BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 09:37 PM

I think thats easy, Amos.

We all have a voice and we all want to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:38 AM

My 17 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM post said something important. And it was not about couples and female power. It was about noticing what it is that drives into battling enclaves of mutual carping and criticism.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:32 AM

This Election is going to be like the last few. Voted on party lines with red states, blues states and a few purple ones that decide it. The only difference being that there will be, because of the wae and the economy, more red states turning purple, especially if Obama is the Nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

So I detect some sort of argument that people have rubbed Amos the wrong way and vice versa.

Get over it. Hormones, headaches and backaches creep into the printed word and eventually pass.

There is plenty of room for great Intellects, Chroniclers, Oracles, Scientists as well as the masters of polemic religiousity.

and I'm not sayin whos who.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:51 PM

I saw it Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:49 PM

Actually, Amos, in most couples I have known, the woman has more actual power. Doesn't matter what colour you are but we are not talking about the home or, more specifically, the bedroom. We are talking about socio-economic power, as it exists today.

If it is true, Obama will be the Democratic contender but its McCain who will win.

I hope that the theory does not hold true and that Obama does become the president but if you look at the election theoretically, we will end up with a Republican once again. The Democrats have tried to present a choice by giving us two minority candidates. I say, its about time but that doesn't mean the majority of Americans will agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM

KB - I replied to this earlier, but wasn't logged in so it went away. In any event, I'm sorry for being repetitive. I'm not used to writing things that can't be edited.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:15 PM

Not 'baking Obama' of course, backing Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:13 PM

Quite right, Rig. Very much in line with what we had discussed earlier. I am not a big fan of the caucus system but there it is so that is what I do.

My comment the other day (sorry if I was a bit snippy) was in regards to your assertion (made a couple of times now) that guilt is what drove the white voters of Iowa to back Obama. Everyone I have talked to who either did or did not back Obama had reasons for doing so that did not include guilt. I don't see how baking Obama at the caucus will help give back to the black community any of what this country has taken oveer the past 400 years (more or less). I backed him because I thought he embodied the best combination of policy ideas and personal ability.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:10 AM

Actually, the quote is from "The National Review." Sorry about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:08 AM

KB - I tried to post a link to this article about the Iowa Caucuses yesterday, but it didn't seem to survive. It's from "The Nation," (I know, I know) from January third. Here are a couple of clips.



The main way in which the caucus is elitist is the amount and time and effort it requires of voters. Participants can not simply show up and vote. They must spend at least an hour and often several hours sitting through a meeting before finally declaring their support for a candidate.

Another way in which the caucus is elitist is that the caucus is a night-time-only affair. Unlike primaries, when voters can cast their ballots from dawn to dusk, the Iowa caucus occurs only in the evening. So long young mothers and second-shifters.

The consequences of these rules and structure are substantial.

In terms of demographics, the Democratic Party's Iowa caucus in effect marginalizes working class and less educated voters. Four years ago, almost three-fifths of caucus-goers (58 percent) had earned a four-year college degree or more. That might not sound like a high figure, but comparatively speaking it is. In the general election, only two-fifths (42 percent) of all voters had done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:25 AM

"In most of the black couples I have known, the woman has more actual power."

Amos, I don't believe you really want to go down that road.

My guess is that that was a hastily typed remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM

In most of the black couples I have known, the woman has more actual power.

But ya know, this is a slicing and dicing of opinion, and yours is as good or better than mine.

I am not a zealot, although I am enthusiastic about Obama. I just don't think our political life should be so voraciously crosshatched into competing subsections. These categories of existence and our ironclad identification with them are a bog part of the problems we face. Starting or continuing them is, to my mind, not only a waste of time, it hampers the common good.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM

Sorry, the last post was mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM

Sounds like the truth to me, McGrath.

In fact, the only radical change would be if a Black woman were elected President. Choosing between a White woman and a Black man poses a real dilemma for a large number of the voting population.

"Dianavan, I would suggest considering the possibility that your characterization is a function of personal bias."

You're wrong, Amos. At this point, I would probably be biased in Obama's favour. What personal bias are you talking about? You, however, have become a zealot, unable to listen to reason.   

Let me explain to you again, in terms you might be able to understand although I know you don't want anyone to 'rain on your parade'. Most of us here at Mudcat do not follow the pattern, but the majority of the world does.

Who has more power a White man or White woman?

Who has more power a Black man or Black woman?

Men, regardless of colour, have more power than women.

Just for clarification, 'power' in this context is socio-economic.

This is not bias, it is theory. If this theory holds true, Obama will be the democratic nominee. If he runs against a White man, the White man is at a definite advantage and even if it is a scoundrel like McCain, the Republicans will probably win the Presidency.

My comments are far more objective than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:12 PM

As long as everyone's having a good time.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM

Yayyyy!!! Little Hawk expressed his TRUE FEELINGS!!!


Welcome to the human race, dude!! Groovy!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM

And don't bother getting all snide and snooty now about the fact that I stooped to using a BAD word to you, Ron! Oh, my. I do not have limitless patience. I can finally get totally fed up just like anyone can, if I am pestered long enough by someone who cannot get past his own personal need to attack people in a completely waspish manner.

And over politics, for heaven's sake! How silly it will all seem looking back at some later date.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM

Try not to get so mired in your nasty sarcastic personal attacks, Ron, that like a prehistoric beast you finally perish in the ugly tarpit of your own choosing. You continually act like a jerk toward other people on the political threads...if they don't agree with your every opinion. Fuck you and your endless illwill toward any others whom you imagine don't agree with you about some point or another. Go to hell. I've already told you any number of times that I DO consider this a very important election, and I WOULD definitely vote in it if I could, and there are candidates that I have strongly supported in it, and it is not meaningless to me at all.

I disagree with the divisive and sleazy way it's being done. That does not mean I dismiss it as meanignless nor that I am espousing moral relativism.

I fully agree about Obama's and Hillary's attitudes being world apart...just as you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM

I hope, LH, looking down on us poor mortals from your ivory tower, that you will eventually realize, in the midst of your cliche pop psychology, that this election--even the primary season-- is actually not only significant, but poses a clear choice. One candidate believes in scorched earth--the Goetterdaemmerung approach to politics, as it were. In case you are wondering, that candidate is Hillary.   And the other is in fact trying to unite both the Democrats and the US.

And if you do realize this, that you would acknowledge it. Sooner rather than later. Admittedly you are not a US voter, but I assure you the election is neither a war game nor a video game--neither a war nor a game--which it sometimes appears you think it is. And the vast majority of the commentators on Mudcat realize this. If you are using it just as a vehicle of intellectual dominance--or just to kill time-- you are in the distinct minority.

The irony is that the policy positions of the two candidates are remarkably similar. But the attitudes of the two are worlds apart.

Your analysis sometimes veers dangerously close to moral relativism--for which the Left is constantly pilloried by WSJ editorialists, etc. Don't tell me they have a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:20 PM

Sorry GUESTguest,

you had my interest till then.

You've taken little hawks line of thinking and, like a square peg through a round hole, tried to fit it into your perspective.

I hadn't encountered a definition of a straw man argument before I read it in this thread.

Thank you for providing such a clear example.

Even though in this case you have distorted somebody elses line of thinking to make it seem that they support your view rather than to denigrate them, still it has been in an attempt to add weight to your point of view.

The only thing I see rehashed here is your vague, shallow and transient perspective

By this point it is clear that you are not paying any attention to how people are responding to you.

I am glad to see that you clearly like it up here in our collective mudcat ass despite being so scathing of us for being here.

So you must either be starting to understand its appeal or you are a hypocrite.

Neither? oh well - I guess I won't be seeing you then xx

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 08:34 PM

Bingo, Little Hawk.

You can't, on the one hand, talk about being a uniter, while simultaneously committing actions that are clearly hateful, bitter, and divisive.

People here are stuck in rehash mode, and it benefits no one.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM

Politics can unite!

