0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 12:08 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Polls are not static. That's the reason why polls are taken at regular intervals to see how opinions change. To conclude that swings in polls is the result of bias is really stupid.

Your misunderstanding and mischaracterization of almost everything you read is really stupid.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 03:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Perhaps there is a skin patch that might help you get through this need to read nothing much but what supports simplistic ideology.


Likewise I'm sure there' a drug you can injest that would curb your liberal tendencies. I'm not sure if it's painful, but it can't be all that good for you. You should be concerned about your long-term health. Most hippies have seen the light and become conservative by now.

(Cue dys ...)


But I didn't say anything about your "conservative tendencies". The address was to the narrow band of ideological sources that inform your thinking (it seems a valid inference from what you paste). Why not take, as a model for political study, the men who founded your country, or Lincoln, all of whom educated themselves with great breadth.

The piece you quoted above is quite typical of the others from Townhall etc you put in here. It's really not very good, by which I mean, it is uncareful and ends up being worth little in terms of encouraging real understanding and illumination. But that's not surprising. It really has a polemic goal, not something more objective or analytic.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 04:30 pm
blatham wrote:
But I didn't say anything about your "conservative tendencies". The address was to the narrow band of ideological sources that inform your thinking (it seems a valid inference from what you paste). Why not take, as a model for political study, the men who founded your country, or Lincoln, all of whom educated themselves with great breadth.


Bernie, your constant and erroneous references to the sources I frequently cite is demonstrative, if nothing else, of your lack of comprehension of the breadth of the source material that I read constantly. In any event, the list of sources from which you have posted in these threads is certainly itself limited, as I've pointed out to you when you've brought this up on prior occasions.

I read liberal crap every day. I ascertain it's crap, and summarily disregard it. You seem to think I'm obligated to post liberal crap here, and because I don't, have concluded I only read that which shares my ideological viewpoint. I'm not sure why you continue to try and make this point.

Quote:
The piece you quoted above is quite typical of the others from Townhall etc you put in here. It's really not very good, by which I mean, it is uncareful and ends up being worth little in terms of encouraging real understanding and illumination. But that's not surprising. It really has a polemic goal, not something more objective or analytic.


Sure, blatham, the articles you post from salon.com are much better in that regard. Have you ever met a salon.com article you didn't love. Rolling Eyes

You don't suffer from a misapprehension about the of articles posted on townhall.com -- you have been critical of their conservative slant in the past. It (like Newsmax, National Review, Weekly Standard, and others) is unabashedly conservative ... it doesn't pretend to be unbiased, unlike salon.com and the other sources you frequently cite.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 09:53 pm
tico:
Quote:
I read liberal crap every day. I ascertain it's crap, and summarily disregard it. You seem to think I'm obligated to post liberal crap here, and because I don't, have concluded I'm only interested in reading that which shares my ideological viewpoint. I'm not sure why you continue to try and make this point.


If liberal, therefore crap? If conservative, therefore valid? This formulation alone ought to give you the reason I continue to try and make a particular point.

Rather than using partisan membership as the test for sensibility or intellectual merit, why not use some more exacting standard? The piece I criticized has a critical failing in its logic. And it's a pretty obvious failing. You ought to have caught it.

Quote:
You don't suffer from a misapprehension about the of articles posted on townhall.com -- you have been critical of their conservative slant in the past. It (like Newsmax, National Review, Weekly Standard, and others) is unabashedly conservative ... it doesn't pretend to be unbiased, unlike salon.com and the other sources you cite.


Sources are either liberal or they are conservative? There's a left wing media and a right wing media and they sit in eternally opposing balance? There is naught else nor can be else?

I have not been critical of Townhall, Newsmax, and the Washington Times because they have a conservative slant, but because they are in operation specifically and totally to forward ONE partisan view. It is their reason for being. That situation is described with the word 'propaganda'.

I'm not sure how old you are, but discourse in American politics has not always been as it is now. The notion that you seem to hold - that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly pro-democrat, thus justifying a countering media solidly pro-republican - is not a notion that stands up to any careful scrutiny (eg, stats on editorial page support for Republican or Democrat presidential candidates).

The fundamental problem that arises when too many people begin to believe that journalism must inevitably be either right wing or left wing, and that partisan bias is pervasive AND INSURMOUNTABLE, is that careful regard to facts and logic becomes functionally unnecessary - the 'truth of things' is established by another criterion...if it is from your side, it's true and if it's from the other side, it's false.

In the broad picture of political discourse in the US, this element is, I think, the most destructive and most dangerous to your democracy.

If you find a piece anywhere which you think gets at the truth, post it. But then encourage some follow through which serves to check and critique it. I'll certainly be happy to do the same.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 10:00 pm
blatham wrote:
The piece I criticized has a critical failing in its logic. And it's a pretty obvious failing. You ought to have caught it.


Why not point it out, then? I'm just a simple country man, not a urbane city dweller like yourself. I need your help with this whole logic thing.

blatham wrote:
If you find a piece anywhere which you think gets at the truth, post it.


I shall.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 09:40 am
But I did point it out...

Quote:
Quote:
Here's my question to you: If there's a biological or chemical terrorist attack, killing and wounding tens of thousands of Americans, how much would you care about "our reputation and how we are viewed in the Muslim world"? What will you think of leftist politicians, intellectuals and news media people preoccupied with whether we're treating Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to the Geneva Convention?


Blatham: Here's Williams' question: If something very bad happens in the future, how much will we care about mistakes and misperceptions which inhibited prevention of it? And here's Williams' unspoken answer: we'll be mad at those people who missed it and got it wrong.

Well, ok. Let's apply Mr. Williams' argument to, say, global warming. If there's a consequence of widespread death, disease, population displacement, civic turmoil, increased extremism against the 'have' countries which results in the deaths of millions and even tens of thousands or more in the US, who will then care about what Wall Street people and the petro-chemical rich cats and Townhall hacks think about economic and foreign policy?

Therefore....well, therefore what? Because a bad future is possible does it then follow that we set policy and values as if it has already happened?


Or, one can simply turn around Williams' argument on the subject of Iraq and America's policy to wage war there. If this administration was guilty of hubris such that they 1) ignored the existing intel on Usama (Richard Clarke) 2) attacked Iraq for reasons which they have been less than candid or deceitful regarding 3) failed to plan for, or imcompetently planned for the post-war phase 4) ignored the many warnings even from within their own intel and foreign affairs apparatus that the project would increased the threat of terror to Americans and others ...and as a consequence of all the above the results are 1) huge loss of American servicepeople 2) expenditures such that the economic status of the US is damaged 3) that civil society in Iraq continues to degrade to the point of something like civil war 4) the evolved power structure in Iraq becomes heavily Shiite and linked in political union with Iran 5) that the war and all the elements of it (torture, etc) does not decrease the real and actual terrorist membership numbers and threat but increases it and drives it futher into evolved expertise at covert and fabian operations - and we'll note here there is nothing above which wasn't part of the cautionary dialogue advanced to this administration before the war - then what will Americans think of Williams and those like him who pushed for and celebrated this Iraq war project?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 04:29 am
Foxfyre wrote:
"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate", in a letter written in 1946.

Funny thing is, if you'd follow Fox's take on these things, you'd expect the Republicans to denounce Byrd's past relentlessly at every occasion his past track record comes up - you know, to clearly show how they want nothing to do with who this person was.

But oddly enough, now that the Reps have their first campaign ad against Byrd out, having spent "tens of thousands" of dollars on it, they are blaming Byrd for NOT being who he was anymore ...

Quote:
Republicans accuse West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd of sharply changing his priorities over the last five decades in the first television ad purchased by either of the campaign committees in a warmup to the 2006 congressional campaign.

[..] The ad shows a picture of Byrd as a brown-haired young man with a bow tie and a fiddle under his chin that alternates with a picture of the white-haired senator, who is now 87. Byrd entered the Senate in 1958 and is in his eighth term.

"Byrd voted for soldiers in the 50s, but he voted against body armor in the war on terror. Back then, he stood with working families ... today he votes for higher taxes for the middle class."

