If in the run-up to last year's elections a poll identified a three percent approval rating for the way Congress - which was controlled by Republicans at the time in case you forgot - was handling the war in Iraq, do you think you would have heard about it?
Maybe on every morning and evening news program for days, and on the front pages of every newspaper, correct?
Well, on Wednesday, Zogby International released the results of a stunning new poll that got virtually no attention.
Why?
Because it identified that virtually nobody in America thinks Congress - which is now currently controlled by Democrats in case you forgot - is doing a good job concerning Iraq (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse - only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war.
That's right. Eight times as many people think the president is doing a good job handling the war in Iraq than those who feel Congress is.
Any questions why you didn't hear about this poll unless you were listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday?
Now, the typical liberal explanation for this low Congressional approval would be that it's caused by disgruntlement over legislators not ending the war.
Not true:
42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support.
As such, if Congress' low rating concerning this issue was due to its failure to immediately withdraw troops, a much higher percentage of Americans would favor such a withdrawal.
And, as Don Surber pointed out Friday, the disgruntlement is quite bipartisan: "94% of Democrats polled absolutely detest, loathe and hate how the Democratic-led Congress is handling the war in Iraq."
Yet, maybe even funnier, James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute who also happens to be a senior analyst for Zogby International, wrote another Bush-bashing op-ed for HuffPo Friday:
[T]he realities of the war have persisted and taken a toll on public opinion. Our early polling has been validated. It has gone on too long, not gone well, and taken too many lives. The myths have been shattered, and the public has stopped believing.
Apparently, James didn't read his brother's company's poll two days prior, for nowhere in his piece did Zogby refer to Congress and its role in war.
On the other hand, maybe James is part of the three percent of Americans that believe Congress is doing a good job in Iraq.
Or, is he just part of the margin of error?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Noel
August 4, 2007 - 11:00 ET by botgOnce again thank-you for bringing the censored news to us.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Poll??
August 4, 2007 - 11:16 ET by motherbeltPoll??? What poll???? Who did a poll??? Huh??
Margin of Error?
August 4, 2007 - 11:16 ET by ThisnThatIsn't 3% within the margin of error? That would bring the true poll results to ----- ZERO.
Dontcha just love round numbers?
TnT et al
August 4, 2007 - 11:36 ET by Noel SheppardTnt et al,
Rush addressed this yesterday. Even though Zogby's normal margin of error is 3 percent, in this poll, it was 1 -- likely for exactly the reason you've all pointed out. :-) ns
Drat!
August 4, 2007 - 11:59 ET by ThisnThatRound number theory blown right out of the tub.
What's the margin of error?
August 4, 2007 - 11:20 ET by KJ_sezWhat's the margin of error? +/- 3%? That could mean NO ONE approves of how the Libocrat Congress is handling the war. I won't call them the "do-nothing" congress anymore - they've managed to piss off everyone, and that really should count as something.
Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?
In deed KJ, 3% amounts to
August 4, 2007 - 11:31 ET by VT Con ManIn deed KJ, 3% amounts to the really kooky fringe of the tinfoil hat folks. 3% is more like the people who pushed the wrong button during the survey. 3% is the part you leave in the bottle because it is sediment. 3% is, yeah, the "margin of error" which is a great name for whomever these were. ; )
Margin of error can't be zero
August 4, 2007 - 11:41 ET by bulbasaurI hate to be a stick in the mud because I like your comment.
However, the margin of error isn't 3% across the entire range of polling percentage. It reaches a maximum at p = 50%. As the percentage moves toward the boundaries of 0% or 100%, the standard error gets smaller, approaching zero.
Therefore, almost by definition, approval of Nancy Pelosi (D) and Harry Reid (D) probably won't ever reach absolute zero.
This makes sense to me. I mean, terrorists and illegals must be pretty happy with the way the democrat-controlled congress is handling the war on terror.
Of course it could never be
August 4, 2007 - 12:00 ET by KJ_sezOf course it could never be zero - Harry and Nancy think they're doing a good job, delusional fools that they are. But I think we can all agree that congressional approval ratings under their (lack of) leadership have been reduced to statistically insignificant. ; )
Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?