Go to the cbc website
www.cbc.ca
and click on "Newfoundland and Pakistan"
"

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM

Are we in it "for the intellectual stimulus and exchange of ideas and all that"?

Well, yes, sure, Jack. I'm in it for that too. But take any particular human being, then take a look at their intellectual notions and their ideas....and those ideas ARE a very important and intrinsic part of their conscious (and subconscious) identity. A person is as he or she thinks. People defend their identity (their thoughts about themselves and the world) with utter tenacity, just as they would fight for their physical life if it was threatened...or for their children. The same survival instincts apply.

We're all interested in ideas and intellectual concepts. We're all loyal to certain ideas and intellectual concepts, and we defend them.

If, however, in the process of defending our ideas, we start to hate and despise the people whose ideas we are defending our ideas against...well, then, we've fallen into a dangerous and ugly state of mind, and that carries a heavy personal price.

I can vouch for that. It's like adding one more set of scars to the psyche.

I look at this presidential election unfolding across a nation month by month in all its divisiveness, game-playing, and folly, and I see how people are turning upon one another because of it, and it's a sad thing to see. Election campaigns ought better to be limited to quite a short period of time (as to 6 weeks in Canada). Less damage is done to the society in that case. American campaigns last way too long, they cost far too much money, and they often do psychological damage to the nation that simply cannot be undone by the administration that follows them...assuming there's any real will to undo the damage. (Sometimes there is not.)

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM

Dang. Posted THAT to the wrong thread. Toooooo much aluminium. Sorry guys and gals.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/opinion/main3669991.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM

>>>But some of us are actually more concerned with issues facing us in the real world, not who is winning the war of insults and ad hominem attacks at Mudcat.<<<

If you are concerned about those real things you ought to go out in the real world and do something about them.

You should not be here with us Mudcat men who have our heads up our behinds.

I say this in all seriousness. We are going to continue to do what we do. In your opinion, we are just going to come here and discuss our "minutuae" about the horse race. If you want to do more than that. You really ought to go do it.

If you cannot think of what to do, why don't you write to a man you trust, Mr. Edwards. I'm sure he can have some one steer you in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM

I would like to add that I attribute equal value to all the posts here as the conversation would be decidedly uninteresting and unchallenging without ALL it's constituent parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM

Mudcat is a microcosm of the wider scope of debate and points of view.

If you want your issues dealt with you need to have the right president.

If you think (of the available candidates) that that person is either Obama or Clinton, then you need to face up to the reality that their campaigns are going to be dogged by race/gender issues.

How do you deal with those issues when they come up?

By telling people that they're idiots and need to do things your way?

You'll lose support faster than you can type.

If you want Obama or clinton you need to develop a comprehensive view of the race/gender issues in relation to this election.

If you want McCain to win, just tell everyone that Obama plays the race card, regardless of whether he has or hasn't.

If you wish to combat this strategy, you need to be prepared.

Mudcat is a good place to fine hone ones aguments slowly, so that when the occasion arises issues can be dealt with concisely, thoroughly and effectively.

This kind of thread, when it is indulged with earnest sincerity is in my view of limitless value.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

>>>Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.)<<<

Hawk,

That may be you, It ain't me. Not on the Mudcat at least. I am much more in line with McGrath's opinion, that it is for the intellectual stimulus and exchange of ideas and all that.

That's why I was trying to help GG with her logical fallacies. Her off topic belligerence was ruining my fun. She seems to be passionate and she seems to give the issues a lot of thought. It would be a good thing if she learned to express herself better.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:12 PM

Here is my Mudcat philosophy lox.

After 100 posts on any subject, posters are generating heat w/no light.

This thread is no exception.

If you want to continue to argue over the minutuae of the horse race surrogates of the week, while the US economy collapses and the Iraq war blows up in our faces again, more power to your elbow.

But some of us are actually more concerned with issues facing us in the real world, not who is winning the war of insults and ad hominem attacks at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM

GG

>>
Sez the character assassination men marching in lockstep here in Mudcat.

And considering your vast knowledge of formal rhetoric Jack, what do we call that tired old tactic?

Oh yeah, the ad hominem.


A tactic a handful of you Mudcat men are prone to use every time someone points out you have yer heads up yer behinds.<<<

In my opinion, the above does not further your stated goal to elevate the discussion to important issues.

There is some wisdom in what Little Hawk has said, and the above post does appear to be fearful barking.

I have two points to make,

1. This is the Geraldine Ferraro on Racism thread. If you want to talk about something else, you should go to or start another thread.

2. It is probably best that you don't insult people's opinions in a discussion. But if you do, you ought to have your ducks in a row and your definitions correct. McGrath was making a valid point and you tried to dismiss it with an invalid argument.

Though I was snarky, I was trying to give you good advice. If the causes you are speaking of really mean what you say they do. You will calm down, be more agreeable and stop using words that you clearly do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM

Ok,

I don't want this election to be about race and gender either.

However I am realistic enough to acknowledge that one by-product of the circumstances of this election is a national - indeed global - discussion about racism and sexism in America and how America will respond to the challenge of having a black male and a white female running as presidential candidates.

I am also realistic about the fact that the race issue will continue to dog Obama throughout this campaign and (if he is ultimately elected) throughout his presidency.

And this is because I am realistic enough to know that race remains a deeply sensitive issue in the US.

So how do we cope with it when it comes up?

Shouting and telling people to change the subject won't do anything other than make people stop listening to me.

Engaging with people and helping to break down emotive and complex ideas into understandable fundamentals so they can be more usefully discussed is always productive in my view.

Remember, in order to realise that we have to move on from the race issue in the context of the presidential race, we had to arrive at that conclusion via a discussion.

You are clearly happy to move on now, but I know that that discussion will end only when people like ferraro stop uttering the shite they do.

Till then, I am always ready to clarify the truth of these matters as I understand it.


(I am also aware, for the record, that people don't generally like to be bullied into anything.

So if I see any discussion on any subject that I feel I have something positive to contribute to I will contribute.)

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 06:05 PM

And the Mudcat provides an opportunity to discuss with people who see things very differently, and to develop arguments and explore them, in a way that very rarely happens in a sustained way in the 3-D world.

Most of the time most people keep level-headed, much of the time they even keep to the point - and even if tempers flare no blood is shed.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:57 PM

As I just said...

Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.)

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM

Ah, there's the real rub. She disposed of the issue so completely, if we had not had our heads up our asses, it would have been completely dealt with for all of us and we would have had nothing more to say on it, in deference to her clear, incisive, complete analysis. But, since we did have our heads up our asses, as evidenced by her observation that this was, indeed, so, we did not see the brilliance of her Gordian knot disposition, and continued to chatter like the foolish men we are.

I get it now.

Thanks for setting so many of us straight with a single blow. I am sure your husband is very happy with you...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM

And lox, I determined that Ferraro's comments were idiotic over 200 posts ago.

So, WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:39 PM

Jack, there is a simpler and more obvious reason for why people come to the Mudcat and argue.

They simply have a natural human desire to express themselves. That's why people talk to other people. It's simply a way of declaring who they are. Everyone wants to express who they are. They are filled with unexpressed thoughts, emotions, frustrations, hopes, fears, desires, concerns, memories, dreams, questions...and they wish to unburden themselves by expressing all of those...and that's why they talk.

Like a pot, they need to let off some steam now and then or they feel they might explode.

It's also the main reason why most dogs bark! ;-) The need to say, "This is ME, and this is what I have to say!"

Unfortunately, one person's way of expressing who he is tends to cause fear in another person if their respective ways of being who they are seem to conflict. Fear arises. Reaction arises. Reaction turns into attack and counterattack. People start arguing over their differences, and the situation deteriorates.

The only thing that can prevent such a rapid deterioration of relations is a very strong committment on both sides to show mutual respect...despite the differences.

Agreed? (I hope so...)

That's really all there is to it.

Politicians talk to get elected. The rest of us talk simply because we want to express who we ARE and we want to be understood. (And at the base of it, at the very core of our hearts...we hope we might be respected and loved for who and what we are.)

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM

lox, if you want gender and race to be the main issues of this campaign, keep it up.

Personally, I think both Obama and Clinton suck.

I wanted Edwards.

The most important issues to me in this election year have NOTHING to do with race or gender.

NOTHING!

As I stated earlier, this is EXACTLY how out of touch the Democrats are, pushing this race/gender issue to the forefront in an election year that should have been a cakewalk for them.

As I've said so many times before, you will all get the government you deserve come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

But GUESTguest,

Ferrero didn't make a demographic observation like the washington post did, she made a judgement about the reason for Obama's success.

Those are two distinct and seperate alternatives.

One is just a bunch of statistics, the other is the topic of this thread.

I also have drawn a clear conclusion which is that Ferrero's comments were unacceptable.

So that's that horse flogged until someone gives me a challenging contrary view to chew over.

Onto a new subject -

You assert that wish to discuss race and gender issues in any meaningful way is a by product of guilt.

I feel no guilt.

You are the one talking about guilt.

I am able to talk about all this stuff till the cows come home openly, honestly an reflectively without feeling one iota of guilt.

I am a white man with blue eyes and rosy cheeks and I have pride and self respect in who I am, how I look and what I think and feel. In fact I think I'm pretty good looking too and I like it.

I'm watching America take the first step out of the primordial ooze to lead the way for the rest of the west, in the process putting the mistakes of the last 8 years behind her in a resounding way, by judging a man by the content of his character and not by the colour of his skin and maybe even giving him the presidency.

By running for president, without saying a word, Obama has created a national debate about race that has been taboo for too long.

That is a good and healthy by product and it also serves as an indicator of America's maturity on the matter of race relations.

On this thread, it has been a mature and enlightening process.

An I hope it is as obvious to you as it is to me that the debate is a national one. It does not exist only in the minds of Democrats. That is a party political assertion and completely lacks any substantive usefulness.

You seeem to suggest that the republicans have been sensible because they have had the good sense to field a white male rather than rake up all that uncomfortable guilt provoking stuff.

Do you really think that guilt is the motivation for the democrats fielding a black man or a white woman?

Why can't a black man or a white woman run for president?

Perhaps they are there because on those grounds there is simply no reason why they shouldn't be.

Why does there need to be some motivation other than seeking the best candidate to explain their candidacy?

It's like suggesting that Newton only developed his theories of Gravity and motion because he felt guilty about eating the apple.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

True enough, stopping the war is the priority. But it won't happen until after this presidential election, and only if the results of the election make it impossible to continue with it.

McCain winning will mean it carries on into the uncertain future - maybe a couple of years while he does a De Gaulle act and pulls out while pretending it's a victory, in the run-up to the next election in 2012. More likely until he's been defeated in that election, or maybe carries on until 2016.

The indications seem to be that the most likely person to beat him is Obama rather than Clinton, and on the basis of promises and actions to date he also sounds more likely to end the war than Clinton does. And that's why relative trivialities like the topic of this thread actually do have more significance than they deserve.

Not that using a long spoon to stir up the latent racism of a section of the public is a trivial thing in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:24 PM

Sez the character assassination men marching in lockstep here in Mudcat.

And considering your vast knowledge of formal rhetoric Jack, what do we call that tired old tactic?

Oh yeah, the ad hominem.


A tactic a handful of you Mudcat men are prone to use every time someone points out you have yer heads up yer behinds.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM

GG,

That's better. At least you haven't said anything obviously false or denigrated another's opinion with incorrect definitions.

However, your implied argument that folks on this thread care what Ferraro thinks and should move on to more important matters is akin to a straw man and is not going to win you any friends or converts here.

I can think of only three reasons why you would come to the Mudcat and argue.

1. Are you arguing to win people over to your way of thinking? If you are you should perhaps take the advice that Amos gave some one on this forum a few days ago and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Its a very good book and you can get a good used copy on Amazon for the cost of shipping and handling!

2. If you are simply arguing to show people how smart you are you should go to a website like this one http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ and educate your self so that you do not look so foolish.

3. If you are arguing to look foolish. The situation is well in hand. Carry on!

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM

From the AP wire:

The Associated Press March 17, 2008, 1:33PM ET

Why Fed helped JPMorgan buy Bear Stearns

By ALAN ZIBEL and JEREMY HERRON

The federal government's financial assistance in JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s purchase of a crumbling Bear Stearns Cos. raises many questions for investors and the public at large -- not least, whether it amounts to a taxpayer-funded bailout of an investment bank.

Here are some basic questions and answers about the $263.2 million acquisition, which was negotiated over the weekend with help from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department:

Q. What exactly is the government contributing?

A. To protect JPMorgan from the greatest risks on Bear Stearns' books, the Federal Reserve agreed to guarantee up to $30 billion of Bear's most troubled assets -- primarily mortgage securities that have plummeted in value and have become tough to sell.

Q: Why would the Fed do that?

A: Experts say the risks of inaction were far greater. With investors backing away from anything linked to the U.S. mortgage market, the Fed aims to prevent the value of those investments from plunging even further, which could cause widespread fallout among big banks. "The problem is that unless the major financial (companies) are kept solvent, the economy will suffer (so much) that everybody's livelihood will be affected," said Peter Walliston, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Q. Does this mean my tax dollars are being used to bail out Wall Street?

A. Not exactly. The Fed has vast resources on its own, thanks to its ability to sell Treasury securities that investors consider extremely safe. Still, some fear the mortgage crisis that engulfed Bear Stearns will soon spread to other companies and ultimately test the Fed's resources, especially after the central bank last week said it would lend up to $200 billion in exchange for mortgage investments.

Q. Might taxpayers ultimately be on the hook?

A. Potentially. The Federal Reserve's actions could augur much broader government action to stabilize the mortgage market. Calls are growing in Congress for government-funded efforts to help borrowers refinance out of troubled loans.

Q. Didn't the Bear Stearns CEO say his company was fine on Wednesday?

A. Yes. Alan Schwartz said on CNBC that Bear was not having any trouble funding its business. He may have been correct -- at the time. But confidence matters at least as much as reality, and his statement wasn't enough to reassure investors.

Q. So what happened between Wednesday and Friday?

A. There appears to have been a classic bank run: Jittery clients sought to take their money out of Bear Stearns, but Bear said Friday it did not have enough money on hand to meet all payments. When word of that got out, more clients demanded their money.

Q. How could Bear not have enough money? Doesn't it have $33 billion in assets?

A. Yes, but those assets are not all "liquid" -- which means they aren't easily convertible to cash that can be paid to investors.

Q. What about the Bear Stearns shares I own?

A. Bad news: They are worth at least 95 percent less than they were at the start of January.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM

The $ySStem has been doing an absolutely great job for many months now at distracting people with a lot of petty and trivial (and very divisive) stuff to get their minds off the real, vital issue...which is ending this criminal war and American occupation in Iraq.

Nice job by the mass media, I must say. They are well in control of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 05:06 PM

From Agence-France Presse:

Bomb attack kills more than 40 near Iraq Shiite shrine

4 hours ago

KARBALA, Iraq (AFP) — A bomb blast near a Shiite shrine in the central Iraq city of Karbala killed at least 43 people on Monday, the city's police chief said.

The attack in Karbala came as US Vice President Dick Cheney visited Baghdad on a surprise trip and met several US and Iraqi leaders to discuss improvements in security across the country.

Brigadier General Raed Shakir said the attack near the revered Shiite shrine of Imam Hussein was a bomb blast and not a suicide attack by a female bomber as reported earlier.

"It was a bomb attack in which 43 people were killed and 73 others wounded," Shakir said at a news conference late Monday.

Karbala medical and police officials earlier said a female bomber detonated her explosives-laden near the shrine among a crowd of people.

"A bomb exploded in the Al-Muqhaiyam street and we have arrested a suspect. He is not from Karbala and we are investigating the attack," Shakir said.

An AFP correspondent at the site said several ambulances and police vehicles ferried victims to hospital following the blast which occurred around 100 metres (yards) from the shrine, located in the centre of the city.

