Matt,
I believe that this is what you said below ---
How are these buses any different or more hazardous than the many DCPS buses parking there every day?
I don't see how this is a question to stimulate conversation. I would think that people arguing that placing 65 twice as large buses are hazardous is self explanatory to this being more hazardous than what is currently there --- even if the current DCPS buses were running on oxygen and life force giving.
Some how I don't believe you but that doesn't make it absolute. Absolute or not, the world doesn't spin on my opinion. Consistency no time constraints -- Hence the term "time will tell".
Rob Ramson.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Matt Ashburn <matt@mattashburn.com> wrote:
Quick note to make a correction: With regard to my discussion on the proposed bus parking at Ivy City, I recall asking for the reason why it shouldn't be there. I didn't that because I supported the bus parking, but rather because residents needed to clearly articulate their argument if they want to succeed in changing the city's decision. If I recall, that's what I said regarding the issue, with the goal of stimulating conversation in hopes of people artciculating their argument so that it would be successful.Instead, it was much easier to attack me and (falsely) accuse me of not caring about the children. As we've seen, without a clearly artciulated argument to advocate against the "dumping ground" scenario, it's easy for the city to push forward.Matt
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Rob <indianrob@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with all you said here Mrs. KPW. But lets have properspective -- I am not trying to change anyone's mind.
So, when you post only a single view like this "CNN's "Fact Check" team is also covering the debate, and so far have
focused on jobs claims, finding that Obama's claim of creating 5, million jobs was false, and that the net gain is actually just 150k
jobs" but not report on the other Fact Finder's that were out shows a HUGE BIAS.Stop Playing -- Matt can say what he wants to and we have a right to adjust his spectacles. And then he follows up with this "Well said, KPW. Saying one candidate's presence, responses, etc were more effective doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of the candidate" is to say What.We know that your and Robby's views are for a Republican candidate and whether you like Romney are not, it is OK that he is your candidate -- nobody is trying to change anyone's mind but this supports Matt's approach to the Hazardous Fumes in Ivy City being ok to increase them and then coming back with the something like "I was just trying to stimulate conversation"RobOn Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM, KPW <WKPW3@aol.com> wrote:
I liked what Matt and all the others said because they were expressing their view points in the proverbial "safe place" a.k.a. the listserv. I asked for people's point of views and they were kind and thoughtful enough to share them. I just finished talking to a good friend from out of time and though we disagree and he is ultra liberal, we had a good conversation, though he is wrong. I don't agree with you all the time, Rob, but like to read what you write much of the time. You will never see me write anything ugly about you because we don't agree. Like my out of town friend, I know when to get off the phone and let him continue with his arguments. I'm not trying to change anybody's thoughts, just keeping us all civil and respectful of the other person's opinion. When we're not on the listserv, we can talk like we want to whoever permits it.
KPW
To: ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>; Ward 5 Google Groups <wardfive@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [ward5] Re: Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?Mrs. KPW,I got a call from Helen Keller as well and she told me that Romney performed great. The debates will be good when people stop twisting things and acting like walk around with "hindsight" as their everyday forward vision. The only person that was not "objective" was Matt unless he doesn't know the actual issues and/or lacks the experience to see the twists on or refuses to identify them. He couldn't help himself as if we needed the individual reports on all the %%% of what folks "think". I think everyone on this list serv are watching similiar televised reports.So you know, Everyone's emails has addressed the fact that Romney got this one -- only some chose to identify that it was on presentation/Style not facts. B Game is more like it rather than "Spanked". Nevertheless, the majority of folks watching knows that he lost this Debate and a loss even if by 1 pt. is a loss.Please note that there was a lot of money as part of the "90" billion that was given for processing Coal more Clean/environmentally friendlier. President Obama should have addressed that to the Coalminers. But, when I run at folks with hard core facts and identifying twists on language, I get blamed for being too rough. 2008 was a different time where President could afford to be more presumptiously assertive but now there is a lot to be said for staying focused to the mid/upper middle Class. This is not a time to be too defensive. Maybe this identifies how he needs to tweek that strategy.Who knows how it affects him in the swing states.Rob Ramson
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM, KPW <WKPW3@aol.com> wrote:
I talked to one of the biggest Obama supporters in the world who told me that Obama got spanked yesterday. He attended one of those debate watch events.He is terribly disappointed by his performance. Now that's being objective. He will always be an Obama supporter but is a political animal who studies politics like many on this listserv. We have great thinkers on this listserv and valued opinions. Nothing like a good intellectual discussion with an analysis of what happened like the pundits in the media.Whether Romney had his facts right or wrong, many people no matter who they support said Romney won. I liked his tie. By the way, Romney had a red tie and Obama had a blue tie, which was nice also. Were the colors of the ties by design? Were they told not to wear the same color tie?Someone on the radio said that underdogs get more favorable ratings and maybe Obama wants to be the underdog next time around.It is difficult to be objective when people have their candidate to support and dislike the other candidate. But I like to hear/read other people's opinions without the emotion. I heard that Donna Brazile said on TV in her political analysis that Obama was on his B game when he needed to be on his A game.So Romney won this one and we'll hear whether his facts were factual but for now let's analyze the debate without any friction. I'm the worst because I was bored and flipped the channels until my daughter called me to tell me to watch a part of it while she gave me an analysis.The debate should be good when candidates will really have their boxing gloves on and cool sound bites.KPW
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [ward5] Re: Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?
