hingehead wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Obviously Google draws no distinction between sites which contain: "People who believe the earth is flat are morons," and sites which contain "All physical evidence proves the earth is flat."
Actually this is wrong. Google does make a distinction, not in the number of hits, but it does rank them with an algorithm that weighs heavily toward your search terms appearing in URLs that point to the page that google presents as the result.
The search strategy was pretty woeful, it would have picked up 'James Dolby discography 'The Flat Earth' ' and 'I have a bucket of earth in my flat'.
I still think Google can give some meaningful qualitative social metrics if used right, but I'm sure you don't give a rats.
I'm looking forward to January 2009 when I am allowed to say GWB is the worst president in history, without offending the sticklers.
Then provide us with an example of how Google results might ever be accurately illustrative.
You are allowed today to say that Bush is the worse president in American history, just as you are allowed to say the earth is flat.
Come 2009 you will argue that Bush is the worst president in American history, and everyone with any sense of reason will say, "So what," unless you are able to offer more substantial evidence than Google results.
What is amazing is how willing you and your confreres are to demonstrate your vacuous perception of history.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Come 2009 you will argue that Bush is the worst president in American history, and everyone with any sense of reason will say, "So what," unless you are able to offer more substantial evidence than Google results.
What is amazing is how willing you and your confreres are to demonstrate your vacuous perception of history.
Good one Finn, ignore all the stuff in this thread that doesn't relate to Google. Fight the fight you know you can win. What a marvellouse intellect you posess.
Please don't tell me you thought US intervention in Vietnam was a good idea.
I am sure that Finn was not talking about Vietnam. And, HIngehead, you may have misunderstood--You certainly may call Bush the worst president of all time when 2009 rolls around.It is likely, however, that you will not be able to gather evidence to show you are correct.
You must remember two things that have been said over and over.
1.President Bush has not finished his second term( he is not even half through with it) so there can really be no true evaluation made at this time.
2.Contemporary Evaluations- In 1952, Truman had a 22 % Job Approval rating, Forty years later, after Historians studied his era in depth with access to all of the information that was not released, they changed thier evaluation.
I don't know if you are aware of the declining reputation of Jack Kennedy.
If you remember the missle crisis, you will recall that Kennedy bragged that he looked Khruschev in the eyes and Khruschev blinked.
That is, Kennedy forced Khruschev to persuade Castro to remove the missles pointed at the USA.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. The reason that the missles were moved was not because Kennedy made Khruschev blink. It was because there was a SECRET AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOBBY KENNEDY AND THE SOVIET FOREIGN MINISTER THAT THE US MISSLES IN TURKEY POINTING AT THE SOVIETS WOULD BE QUIETLY REMOVED.
That is a perfect example of how a reputation can change after the person leaves office and the files are scrutinized.
How popular a President is has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are "good", "bad" or "indifferent". President Bush hasn't done well in the popularity polls, but he won the only poll that mattered ... twice. There have been more popular Presidents and there have been Presidents who were less popular.
Opinions differ and clear unambiguous comparisons difficult to make. Some Presidents look good because circumstances during their administration were timely. If Hoover had followed FDR, instead of the other way around their reputations might also be different today. Some, like Buchanan were President during times when success is almost impossible, and they are forever tarnished as "poor/bad Presidents" even though their "correct" policies ended in failure. Popularity with History professors is not much better as a means of comparison than popularity with folks who failed High School history and ended up never reading a book since.
Popularity is group think, it is fashion and partisan kant. If you want to label ANY President the "Worst" or the "Best", just add the modifier, "in my opinion". If you can cite reasons for YOUR opinion, that's better yet. In any case your opinion is no better than mine, nor the janitor's, or the opinion of the most respected Phd in History.
It seems strange to me that so many here want Bush to be the worst, even though the Nixon example should be alive in the memory of most of us. Why ever would someone consider the most disgraced President in our political history as "better" than the current Chief Executive? Many of the older cohort once made the same charges against LBJ that they now make against this President. Demonizing Presidents accomplishes nothing, but ill will.
ONE last time, I hope ........ popularity has NOTHING to do with how "good" or "bad" a President was.
