's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Today's assigment for neo-cons (and I'll take one from you):(71 posts)

Today's assigment for neo-cons (and I'll take one from you):Cory
Dec 29, 2003 9:57 AM
I printed this in a column a few days ago and got some interesting responses, so let's see what happens here:
Today's assignment for conservatives is to read ONE CHAPTER, any one you like, of "Bushwhacked," by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, and respond to it factually.
Yes, it's anti-Bush. But it's FACTUALLY anti-Bush: Every accusation is documented, a lot of them from his own speeches and statements. When he praises a pre-school in a photo-op speech, for instance, and then a week later cuts the funding for it from his budget, they have both the speech and the budget to prove it. When he slashes funding for USDA food inspectors, they can show how many people died from E. coli in the next six months, and so on.
Even my Bush-loving Aunt Yvonne had to sit down and shut up for a minute until she remembered it was just The Liberal Media spreading the truth.
Don't be scared: One chapter. In return, I'll read a chapter of anything you name.
I don't think I'm a neo-conTJeanloz
Dec 29, 2003 10:20 AM
If you send me the book, I'll read the whole thing. I'm not going to give Ivins and Dubose any of my cash money though.

I suspect, as I haven't read it, that it is of the same lightweight variety as Anne Coulter, O'Reilly, and Franken, and not worth the paper its printed on. But I don't know, I haven't read it. Do they actually establish causality, or just throw around statistics and make accusations?
Case in point,TJeanloz
Dec 29, 2003 10:35 AM
Let me guess, the E.Coli statistics are for 2002. I looked it up, and 2001 had the lowest rate of E.Coli incidence in more than 20 years (1.6 per 100,000 population, vs. 2.9 the previous year, and a 5 year avg. of around 2.5). No matter what had happened vis-a-vis USDA funding, the rate would have gone up in 2002. I hate politics.
cause and effectDougSloan
Dec 29, 2003 11:28 AM
The vast majority of people never stop to critically analyze apparent cause-and-effect claims like this one, particularly in the political arena where emotion and bias are so prevalent. "After this, therefore because of this" (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) logical fallicies are effective (mini course on reasoning: -- not for you, but for those who one not recognize the problem with the e. coli stats).

People who rely upon these types of arguments are either ignorant (as in uninformed) or deceitful, or maybe a little of both.

so does this mean there will be a retraction in your column..bill105
Dec 29, 2003 1:23 PM
Retraction of what? I asked a question & printed responses. (nm)Cory
Dec 29, 2003 5:12 PM
Retraction of what? I asked a question & printed responses. (nm)bill105
Dec 31, 2003 6:28 AM
do i understand correctly that you sent your readers to a book that was written with statistics that couldnt help but show an increase in e coli leading to their assumption that under bush, e coli was worse because of his policies?
be a socialist, go to the library.dr hoo
Dec 29, 2003 3:20 PM
Big building, lots of books, no money need be given to people you don't want to have it.

BTW, I think Frankin's book was extensively footnoted, and he had a dozen (?) or so Harvard (?) grad students doing the leg work on the research for it. Now, I can say a lot about Harvard grad students, but "lightweight" would not be one of the descriptors I would use.

I have not and will not read any of them. Not even for free. There are better things to read with my limited time on this planet.
Or steal it off the internet.purplepaul
Dec 29, 2003 3:34 PM
I've got Franklin's book on "tape" for use while exercising. It's hysterical.
That violates copyright, library does not.dr hoo
Dec 29, 2003 4:10 PM
BAD purplepaul! BAD!

Passing it around is fair use, making copies is not. Unless it is copying parts for educational or research purposes. *cough cough*

Long live scholarship!
Oh, uh, well, um, I, ah never said I did it.purplepaul
Dec 29, 2003 4:20 PM
Just, hypothetically, it could be done.

I'm sure no one who frequents these boards would ever do something like that.

I'm sure you got it from a "friend" who then...dr hoo
Dec 29, 2003 4:53 PM
... destroyed his copy. Thus, your friend gave you his copy, and since no additional copies were ultimately made, there is no copyright violation. Just like loaning a friend a book.

Just tell that to the RIAA jackboots when they show up.
I'm shipping my Ipod to the Cayman Islands as we speak. nmpurplepaul
Dec 29, 2003 5:02 PM
I'm not saying they're factually innaccurate...TJeanloz
Dec 30, 2003 6:14 AM
I'm saying that anybody with half a brain and a dozen Harvard grad students can dig up factual evidence of just about anything. The existence of fragmentary, factual evidence is not sufficient to make a work scholarly. Note the E.Coli example from above - it would be factually accurate to say that incidence of E.Coli in the United States nearly doubled in 2002. It would be innappropriate to say that without framing the evidence to point out that 2001 had been the lowest incidence in many years, and that the 2002 number was at the historical average.