The Stat Man knows
August 4, 2007 - 12:03 ET by ThisnThatI knew a statistician would chime in just as soon as I posted. You're right, of course (drat -- see my DRAT post above).
The pendulum appears to be
August 4, 2007 - 11:24 ET by VT Con ManThe pendulum appears to be finally swinging on the whole "We have Lost " crowd. Harry and co. will now have alot of splainin' to do, if this swing continues and we have Victory in the sand pit.
And, Bush is now only 8 times as popular as the dims? I was thinking it was more like 100 times, he must be slipping.
Now, if we can get him to be as aggressively conservative with immigration, education, soc sec, "climate" and social spending, etc etc etc, we will have a bigger win in '08.
The dhimms in Congress
August 4, 2007 - 11:34 ET by drillanwrThe dhimms in Congress blindly see this as "We aren't doing enough investigations ... We need to impeach Bush/Cheney ... Rove needs frog-marched! Cut and Run! We gotta cut and run faster!" Not as what it really is, an evaluation of the real folks in this country (NOT the wacky far left they aim to please) of the Congress and the democrat bullship. Some said in the lead up to the 2006 election that it would do the republicans good to lose both the House and Senate. I was one who resisted ... NEVER give up ground. However, the live to fight another day just might be in order here. If the friggin' repubs and the Administration don't smell the dhimmi blood in the waters then they're snorting something else! The dhimms are too dumb for kindergarten.
Democrat party narrative, flawed, broken
August 4, 2007 - 11:26 ET by bulbasaurPsychologists tell us that the very ability to function depends on sustaining a coherent narrative of yourself and the world. When facts reveal incoherence in the narrative, a crisis is said to occur, and the individual must either reconcile their cognitions with the facts, which is good, or create imaginary new facts to sustain internal consistency, which is bad.
The democrat party narrative might well be internally consistent, as most utopias are, but it fails time and again against the sharp contours of reality. Consequently, the lib narrative is increasingly patched together by conspiracy theories and slogans, but this patch-up job can't work for long, can it? The whole thing's going to collapse, just like that 35W bridge did on Wednesday.
Sooner or later, the reality-based-truther community (there's an oxymoron for you) has to come out of that closet and admit its basic story line is unsustainable. Libs need to quit trying to patch up their world view with avoidant, deceptive, and fraudulent journalism.
Come on libs, the truth will set you free!
Well I'm back, and living
August 4, 2007 - 11:43 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWell I'm back, and living in the liberal Mecca of Seattle.... too many Toyota Priuses here with Bush bashing bumper stickers on the back along with all the pompous prats walking around like they're better than everyone else.
I bet half of that 3% came from here.... I've overheard several conversations on how good the Michael Moonbat movie 'Sicko' is and how correct he is... these people are ignorant or stupid or both.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
lbz -
August 4, 2007 - 11:58 ET by drillanwrHey there!
Been waiting for a national health care story to post this but since you mentioned the great white whale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
I will post the link again whenever the topic of nanny-state health care comes up.
is a progressive place right for you, buggy?
August 4, 2007 - 12:59 ET by PhoneutriaWell you might be happier in some redneck state talking about the real issues and threats to America ...flag burning and gay marriage. You know, the stuff the republican congress dwelled on.
Yay for those republican 'head in sand' values. We're all safer without reality.
And Noel, when the republican minority in congress votes against popularly supported bills, block veto overides, and holes up the will of the people in the senate in endless charades.....yes..they are part of congress and earn that 3% rating. The whole bunch looks bad.
Even out of power, they still #$%^. The cure? Comon thinkin folk. And don't say Hilary '08 or firing the rest of the RNC roach regade in congress. I say wait 'em out. At this rate they will all be fired or resign for various illegalities, scandals, hypocricies, corruptions or infidelities. Thank God for that democratic Stevens Louisana corruption thing or the term "political miscreant" would be an entirely republican phenomenon, these days.
Bug Zapper, I'll throw a bag of trash into the bay today in your honor. If anyone protests I'll call them a tree hugger fag and then hummer them down.
Good 'ole fun.