Not a word about, you know, that other part of Byrd's "priorities" back then ...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 05:37 am
Likely because they think it is smarmy to dig back in someone's past and try to ruin a career with past crap. Democrat attacks on Strom Thurmond--and Lott for just saying something kind about Thurmond--were tawdry and cheap.

I'm glad the GOP isn't following suit.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 06:06 am
Thurmond's run for the presidency was on the National States Rights Party and was specifically set up to allow states to continue segregation. Thurmond's whole candidacy was about segregation.

Lott's remark that if Thurmond had won, we wouldn't have "a lot of these problems" can only be interpreted one way-that civil rights laws have brought on problems which make us wish we had never passed them.

It was not a small remark-the implications are large. In point of fact, Lott has done and said worse in the past, but for some reason this one just caught up with him.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 06:09 am
Quote:
they think it is smarmy to dig back in someone's past and try to ruin a career with past crap... tawdry and cheap.


We note the difference. Ken Starr was definitely NOT cheap.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 06:35 am
Lash wrote:
Likely because they think it is smarmy to dig back in someone's past and try to ruin a career with past crap. Democrat attacks on Strom Thurmond--and Lott for just saying something kind about Thurmond--were tawdry and cheap.

So what does that make your attacks on Byrd's past?



(Myself - just for the record - I dont think its wrong to expose seriously bad things someone did in the past, myself... I definitely think its odd to refer back to the good ol' days when Byrd was still on the right side, like the Rep ad seems to be doing, without mentioning he was a bleedin' racist an' all)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 07:13 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
they think it is smarmy to dig back in someone's past and try to ruin a career with past crap... tawdry and cheap.


We note the difference. Ken Starr was definitely NOT cheap.

Nor were the crimes he was investigating in the past. They were on-going.

nimh--

My attacks on Byrd's past are an equalizer to the hypocritical attacks on Lott's innocent birthday comment to Strom Thurmond. If they didn't showcase his stellar KKK past, don't consider that was being applauded. You create something that isn't there.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 07:17 am
I think the difference is whether or not the person has repudiated their past behavior--admitted it and turned away from it.

If they are still trying to hide past crimes and misdemeanors, I think it's fair game.

Lott, Byrd and Thurmond had clean slates as far as I was concerned--until Lott was lynched and Byrd was left shouting from the lynch mob.

Bring a rope for him, too, won't you?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 08:21 am
I'd hang 'em both (metaphorically speaking, of course)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 05:49 pm
Former President Carter criticizes the United States abroad. Now there can be no question that what we are doing is the right thing: Carter disapproves.


Quote:
Carter: Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful

By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 30, 2005; 5:32 PM

BIRMINGHAM, England -- Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

Critics of President Bush's administration have long accused the U.S. government of unjustly detaining terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. Hundreds of men have been held indefinitely at the prison, without charge or access to lawyers.

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

Earlier this month, Carter called for the Guantanamo prison to be shut down, saying reports of abuses there were an embarassment to the United States. He also said that the United States needs to make sure no detainees are held incommunicado and that all are told the charges against them.

Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false," he said Saturday.

The Baptist World Alliance, comprising more than 200 Baptist unions around the world, was formed in London in 1905. The headquarters of the alliance, which meets in a different location every five years, moved to the United States in 1947.

An estimated 12,700 delegates gathered in the city of Birmingham in central England for the conference. Carter, a Sunday school teacher in his hometown of Plains, Ga., was due to lead a Bible study lesson during the conference.

He praised British police and intelligence services for the swift arrests in connection with the July 21 failed bombing attempts on London's transit system.

"I'm very proud to be in a nation that stands so stalwart against terrorism with us," he said. "The people of my country have united our hearts and sympathy for the tragedy that you have suffered from terrorism."
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 07:34 am
America's worst president.
America's worst ex-president.
So whats new?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 08:18 am
http://www.pollingreport.com/images/Gprestrend.GIF
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:09 am
Nimh thinks Carter did a better job.

Big surprise Smile

<Carter polled at 39% approval in 1980>
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:24 am
JustWonders wrote:
<Carter polled at 39% approval in 1980>


That high?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:28 am
They didn't ask me. I was but a wee child Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 04:02:24