cant prove a negative
Posted By: twaddle on 2008-09-10
In Reply to: At least we haven't been attacked - sm
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
I don't see it as a negative. SM
As a matter of fact, it was a case he was assigned when he was in a law firm and his law firm, from what I understand, took pro bono cases from time to time.
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."
Don't get too excited. In any case, I don't really care.
okay, not only negative but arrogant!
A bit of humility would be in order.
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. - Mark Twain
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS
Obama has had 61% of his ads negative throughout his ENTIRE campaign........... McCain only for one week.
Obama spent 47 million on negative ads.....McCain 27 million.
Yea, poor 'ole Obama....... just keeping believing in this guy. He'll sell you to the middle east and you'll be feeding their camels.
what a bunch of negative
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
Funny. I think CNN is negative.
x
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
So hmmmmmm
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
One BIG difference....O's negative campaign
the SCARIEST notion of all...4 more years of 90%. He has not engaged in character assassination. He has criticized McC's policies, which is what ANY candidate from ANY party is entitled to do.
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
I agree totally with you. A very negative message. nm
.
I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is
desperate and anything negative about McCain is truth--yet you call McCain supporters hyprocrites.
By my read, not a single negative response among them.
x
Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory
The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.
Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.
I know he has nothing to prove to you....
but to the 48% of us who don't trust him, he does. I will believe it when I see it. There is nothing in his past to indicate he wants to wipe out party lines, unless that means bring us ALL into HIS light. His entire career has been hard left towing the party line. His votes have all been hard left toeing the party line. And now he wants us to believe that all disappears? He has undergone some miraculous change himself? I would feel better if he used the word "compromise" as much as he used the word "unite." All "unite" means to me is that he wants everyone to come to his side. His entire agenda is diametrically opposed to most of what I believe in. How is he going to "unite" people like him and people like me if he doesn't compromise?
Like I said...I am waiting to see what he does. He said himself he had to earn my trust. So far he is not doing so well. That could "change." Only time will tell.
BTW, this is not an attack. It is just my open and honest concerns about the POTUS. Concerns about any POTUS. I would have held McCain's feet to the fire too. He was certainly not my ideal candidate...but he beat the alternative. Now that the alternative has won...he has to prove himself to me and 48% of the country.
prove it.
Where is your proof that satan does not exist? Where is your proof that the Bible is a fairytale? Where is your proof that Jesus doesnt exist? Until you can show me some proof, this is just your opinion and doesnt really mean much or hold any water.
You would have to prove a ............. sm
genetic predisposition for this to be logical. Even if you did prove such a theory, the fact that a person has a particular gene does not necessarily mean that that gene will develop into a behavior.
Prove it
Yes he had to use Air Force 1 I think he and the Secret Service would look a little conspicuous on Continental, don't you? But he paid for everything else himself.
This is such a small, petty argument, I can't even believe you people are talking about it. Oh wait...yes I can....
Prove it
I have not seen one bit of proof that it was taxpayer money. Only Air Force 1 was a government expense and that could not be helped.
Where is your proof?
I don't have to prove anything. Those of us who were here know it to be true. nm
Then prove I said what you accused me of saying.
Show me the post I wrote where I claimed to have *inside info on rapture. She said so* as you accused me of in your post above. Just copy and paste it and show me where I said I have inside info on the rapture.
You can't prove it because I didn't say it. So who's really the liar here?
What, may I respectfully ask, does this prove?
Lebanon and Israel have a long and colourful history of conflict. I am not quite sure what this letter is meant to prove. Hezbollah has used Lebanese residential areas to set up their missles and attack bases. Israel retaliates for the abduction of their people. But first, they drop leaflets, warning civilians to leave. Really, quite a first for this sort of thing. I'm very sorry, but I, for one, am bloody tired of Israel being made the aggressor here. Hamas and Hezbollah have pounded them nearly to oblivion and all you can worry about is a letter from the Lebanese?! I am astounded.
In Massachusetts we have to prove
we have health insurance when we file our state income taxes. We get a form from insurance company that we have to file. Otherwise you lose your personal exemption. I believe at one point part of the plan was they could garnish your wages but not sure on that.
This is all part of the insurance plan Romney came up with as governor, and he is supposed to be a conservative.
Once again...you prove my point.
liberals are NOT about tolerance. There is nothing but INtolerance in your post...you, my friend, are a bigot. Only it is not a race, it is a belief system. "right wing rags" is NOT an example of tolerance of someone else's viewpoint. It is obvious for anyone who would care to, to see. Attack, attack, attack. If you are not like me, go away. I am not interested in another point of view,nor am I interested in debating any points.
You say equality, you say tolerance, you say no bigotry. Yet you do not tolerate opposition, you want to quell dissent, and you discriminate against conservatives.
Which leaves me with the impression that your lofty ideals are just that. Because you do NOT practice them. NOW I understand what the other liberal poster meant when they posted there are no true liberals in the Democratic party. Amen to that, poster, wherever you are!
Prove to me that it is a rumor!!!
.
Prove to me it is not!! Are you so jaded that you...
can't even give a 16-year-old the benefit of the doubt??
To what end? Prove a communist
nm
DOn't have to prove it....HE SAID IT. Geez...
did you read his letter? And I have been doing more research...you should too. This is not the end of the Saul Alinsky connection.
I am not the one who needs to prove or disprove it....
I accept it on its face. She did what she was supposed to do...look out for the interests of her state. Why would that surprise anyone? And she did a good job of it. Like I said, if she applies that same principle at the federal level, good for us, right?
If you lived in Alaska, wouldn't you want the $1200 as your part of the revenue Alaska oil generated? Or would you rather that was redistributed to the lower 48? Just asking.
You prove my point. Thank you. nm
nm
don't have to prove a thing
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6817.html
can you prove that it's a fake?
nm
If they win, it'll prove there's really no God.
.
No he can't but papers are there that prove he was
@
Nope, he has to prove a lot because
He claims to be born in Hawaii, which he cannot prove yet, and then he was adopted by a Kenhan man, which according to their laws, made him Muslim, and a citizen of Kenya. According to OUR laws, he cannot just come back and claim citizenship. He would have had to go through immigration process all over again and there is no immigration papers to find.
Still waiting for his proof.
Even if he could prove citizenship, which he
a citizen once he was adopted by the Indonesian stepfather. Once a child is adopted by someone from another country, they cannot claim citizenship to that country any longer, even if they were born there.
He has yet to produce immigration papers which show he applied for citizenship to this country, just like any "illegal" would have to do.
what do supporters prove?
What do you mean by "He'll make a fine President... He's going to do great and he's got the supporters to prove it." That only means he has people who think he will do well. Can't really say until he is in office and we see what he does. Unless you think all these people can predict the future.
unless you can prove the daddies do it
Unless you were there in the delivery room, I am guessing that his American mother gave birth to him.
you prove my point so well
Hindsight is 20/20. If we would not have allowed millions of people to buy houses that could not afford them, we would not be here. If we would have decided that subprime loans were unstable and that a person should actually be required to be able to pay for what they want and be able to afford what their dream is, we would not be here. America has adopted the mentality somewhere along the way that equality shouldnt be just about race or religion but about everyone having the right to the same things in life. People have a false sense of entitlement. These people that have helped our ecomony fail are the ones who have been living in a manner they should not have been. This starts with the people who can work but dont. The people who feed off of the states and have children for a business but do nothing to give back to the economy. They are takers. It also goes to the CEOs and the loan officers and the banks and all the big guys who have decided that it was okay to make billions off of the people in our society who are sponges and are willing to take any handout given to them, even if it means failure down the road. They have made their fortunues based off of greed and lies. They built us a false ecomony. So if there are no jobs now and no credit to be had, you can thank them. Problem is Obama wants to give to the takers and make us pay, the exact people who have done the right things, lived the way they should within their means, and the very working people who build our ecomony. How is an new, strong economy going to be built off of welfare recipients who have never worked? What economic stimulation are they going to offer? It is simply crazy to me and I cannot see how people refuse to see this.
Hahahahahahaha!!! - PROVE IT!
nm
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
Is that your mission in life? To try to prove that
Rather sad, really.
Obama in a lawsuit to prove his
36. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which he must be a “natural born” citizen. Additionally, Obama must be at least a “naturalized” citizen to hold his Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia
38. Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
39. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.
You continue to prove my point.
Can YOU prove it's taxpayer money?
What's the president make? $140,000 yr.? But, it's the perks that are part of his salary - rent free, utility free, a BUDGET for the president to live on. You can simplify it to simply "frivolous" partying, but I do not believe that is the case - there is far more to it than that. There are traditions and a decorum that is expected. I think our president more than fits the bill.
Prove it - You evidently have done your research
I just went back through the last three pages to when I first began posting. Never once did I start off badgering posters calling them names. Not to Mrs. B or anyone else on this board. I have even posted that I was wrong on some issues. I'm never disrepectful of posters. Just because I have a difference of opinion with someone doesn't mean anyone should be disrespectful and I'm not.
So seeing as you are acusing me of having a nasty attitude I want you to find the post and prove it. I've just gone through every single post. I have not been the one initiating anything. But call me Newton, and yes I'll reply by calling you Einstein. So I guess that makes me the nasty name calling and not her?
Telling someone I think they are wrong and explaining why is not having a nasty attitude. Calling someone names for no reason is.
I guess we're going to have another 9/11 to prove our point
because your little mind doesn't even remember the first one. You guys need to give it up, because your lilly livered thought processes are losing. Nobody wants you all in charge that's why you keep LOSING ELECTIONS...that's because if you were in charge you would be hugging Muslim terrorists and telling them it's okay and that you understand them.
You can argue semantics of bills all day, but it doesn't make the fact of the dying liberal theology any less of a reality.
No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
I also prove posts wrong here daily...
which I am sure you immediately close, pull the comforter over your head,have abig glass of Kool-aid and play your Obama tapes. Just my opinion.
|