History is the sum total of events and trends as they happen. Some would say that History began with literacy and written records of events. That tends to trivialize oral history where events are transmitted between generations by the spoken word, or song. For quite a while now history has not only recounted what happened, but those events are interpreted and given meaning by "insightful" historians. Some historians and their interpretations become fashionable, but after a while end up in the trash-cans. During the last fifty years there has been a swing in academic life for history to be that which the present "requires". So instead of studying a bunch of dead old white men, limited resources are spent instead in recounting events/people who previously rated only a footnote. This sort of history is a political tool, and it tends to be wielded by professors who still haven't gotten over history as class struggle over economics and the ownership of property.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:okie, Who's talking about "perfect" anything? Try living in the real world where politics is never pure anything. I didn't/don't care for Bush or Kerry. I would have voted for John McCain.
I thought you were adamantlyagainst the war? McCain supports the war, I think. We could go into other issues as well, but the war is a good illustration of why the support for McCain by liberals is somewhat inconsistent with what they profess to believe.
Amigo wrote:I was being called a "Marxist", a "Socialist" and other demonized words a long time ago and I didn't even know what they where.How can you be something by accusation and you don't even know the definition of? You can't.
Maybe you need to examine your ideas and see what they really are? Most people - when they see and hear something walk like a duck and quack like a duck, they think it is probably a duck, whether the duck knows it is or not. Maybe the duck is running with a flock of chickens and thinks it is a chicken. Could that be you? If you support policies that may have Marxist or Socialist leanings or origins, you are unwittingly identifying yourself as a Marxist or Socialist whether you realize it or not.
What makes you think I would have anything against becoming a Marxist or a Socialist?
Marxism?
Socialism?
call or label things however you want. If it's a good idea it's got my vote and that is how democracy works.
Run!!!! It's the boogie man!!!! It's Emanuel Goldstein!!!!!!
Everybody show your loyalty to the Party and concentrate your hate on this image.
F**k you Taboo bullshit. Karl Marx is a political and/or economic philosopher. Thats it. He is not an anti-christ. SNAP OUT OF IT!!!!
your the one under control.
Amigo wrote: What makes you think I would have anything against becoming a Marxist or a Socialist?
Marxism?
Socialism?
call or label things however you want. If it's a good idea it's got my vote and that is how democracy works.
Run!!!! It's the boogie man!!!! It's Emanuel Goldstein
What makes you think I thought so? If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you probably would not have anything against ducks. I knew that long time ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, Amigo is an example of the shear left wing lunacy sprinkled into the electorate these days.
okie wrote:Amigo wrote: What makes you think I would have anything against becoming a Marxist or a Socialist?
Marxism?
Socialism?
call or label things however you want. If it's a good idea it's got my vote and that is how democracy works.
Run!!!! It's the boogie man!!!! It's Emanuel Goldstein
What makes you think I thought so? If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you probably would not have anything against ducks. I knew that long time ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, Amigo is an example of the shear left wing lunacy sprinkled into the electorate these days.
Please elaborate on my lunacy?
The fact is that anything that walks different from you is a "duck" and therefore a lunatic when it is really just different from you not a lunatic and not even a duck.
In the world of a fanatic everything is a duck and ducks are to be feared. Why? Because.
Okie, I AM NOT A MARXIST. I DON"T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
Do you realize that you are acussing people of being guilty of something they have no knowledge of and if they did they wouldn't be guilty of it anyways.
That means something is wrong.
Quoting yourself now Finn.
F-stick.
I must agree we cannot judge bushs' place in history when he's not even finished his second term.
I would say however that there's plenty of evidence to inidicate that today, on the ground, as president he is ****.
okie wrote:Amigo wrote: What makes you think I would have anything against becoming a Marxist or a Socialist?
Marxism?
Socialism?
call or label things however you want. If it's a good idea it's got my vote and that is how democracy works.
Run!!!! It's the boogie man!!!! It's Emanuel Goldstein
What makes you think I thought so? If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you probably would not have anything against ducks. I knew that long time ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, Amigo is an example of the shear left wing lunacy sprinkled into the electorate these days.
I see you are back to the "communist" boogyman that you started in these threads with. It seems to be your fall back position when all else fails.