The correspondent said the powerful explosion ripped people apart, sending body parts flying. Many bodies were charred.

Salim Kadhim, spokesman for the Karbala health directorate, said seven Iranian pilgrims were among those wounded in the blast.

Soon after the attack, police in Karbala, 110 kilometres (70 miles) south of Baghdad, imposed an indefinite curfew in the central districts of the city.

Insurgents have targeted the Shiite shrine city on a number of occasions in the past five years.

On April 28 last year, a suicide car bomb attack near the Imam Abbas shrine, a second revered shrine in Karbala, killed more than 70 people and wounded nearly 160.

Two weeks earlier, a similar bomb attack close to the Imam Hussein shrine killed 42 people and wounded scores more.

Karbala was also the site of bloody clashes between Shiite militants and police in August that killed more than 50 people dead and injured hundreds.

The Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was blamed for those clashes after which Sadr ordered a freeze on the activities of the militia, which remains in force.

Iraq has been rocked by a series of bomb attacks in the past few weeks, including suicide attacks carried out by women.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM

Now, which is the more important issue facing Americans, the war in Iraq, or what dumb ass Ferraro thinks about ANYTHING?

You see, THAT is what I'm talking about here. That people here have their heads up their asses arguing over minutiae over the horse race, while ignoring the most important issues of the day.

Like the fact that both Cheney and McCain went to Iraq on the 5th anniversary of the war to declare "success" and a continuation of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq.

Today, though the press is largely ignorning Clinton, who was back on the campaign trail, selling herself as the only candidate with a concrete plan for getting troops out. From msnbc.com"

"On the policy front, the senator's speech was largely a repetition of her previously announced plans for handling Iraq, although she included more details than in most speeches.

Clinton said she would have her advisers draw up a plan to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office. She noted she had co-sponsored legislation to end the practice of using private military contractors in Iraq and had proposed a measure to put an end to no-bid contracts. She said Obama had not ruled out the continuing use of private contractors and noted that she had not been able to get McCain's support on the bill to halt no-bid contracts, even though such deals were ten times more costly than earmarks."

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:56 PM

Huh!

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:55 PM

Guest, Guest

You're a real little fallacy factory aren't you.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Red Herring

Alias:
Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin)
Irrelevant Thesis
Type: Informal Fallacy
Etymology:

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

Exposition:

This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.

History:

This fallacy is often known by the Latin name "Ignoratio Elenchi", which translates as "ignorance of refutation". The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted—even deliberately ignoring it—or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. This explanation goes back to Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, the focus of which is fallacious refutations in debate. As with all of Aristotle's original fallacies, its application has widened to all arguments.

Of course, fallacies of ambiguity involve irrelevance, in that the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but this fact is disguised by ambiguous language. However, Aristotle classifies Ignoratio Elenchi as language-independent, though he does say:

One might, with some violence, bring this fallacy into the group of fallacies dependent on language as well.
But this would make Ignoratio Elenchi so wide that just about every fallacy—with the exception of Begging the Question—would be a subfallacy of it. This is too wide to be useful, so I will follow Aristotle in restricting it to non-linguistic fallacies, excluding those disguised by ambiguity or vagueness.

Exposure:

Logical relevance is itself a vague and ambiguous notion. It is ambiguous in that different types of reasoning involve distinct types of relevance. It is vague in that there is little agreement among logicians about even deductive relevance, with logicians divided into different camps, so-called "relevance" logicians arguing for a more restrictive notion of logical relevance than so-called "classical" logicians.

Another ambiguity of the term "relevance" is that logical relevance can be confused with psychological relevance. The fact that two ideas are logically related may be one reason why one makes you think of the other, but there are other reasons, and the stream of consciousness often includes associations between ideas that are not at all logically related. Moreover, not all logical relations are obvious, so that a logical relationship may not cause a psychological relationship at all.

Because it is the most general fallacy of irrelevance, most fallacious arguments will be identified as some more specific type of irrelevancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

BS: Geraldine Ferraro on Racism


Awareness of Iraq War Fatalities Plummets



?