The bottom line, and you know this as well as I, is that you can twist statistics in technically correct ways, to make almost any argument you want to - and footnote them all the way to the bank. One sided facts do not make for a strong debate.
The thing is...dr hoo
Dec 30, 2003 6:58 AM
... I don't know if Frankin's facts are one sided or not. I have not read the book. Neither have you.

Accuracy is, at least, a good start. Look at other one sided books and see how well documented their claims are.

Let's look at your accuracy in this context. I mentioned Frankin's book, and his research. You counter with the e-coli example which is NOT FROM HIS BOOK.

Switching contexts is certainly one way to twist things. It is also one of your favorite rhetorical techniques.

Mine too :-)
You're right,TJeanloz
Dec 30, 2003 7:02 AM
I haven't, and won't, read his book. I've seen interviews where he pedals it, and that has been sufficient for me to determine that his "facts" are dubious at best - and he makes no bones about them being more for entertainment value than actual factual value.

I'm not saying that Coulter, O'Reilly, et. al. are any better - and I wouldn't waste my time with their garbage either - but I have yet to see a popular political book have any resemblence to balanced analysis. There is a good reason for this (as you know): balanced analysis is not sexy; it's usually painfully boring and doesn't sell books.
Hail the mighty all knowing market!dr hoo
Dec 30, 2003 7:35 AM
Sorry, could not resist.

Boring slogs through complex issues just can't compete with yelling rightous spewheads. Few people care about the truth, they care more about being right.

Effort is needed to learn, and far too many people don't want to exert themselves. In many ways.
Boring slogs through complex issues?ColnagoFE
Dec 30, 2003 8:24 AM
Isn't that what higher education is for? ;)
Now THAT'S funny!moneyman
Dec 30, 2003 8:07 AM
I wonder what Freud would have to say about you saying Franken "pedals" (sic) his book? Look or Time? Dura Ace or Campy cranks?

Perhaps you meant "peddle". In fact, I'm sure you did. Whether you used the wrong spelling intentionally or not, to do so on a cycling board is pretty funny.

Cory - You can do better than that.moneyman
Dec 29, 2003 10:59 AM
Molly Ivins is an unbelievably partisan columnist, and you know it. She has disliked the President for years, going back to the statehouse in Austin. I have read her columns many times, and each time I come away from it thinking there is nothing objective in her observations. Like TJ, I would no more give her money by buying her book than I would contribute to the Dean campaign.

I would suggest that you read the Wall Street Journal editorial pages regarding Dean and the other Democrat candidates. The accusations are all equally well documented, yet I think you would have a hard time believing the source was not biased. If you massage a statistic hard enough, you can force it to say anything. Molly Ivins has an agenda, and she is willing to do whatever it takes to reach her predisposed conclusion.

Please try again.

Nah, don't bother, Cory.OldEdScott
Dec 29, 2003 11:05 AM
Anything critical of the President is biased, unreasonable and probably Treasonous. You know that as well as I.

We will march on a road of bones, my friend.
It's not, it's just extraordinarily rare to find good criticismTJeanloz
Dec 29, 2003 11:09 AM
In the current world of talking-heads, it is damn hard to find good criticism. Criticism that doesn't stretch the statistics. Criticism that tells the whole story, instead of a one-sided view. Both sides are guilty of it - but that doesn't make it right.

Anything critical without support is just biased pandering to sell books, whether Franken or O'Reilly is the one pedaling them.
Sinve you include Coulter and O'Reilly with Molly I.OldEdScott
Dec 29, 2003 11:31 AM
as equally untrustworthy,I exempt you from criticism on this score.
Now wait a minute, Ed...moneyman
Dec 29, 2003 11:11 AM
I have never said that criticism of the President is biased, unreasonable or even close to treasonous. I certainly believe that a person can disagree with policy w/o being "treasonous." My beef is citing Molly Ivins as an unbiased source. She is no more unbiased than the WSJ.

There are plenty of things to criticize about which to criticize the President. Its the source that bothers me.

It's good to hear at least one board conservativeOldEdScott
Dec 29, 2003 11:22 AM
disavow the 'treason' connection. You're the first, if memory serves.
Sign me up53T
Dec 29, 2003 12:01 PM
I, too, see nothing treasonous about criticizing the President, even when it is poorly done.