Oh, goody, another no-doubt
August 4, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Dave ROh, goody, another no-doubt educated-beyond-his/her/its-intelligence elitest troll who believes that communism is somehow "progressive."
How nice.
....redneck state talking about the real issues and threats to America
...flag burning and gay marriage. You know, the stuff the republican
congress dwelled on.
This comment alone proves that you are truly ignorant and not worth another moment of my time.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
uhm....communism?
August 4, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Phoneutriaso if you're against ignorance and incompetence, you're somehow a communist? when you get books in your town you might want to research some of those bumper sticker slogans, Dave.
In the meantime drink more koolaid and keep saying Dittos, Rush.
Love the name, Phoneutria
August 4, 2007 - 13:50 ET by RJLove the name: Phoneutria = phony rodent?
Welcome . We've seen your brand of smug but shallow knee-jerk leftism many times here. Hope you stick around awhile...or are you another of those drivebys?
When we`uns gits sum books??
August 4, 2007 - 13:56 ET by drillanwrShoot! We ain'ts evin gots us no indoors plummin' yit! We'z still marryin' our first cuzzins!
Books?!?!?
drill,
August 4, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Dave RAhh wuzz jezz out diggin' me a new pit fer the new outhouse ahh is buildin.' Ahh found me one o' them thar newfangled fancy padded toilet seats, too. It fell off a truck ahh wuzz follerin' down the highway in my ol' pickup a while back. Ahh think it wuzz heddin' fer one o' them big, fancy ho-tels down thar in Atlanta.
Now ahh won't be gettin' them dadburn splinters ever time ahh has to go, know whut ahh mean?
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Kee-rypes, Dave R -
August 4, 2007 - 15:08 ET by drillanwrYu`inz gots ya wun uv them tharr outhouses? An' a seat?! Yu`in's moved in 2 duh modrinn age, yeah, boy!
You do not get more
August 4, 2007 - 13:56 ET by Dave RYou do not get more ignorant or incompetent than the liberal "progressives" in our government. While the republicans run a close second, they have a lot further to go before they will even begin to approximate the intellectual depravity of congressional democrats.
After seeing Bill Clinton give nuke teccnology to Iran and the Norks, as well as missile technology to the Chicoms, his total non-response to the Chicago heat wave that killed hundreds of poor blacks, and after watching the (non)actions of Mr. Nagin and Ms. Blanco in the aftermath of Katrina when contrasted with those of Mr. Barbour in Mississippi, I cannot believe that anyone with even a room-temperature IQ could consider democrats to be competent.
As for Pelosi and Reid, if you consider those two boobs to be even remotely competent, then perhaps it is you who needs to make use of the very books you claim we do not have.
As for lefties referring to themselves as "progressives," there is nothing even remotely progressive about a form of government, Marxist/Leninism-the model upon which modern liberalism is built upon-that murdered over 100 million people in the last century.
Lefties can come up with all the positive sounding terms they want to describe themselves. They tried "liberalism" and then "progressivism." Hell, they can call it "howdydoodyism" for all I care, but, at the end of the day, it is really nothing more than communism.
Communism and true freedom are in no way compatible.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Dave R---
August 4, 2007 - 14:13 ET by misterbillYour observations about "progressive" and Marxist/Leninism is so sharp it cuts. What we have here is a pack of %^$%s who think they have come up with something new and wonderful, when all they are doing is digging up an old failed system. I refuse to pay welfare to illegal immigrants.
misterbill,
August 4, 2007 - 14:23 ET by Dave RLOL-Come to think of it, I'm getting a little tired of paying wellfare to lazy-assed Americans, too.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
phony rodent,
August 4, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Dave ROh, and I failed to mention Jihad Jimmuh's four year attempt at running the greatest economy in the world into the ground. Thank God he was only in for one term, as four more years of his economic ignorance and incompetence may very well have succeeded in doing just that.
He also brought us into the Jihad we now find ouselves in. Believe it or not, GWB wasn't even thought of for POTUS when the Islamic barbarians renewed their 1400 year-old war against civilized society. Jihad Jimmy had an excellent opportunity to put the "fear of Allah" into these backward, 7th Century illiterates, but decided to show weakness instead. This country will be paying dearly for that weakness for generations to come.