I only repond to where some of you seem to want to go on some of these threads. Business is bad. Corporations are evil and the source of all of our problems. We are all victims, blah, blah, blah. American partriots are evil nationalists, bordering on fascists. On and on. I don't recall if you've said those things, but since I've been on this forum, the same old mantra constantly rears its ugly head from various sources. I get the drift, Parados, that many people must think there is utopia waiting for them somewhere sometime, if they could just get rid of evil corporations and turn it all over to the government. Their government of course.
I would rather debate more reasonable and less benign policy decisions within the system that we have, but the posts seem to head off over the horizon, claiming the system we have is broken and something else more radical is needed. I am only responding to the posts by defending the system we have, thats all.
You might wish to consider the millions of victims of communism, before you start throwing out the "boogyman" word, which you guys love to use.
okie wrote:I only repond to where some of you seem to want to go on some of these threads. Business is bad. Corporations are evil and the source of all of our problems. We are all victims, blah, blah, blah. American partriots are evil nationalists, bordering on fascists. On and on. I don't recall if you've said those things, but since I've been on this forum, the same old mantra constantly rears its ugly head from various sources. I get the drift, Parados, that many people must think there is utopia waiting for them somewhere sometime, if they could just get rid of evil corporations and turn it all over to the government. Their government of course..
I'd love for you to quote three instances of ANYONE using these terms other than you nut cases on the right.
Do it, Okie...if you can.
Three instances of anyone other than a conservative jackass saying that "... Business is bad. Corporations are evil and the source of all of our problems. We are all victims."
Check out plainoldme on "Democracies and Mutual Respect" where she claims corporations are the source of much of our misery.
And surely you know Bush has been called every name in the book, including virtually turning the country into a fascist state with his wiretapping, etc.
Just a couple of examples in a couple of minutes. If I had more time, I'm sure I could come up with many.
Finn wrote:
I fully expect a "Yeah, so's your old man!" response and therefore, unless I am shocked by your reply, this is the last time I intend to respond to your daffy tripe.
ci responded:
HURRAY!
Quote:
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20060619094509990030&cid=1712
Corporate Contributions Shift to the Left
Some Companies See Democrats Having More Sway in Washington After Upcoming Elections
WASHINGTON -- Some big companies are boosting their share of campaign contributions to Democrats this year, a sign that executives may be starting to hedge their political bets after a decade of supporting congressional Republicans.
The shift includes backers of the Republican Party ...
...
At least part of the Democrats' new gains can be attributed to the decline of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and a Justice Department investigation into Republican lobbyists.
At the height of his power, Mr. DeLay pressured corporations to hire Republican lobbyists and increase their political donations to Republicans. "The grip of fear has been broken," said Paul Equale, a Democratic consultant.
"Companies understand that the government is run by Republicans, but the kind of draconian arm-twisting that you've had for the last five years is gone now," he said.
Draconian, sleazy, scummy; when you think Delay and the republicans, these adjectives just spring to mind.
From JTT's post:
"Companies understand that the government is run by Republicans, but the kind of draconian arm-twisting that you've had for the last five years is gone now," he said.
This, I disagree with.
okie wrote:Check out plainoldme on "Democracies and Mutual Respect" where she claims corporations are the source of much of our misery.
And surely you know Bush has been called every name in the book, including virtually turning the country into a fascist state with his wiretapping, etc.
Just a couple of examples in a couple of minutes. If I had more time, I'm sure I could come up with many.
You've got all the time in the world. Come up with any. You have not come up with a single citation yet.
As for Bush...he is a fukin' moron...but what has that got to do with my question?
Quote:
http://www.firedoglake.com/
The Good Husbands
Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency.
...
But it wasn't until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton's survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.
Quote:
http://www.firedoglake.com/
The Good Husbands
Benen wonders, in light of the recent page one above the fold NT Times' dishy speculation about the Clintons' sex lives, whether the press will follow up when the Republican primaries begin in earnest. I frankly doubt it. The CW seems to be that Clinton rules only apply to Democrats. Republicans are allowed to be hypocrites because, wellÂ… just because.
If these blind conservative folk who frequent these pages had any sense whatsoever, they wouldn't defend this stunning hypocrisy and yet, shockingly, they wallow in it.
