The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #112647 Message #2398783
Posted By: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
27-Jul-08 - 01:01 PM
Thread Name: BS: Want to see John McCain Squirm? -Video
Subject: RE: BS: Want to see John McCain Squirm? -Video
GfS Motivational theory is not "motivational speaking" motivational theory was presented to me by my business professors as a branch of psychology pertaining to the things that motivate people. here is more information on Maslow's hierarchy
You have gone on at length trying to justify your behavior in this thread. You are making it much more complicated than it is.
Your first post on this thread is the root of the conflict.
>>I think he knows his position, but didn't know how to articulate a 'politically correct' answer, being a politician. Just another view into how these candidates want to give themselves flip flop room, do a lot of talking, but say nothing!<<
The above is a mischaracterization, the problem he has in this interview is that his representative said one thing while his actions indicated the opposite. He was caught red handed and flat footed. His only two choices were to cut Fiorina loose or to act like a fool. He chose the latter.
>>Note: ED is usually cause by psychological reasons, not the plumbing, unless there is very low testosterone levels. )Medical FACT, so don't reply whining about this one, too!) On the other side: Birth control,and abortions??? How about some personal responsibility??...Do we need to pay for both???<<<
The above is controversial and none of the points you make are relevant to the topic at hand. You are implying that birth control and personal responsibility are not compatible. the people you are attacking are saying that birth control IS personal responsibility. This post is very close to Emma B's definition of "flame baiting." I don't think that you did it on purpose, but the women on this thread, seem to think that they are trying to pull their chain. I have tried to explain the differences in your position and theirs.
I'll repeat it one more time. You are making it about morality. They are talking about equity in insurance coverage.
I think the problems on this thread are mostly misunderstandings. If y'all were to back off a bit then come back and speak about the same topic, everything would be fine.