The best critics are the opposition candidates themselves. Although they often engage in abject criticisms of the Bush policies, they offer alternatives just as often.

My conservative credentials are well established, and criticizing the administration is an important responsibility of the opposition, not treason.

We took that responsibility seriously when Bill was staging stupid intern tricks in the oval office, and we expect you guys to do the same for the next 20 years of Republican administrations.
Only 20?OldEdScott
Dec 29, 2003 12:06 PM
Why so pessimistic? :-)
Only 20?53T
Dec 29, 2003 12:12 PM
With every registered Democrat obviously willing to be a presidential candidate, you guys will eventually find a winner.

In 20 years you will have a whole batch of people who are in grad school now, watching the debates and saying, "Christ, I could beat these guys!"
In 20 years, there won't BE a Democratic Party.OldEdScott
Dec 29, 2003 12:20 PM
There'll be a remnant Progressive Party, coming in somewhere behind the Greens and Libertarians in the Presidential balloting, and George Bush IX will sneer at them all as he rolls to certain victory with 100 percent of the electoral votes.

FINALLY we'll have a one-party system in America, and Sean Hannity will feel secure.
Cory, in the spirit of fair discussion...bill105
Dec 29, 2003 12:37 PM
I went to a known liberal news source to try and get my mind right (no pun intended). The Associated Press. So, I tried. But you guys are even losing control of the friggin AP! If the libs are the ones with the grasp of facts, is this article wrong?

Democrats Criticize Bush, but Sometimes Leave Out the Facts

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic presidential candidates criticized President Bush's record on the economy and fighting terrorism in a debate Tuesday night, but some of their jabs left out important facts.
Sen. Joe Lieberman declared it would take a Democratic president to "get this economy going," but the economy has been gaining momentum over the last several months since Bush's second tax cut took effect.

Weekly claims for unemployment insurance have fallen since April, and economic growth and productivity in the third-quarter reached 20-year highs.

Two of the candidates used a favorite attack line against Bush - Lieberman said "3.5 million people have lost their jobs" and Howard Dean twice cited the 3 million jobs lost under Bush - but their statements also ignored the improving economy.

It is true that about 3 million jobs were lost during the early months of the Bush presidency. But that trend has been reversing for several months as the jobless rate has dropped from a peak of 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent last month.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies political rhetoric, said the debate was filled with hyperbole and exaggeration typical of candidates trying to unseat an incumbent president.

"If you were trying to get facts from this debate, you are going to get confused," Jamieson said. "You have the party out of power exaggerating the negative impact of the administration and ignoring the positive impact."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got off the mark when he told a story about a New Hampshire couple. As he told it, Lisa and Randy Denuccio can't drink their water or take showers because they live next to a lake that is contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE.

But in a telephone interview Tuesday night, Lisa Denuccio said the couple now showers with the water from their town rather than the old polluted well. "We can't do without that," she said of the showers. However, she says they still drink bottled water.

Several of the nine Democrats attacked the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress. But none mentioned that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, has cited those cuts as a reason for the recent growth of the economy.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards boasted that he does not take money from Washington lobbyists because they have too much influence on politics - but he neglected to mention that his campaign manager, Nick Baldick, has been a registered lobbyist with clients like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Burger King.

On foreign policy, Wesley Clark and Dean accused Bush of "not fighting terrorism."

Although al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden remains at large, the administration's war has substantially thinned the ranks of the terror network, including the arrest of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The administration also has thwarted dozens of attacks through increased cooperation with allies.

On the Iraq front, Dean declared "I think we need to bring in foreign troops," suggesting Americans have been going it alone.

While some big Western allies, like Germany and France, have refused to provide troops for Iraq, the campaign has received thousands of troops from the likes of Britain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Denmark and Ukraine.

NATO countries have sent about 24,000 soldiers, compared to 130,000 U.S. troops.

Clark said it was a "strategic blunder" to go to war with Iraq, but in the past he has said he would have voted for the resolution authorizing Bus
here's one rebuttal, and there's surely more.rufus
Dec 29, 2003 2:12 PM
decline in the unemployment rate does not mean that jobs are being created. only about 40,000 or so jobs have been created during this "best economic growth in 20 years".
Actually, it means exactly that,TJeanloz
Dec 29, 2003 2:50 PM
A decline in the unemployment rate means that jobs are being created FASTER than they are being eliminated. Unless you want to allege that the change is due to discouraged workers (those who have stopped looking for work, and are no longer unemployed) dropping out of the count, which would be a pretty dubious claim. To move the unemployment rate at all, it takes about 300,000 new jobs, because many of these are offset by new layoffs.

The economy is growing at a quite astonishing rate, much to the chagrin of Democratic hacks, but the growth is not plausibly deniable.
i will allege that for that is largely the truth.nmrufus
Dec 29, 2003 4:29 PM
Have any actual evidence of that?TJeanloz
Dec 30, 2003 6:17 AM
I agree entirely that there are discouraged workers out there. It would be virtually unprecedented for there to be a new number of them large enough to sway the seasonably adjusted unemployment numbers. But if you have the evidence, I'd be really interested in seeing it.
Conveniently enough, the BLS keeps that statistic,TJeanloz
Dec 30, 2003 6:37 AM
The BLS does keep statistics on those outside the labor force and why - BLS Table A-13 (they're watching everybody)...

The number of persons not looking for work because of discouragement over job prospects [defined by BLS as not actively looking, because they believe no job is available, but want to work - they'll tell you the complete definition] is 457,000. The ten year low for this number was, not surprisingly, in April of 1999, when the number was 245,000.

However, the evidence that really counters your assertion that the declines in the unemployment rate are a result of more discouragement is the direct correlation between the two numbers. The unemployment rate was at its highest in June, July, and August. These were also the months of the highest discouragement. The number of discouraged workers has declined by approximately 10% from the peak. Your hypothesis would indicate that it had risen, to offset the decline in unemployment. According to BLS statistics anyways, this is not supported by the evidence.
ASSOCIATED PRESS a "known liberal source"?Cory
Dec 30, 2003 8:52 AM
Bill, honest to Chr!st, in a career of getting mail from right-wing wackos, I've never read anything that made less sense or had less reason behind it than that, and I'm including all those letters from people who thought Hillary Clinton personally pulled the trigger on Vincent Foster. It shows such comprehensive ignorance of politics, journalism, business and even marketing that it's simply unassailable: There's no common ground on which we can stand to begin to discuss what constitutes "liberal" or "conservative."
Nothing personal, though. Hasn't changed my perception of you at all.
There's a Church term for it.OldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 9:00 AM
The Catholics give a pass to people who are absolutely incapable of hearing, responding to, or accepting the Good News (they don't go to Hell.)

It's called 'Invincible Ignorance.' We are in its presence.
Invincibly Ignorant -- What would that be in Latin?Dale Brigham
Dec 30, 2003 9:57 AM
I'm thinking of adding that to my family crest to go along with our present motto: "Frequento Erroris; Nunquam Dubius" ("Often in Error; Never in Doubt").

Ignorantia Invicta, I think.OldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 10:15 AM
Since 'ignorant' is a feminine noun, I think 'invictus' has to be the feminine 'invicta.' But then my Latin is very beat up.

Nice addition the crest!
Thanks! Your Latin is much better than mine, EdDale Brigham
Dec 30, 2003 10:40 AM
Never studied Latin, so my Pig-Latin motto translation is more of a joke than an accurate translation. Your comprehensive knowledge base always amazes me, Ed.

Hey, what's up with this Nick Clooney run for Congress in KY? Does he have a chance? Will son George bring the (swooning) soccer-mom vote along for the ride? Will Nick's encyclopedic knowledge of old movies prove crucial in upcoming debates? (He did once have a cable-channel movie host gig, did he not?)

Finally, I think UK should play MU in the this week's Tourney for the Fallen Rankings, in the loser's bracket. Actually, the Wildcats seem to have it much more together than their feline counterparts to the west, the Tigers, who are just about ready to throw their season away.

All the Best to You and Yours, My Friend!

Dale "Ignorancia Invicta"
I was TICKLED TO DEATH that Rick PitinoOldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 10:59 AM
once again pulled the bad, bad mojo on his former assistant Tubby Smith Saturday. As a lifelong UK fan, but a recent convert to UofL because of Pitino's throughly superior approach to basketball, I took special delight in upsetting the Number-One Ranked Big Blue at Rupp.

As for Nick Clooney: I think he has a chance. Many do not. He's well known and liked from his many TV gigs, but he's a Democrat and mildly liberal, and northern KY (across the Ohio River from Cincinnati) is virulently conservative, mostly on social issues. Even with George's star power, it's an uphill slog. Maybe PaulCL can give you more insight. He's from up that way.

Have a great New Year, Dale. Ride your bike to Louisville someday and we'll go for a spin. Hell, it's not all that far for a PBP finisher!
Bike 'n Bourbon: That's a great idea! Happy New Year, EdDale Brigham
Dec 30, 2003 11:11 AM
ASSOCIATED PRESS a "known liberal source"?bill105
Dec 31, 2003 6:38 AM
sorry to disappoint you but i am in the position to know that liberals inhabit the ap from top to bottom. from content to how its presented, its a libby stronghold through and through. the first step towards realizing you are a liberal is admitting it. you see your world as the way things should be in a sane and common sense environment. to anyone who isnt a liberal, its plain to see that you are. and as such, you wont admit it in the context that it weakens all your arguments. if you admitted it, you would be attacked and in your mind those attacks would be justified.
i suppose you can also recognize homosexuals on sightrufus
Dec 31, 2003 8:26 AM
and communists, and atheists, and panty waists, and french sympathizers, and the rest of the filth that are dragging this great country down.
I can. Haven't you ever seen Queer Eye FT Straight Guy? (nm)TJeanloz
Dec 31, 2003 8:57 AM
All gay.
There are no bears on QE.dr hoo
Dec 31, 2003 9:05 AM
I somehow doubt you would pick out big guys with beards drinking beer, shooting pool, and acting "manly" as gay. Or African Americans living life on the "down low".

You are showing distressing signs of a sense of humor of late.
I resolved to be nicer for New Years; should last ~ a week (nm)TJeanloz
Dec 31, 2003 9:29 AM
ok rufus, if you say so. (nm)bill105
Dec 31, 2003 9:31 AM
Cory, it's interesting to me..............Len J
Dec 29, 2003 6:04 PM
that none of the Bush supporters have even attempted to answer your challenge. They just prejudge that it couldn't be right, or it's a misuse of statistics.

Either they are afraid of the challange or so blind to the possibility that there might be truth in the book........I think the lack of "true" response speaks volumes.

Well, now wait a minutepurplepaul
Dec 29, 2003 6:14 PM
If I challenged you to read a book by Rush Limbaugh to learn truths about Clinton, would you bother?

I don't think your assertion bears weight. I'm not afraid of the challenge. I'm just not interested.
See no evil, hear no evil, and, by the way...bicyclerepairman
Dec 29, 2003 9:18 PM
Cory isn't asking you to read anything written by a druggie....
See no evil, hear no evil, and, by the way...purplepaul
Dec 29, 2003 9:28 PM
I think you're being unfair in your assessment, but that's not my problem.

As for Rush being a druggie, you'll get no argument from me. I think it would be fair for him to receive the same treatment he advocated for other addicts.
Whats next? "How to Win at Blackjack" by William Bennett?bicyclerepairman
Dec 29, 2003 9:51 PM
Or how about the sequel, again by Mr. Virtuous:bicyclerepairman
Dec 29, 2003 10:01 PM
"Honey, I shrunk our life savings!".
Expose yourself to something different..........Len J
Dec 30, 2003 5:14 AM
"If I challenged you to read a book by Rush Limbaugh to learn truths about Clinton, would you bother? "

I do read "the right" literature on occasion so that I can understand both sides of many key issues. I learned during my liberal arts education, that a diverse view of the world was a good thing. Obviously, you believe otherwise.

I love this "Why would I read anything they wrote, I already know its a fabrication, attitude?" I love the openmindedness of it.

This just speaks volumes.

who here is a "neo-con" to take you up on it? nmDougSloan
Dec 30, 2003 8:20 AM
Yeah, just neo-con dupes and fellow travelers! nmOldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 8:36 AM
here are some *facts* for you treasonous liberalsDougSloan
Dec 30, 2003 12:18 PM
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
American Presidential election:
Population of counties won by: Gore, 127 million; Bush, 143 million;
Square miles of land won by: Gore, 580,000; Bush, 2,427,000;
States won by: Gore, 19; Bush, 29;
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore, 13.2; Bush,

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great
country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U. S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the
"complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with
some 40 per cent of the nation's population already having reached
the"governmental dependency" phase.
So, what?Starliner
Dec 30, 2003 12:32 PM
I don't know what kind of conclusions one can make from that info... how about there being a direct relationship between population density and murder rate?