That's fine Matt. It is just tough to digest why almost every exsmple he used is twisted to mislead. Go research the issues. There were onky a few points that Romney was right on like the not planning properly with the banks. However the onky reason he now knows this is Hindsight. While Hindsight is "20/20", there is a reason it is called Hindsight.You are a very intelligent guy - I wonder how you choose to not see both sides. Part of what you said was either biased or lacks experience/information. The rest you wrote are just reports on folks answering basic questions which have no room for elaborating.RobRob.On Oct 4, 2012 10:52 AM, "Matt Ashburn" <matt@mattashburn.com> wrote:
Well said, KPW. Saying one candidate's presence, responses, etc were more effective doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of the candidate.Matt
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, KPW <WKPW3@aol.com> wrote:
Let's say objective rather than unbiased. Sometimes I talk to people about political commercials and say that a Romney one is pretty good and then talk about an Obama ad. I get jumped on because I said that Romney's ad was effective, really good. I try to look at things analytically, from a strategy point of view. I look at both sides.I'm glad that people on the listserv can talk about the good and bad and still support whoever they want. You can only improve when one knows what he/she is doing right or wrong. Don't you love politics!Thanks, Eric.KPW
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric <ericindc@yahoo.com>
To: ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 9:28 am
Subject: [ward5] Re: Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?
I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased view. Nevertheless, I am supporting our President and I didn't think he did a very good job last night. Like KPW, I was a bit disinterested and had other things going on, but I didn't really see a solid response from Obama regarding the amount of money spent on the Green Initiative. Romney hammered that point home well. I will also be interested in the fact checking around the the Frank-Dodd legislation - Romney made an interesting point about smaller banks going out of business due to this. I am not sure about this cause-effect relationship, but I didn't think Obama responded well. Perhaps Obama is being far more strategic and giving Romney the rope to hang himself.
--- In ward5@yahoogroups.com, Matt Ashburn <matt@...> wrote:
>
> From an unbiased view, Romney was the clear winner tonight. He
> brought his A-game, looked and spoke presidential, and was able to
> come up with specific examples off the top of his head to make his
> point. At several points, Obama had some trouble responding with
> specifics to counter Romney's statements.
>
> A CNN poll of debate watchers indicate they the debate made 35% want
> to vote Romney, 18% Obama, 47% neither. 58% of that same poll group
> say Romney appears to be the strongest leader.
>
> Another poll of debate watchers indicates that now 57% believe Romney
> would handle the economy better, vs. 41% that stated Obama. When it
> comes to healthcare, 52% believed Romney will do a better job, 47%
> Obama.
>
> CNN's "Fact Check" team is also covering the debate, and so far have
> focused on jobs claims, finding that Obama's claim of creating 5
> million jobs was false, and that the net gain is actually just 150k
> jobs. I'm sure we'll see more fact checking in the days to come.
>
> Some perspective: It's rare that debates matter and end up actually
> determining the election, and there are several debates to go.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:46 PM, KPW <WKPW3@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?
> >
> >
> > KPW
> >
> >
>
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (22) To Post a message, send it to: ward5@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ward5-unsubscribe@eGroups.com![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment