control (both as VP and in his own bid).
I cite this thread, where the best you’ve been able to do is post nonsense like “Edwards is squeaky clean, honesty-wise” and recycle old “Bush is Dumb” material from 2-year-old comedy acts.
When someone states that Lieberman is smarter than Bush, it’s hardly “ridiculous” for me to ask both for evidence that Lieberman is smarter than Bush and for an explanation of how said intelligence gap translates into qualifiaction for president. Since you seem to forget, my first requrest was “What actual facts lead you to say that Lieberman is more intelligent? **What effect does that intelligence have on his qualification as president **(I wouldn’t vote for Einstein as president, for example)?”
Evil Captor responded to that with “I despise Lieberman, but I’m sure he’s much more intelligent than Bush. Gore was MUCH more intelligent than Bush.” and I asked for a cite supporitng that (not just the Gore part, mind you) - oh, and yet again said mentioned that “It also doesn’t, as I’ve said before, really address the issue of how that intelligence would affect their ability to do the job, but just getting to some convincing evidence of who’s actually smarter would be interesting.”
Your provided evidence did not support the statement “Gore was MUCH more intelligent than Bush.”, which was part of what I was asking for a cite for. Did you notice that “MUCH” in all caps in the original? And I think it was pretty clear to anyone who read my post (and the thread title) that the Gore part was of secondary importance.
Why did you even jump in to that part of the thread if you don’t think that a difference in intelligence makes a difference in presidential ability? I don’t see how anyone can read my post and miss that that I one of the key things I was asking for in the post. Let’s see: you provided evidence that supports saying that Gore is slightly smarter than Bush, but nothing to support the “Gore was MUCH more intelligent than Bush,” statement you offered it as a cite for, neglected to address the other, more important part that my “Cite please” was directed at (hint: Lieberman’s name is in the thread title, Gore’s isn’t), and failed to address the more significant question that I repeated with every mention of the intelligence gap.
My, my. Unless you change your tone, my next response to you will be in the pit, because I’m really getting sick of this. It’s pretty obvious that I understand the numbers far better than you do. A 150pt SAT difference, quite small GPA advantage arrived at by cherry-picking grades, and <1 standard deviation IQ score difference even with a made-up IQ score do not constitute evidence that “Gore was MUCH more intelligent than Bush,” which is the statement you offered them in support for. They are evidence of a marginal intelligence difference (as I’ve told you repeatedly), but not the “MUCH more intelligent” which you’re trying to support with them.