Does the 40 percent group of goverment dependents include lawyers? Seems that it would, considering so many politicians are/were lawyers.
Isn't it clear?dr hoo
Dec 30, 2003 1:03 PM
We should all accept the expert electoral analysis of a business law prof who sits on the board of the NRA. His treatise on Federal Taxation of Intellectual Property Transfers gives him all the expert status he needs. Clearly factual, unbiased, spin free analysis.
are you saying the source matters? nmDougSloan
Dec 30, 2003 2:42 PM
are you being serious?dr hoo
Dec 30, 2003 2:53 PM
If you were being serious with your "fact" post, I will treat it as such. I did not think you were.
Hard to believe any real American could beOldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 2:58 PM
serious, saying such things. I call treason, myself. That's the most un-American post I've seen on this board since the last time Steam posted!
wow, impressive.rufus
Dec 30, 2003 2:03 PM
figures lie, and liars figure.
If we could just ride ourselves of those pesky,OldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 2:52 PM
murderous, dependent, poor people who live in cities, we could have us a REAL NICE country, couldn't we there, Doug?

I honestly have no idea what these 'facts' prove beyond the racism, classism, suburbanism and elitism of the folk who purvey them. Certainly has no relation to American democracy. I suppose an ogliarch would find comfort in them, but not this redneck democrat (small 'd,' nota bene).

Try again.
tsk tsk, the "facts" prove something important!dr hoo
Dec 30, 2003 3:05 PM
"Population of counties won by: Gore, 127 million; Bush, 143 million"

This seems on the surface to imply that Bush had more support than Gore... millions more. But think about it.

Since we know the FACT that Gore got more votes, that means more people that supported Bush in those counties DID NOT BOTHER TO VOTE. After all, if you claim ownership of millions more population, why fewer votes?

Clearly Republicans are not civic minded people and don't even contribute the minimum that good citizens should.

Facts is facts!

And the fact is, when people who should know better play these BS spin games, everyone is worse off. But if only one side plays, the other side loses. So everyone plays. And things keep getting worse. In game theory this is known as a social dilemma.
why no attack on Cory's "facts" with same zeal? nmDougSloan
Dec 30, 2003 4:04 PM
Because they're not troublingly un-American.OldEdScott
Dec 30, 2003 4:38 PM
They're just ... arguments. They don't disenfranchise whole swaths and classes of people as irrelevant and pesky to the presumptive ogliarchy of privilege.

Besides, I don't KNOW that Cory's factually wrong. TJ or somebody equally reliable says so, but who knows? I know that your posted argument, morally, IS wrong, 'facts' be damned.
aaahhhhhh, the sound of a libby squeal. (nm)bill105
Dec 31, 2003 6:49 AM
isn't it odd...rufus
Dec 30, 2003 6:45 PM
that a republican, a member of those who constantly tell the left to "get over 2000, a president is elected by the electoral college", would trot out arcane facts like these simply because he thinks they prove something about his candidate.
I don't know why I should answer your questions when...dr hoo
Dec 31, 2003 5:03 AM
... you don't bother to answer mine.

1) Cory directed the challenge at "neo-cons". I am not an neo-con, nor a regular con in the normal usage of the term, though I do hold some conservative positions.

2) Cory's post clearly said to READ a chapter and then go after the facts. I did not take the facts posted as definitive, but merely as examples to give flavor. I said elsewhere in this thread that I have no intention to read the books, but then we can't assume you read posts on this board, right?

3) I did not attack ANYTHING with "zeal". If I ever do, you will see multiple page posts extensively footnoted from academic, peer reviewed sources. Doing a few web searches doesn't take me much time or effort. I sift through information for a living. I read fast, I type fast.

4) I know who Ivins is, though I have not read much she has written. I know she leans left. I have an idea of her world view. As a journalist, I know she has experience evaluating a variety of sources. I had never heard of Olson. He's a prof, but there are full profs and adjunct profs (hired guns to teach a class) who are often right out of school... and the press rarely knows the difference. And since you provided no link, nor source for your pasted "facts", I looked him up.

I first went to his uni web site. He has a narrow area of expertise unrelated to politics. He also helps run the NRA, and they are NOT known for playing fair with data.

I then noticed his article, the one posted by you, was on all sorts of whacko right wing websites, but no mainstream ones. This raises flags.

5) When I see language like this, "Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare", that go beyond the facts I laugh. "Tenements" is loaded language, and an inaccurate descriptor of most public housing I have seen in my life. If he had said "The ratio of public housing gore vis a vis bush counties is 10:1" or something like that, I might have given the post a higher rating.

6) "States won by: Gore, 19; Bush, 29; "

19 + 29 = 48. So, where did the other 2 states go? When the FACTS that are presented can't even get simple math right, they deserve ridicule. Which is what I did, not attack.

Does that explain my actions to your satisfaction?