I also failed to mention Billy Joe Bob Bubba's bombing the hell out of the descendants of the Chetniks (and perhaps the very same Chetniks themselves) over in Bosnia while he was (LOL) CIC. Never heard of the Chetniks? Doesn't surprise me, as I'm sure your liberal "progressives" professors never heard of them, either. This country owes those people a huge debt of gratitude for the help they provided this country at a very crucial time in our history. Billy Joe Bob Bubba expressed this "gratitude" by bombing their descendants into oblivion.
You see, my library, the one you claim I do not have, contains over eighty volumes on the subject of WW II alone. That is not including the other books it contains on American as well as European history, WW I, Korea, Vietnam and the Southern War for Independence-what I'm sure your "progressive" professors told you was the "Civil War" (you know, the war where your "superior" non-southern ancestors fought my "ignorant" southern ancestors to "free the slaves"). Yeah, right.
The next time you decide to swerve in here and start pointing your little "ignorance" pea-shooter at people, before you pull that trigger, it might be a real good idea for you to carefully consider the fact that most people here can shoot back.
And, we have bigger guns, too.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
RELOADING!!! ... FIRE IN THE
August 4, 2007 - 15:38 ET by drillanwrRELOADING!!! ... FIRE IN THE HOLE! ...
phonyneutria---
August 4, 2007 - 15:46 ET by misterbillAn ancient Phoenician name. It means a rat's ass.
I don't give a phonyneutria what our new lib has to say!!!!!
now you're stereotyping yourself
August 4, 2007 - 16:08 ET by PhoneutriaI'm sure you can shoot back, Dave. It's easy when there's a gun in every room, including the out house. Lessens your need for viagra, too, I bet.
Of course no one responded to how the republican sponsored flag burning and gay marriage bills in an election year as a wedge issue. Cuz if you actually think about it, it will SCARE you. Is this national security, above implementing ANY of the bipartisan 9/11 report ? No wonder Bin Laden is merrily skipping around Pakistan in a dress. Are you saying you want to go back and have that congress ?? Put America above party for a minute or two.
My point was that the people that made congress icky before are still there being icky. Hence largely the bad ratings. And if you balloon spending $400 percent in 5 years, I'd call that Big Gov ....or communism. No oversight. No accounting. There's your communism.
It will take years to undue the damage of that congress. I just wish the Dems had the balls to play hardball like the rep's did.
If you dust off them WWII books, tell me who used the biggest "gun" in the history of the world and who were the leaders in that biggest conflict ever. Weren't no republican'ts. ( 'gun' meaning bomb for the slower crowd ).
The republicans talk tough, then fail. It's just bumper sticker stuff for simpletons so they can scare folk and stay in power. If you want someone to win and BE tough when it counts, you better stop drinking the koolaid.
I may look rat-like but I assure you it's just the lighting. Don't need no gun.
Okay, ratso, Nice rehash
August 4, 2007 - 16:29 ET by BlondeOkay, ratso,
Nice rehash of the liberal talking points.
$400 percent? That's a new one...where'd you cut and paste it from? Sheesh!
Do you have an original idea or a clue?
No, didn't think so.
Troll on.
new one?
August 4, 2007 - 17:04 ET by PhoneutriaIf you can correct me, do it. You can't. I speak up, and you follow. If you're just labelling people with no counter argument or data, then you're the troll. And no one can tell you're blonde if your head is in the sand, eh?
I've seen a thousand little
August 4, 2007 - 17:15 ET by BlondeI've seen a thousand little trollers like you, ratso. No need to refute your fever-swamp talking points.
Not worth my time.
Too bad for you, I have the credibility on this site. Keep trolling, tho. It's amusing.
back it, blondey
August 4, 2007 - 17:41 ET by PhoneutriaBack up your statement about GOP spending, or you have no credibility. Did you get creds on here by just labelling / attacking people ??
I got my data from the Cato Institute, but it's public info on perhaps hundreds of .gov sites.
http://cato.org/pubs...
If anyone can help him/ her out, I'm sure he / she needs it. Again this is to the folk that claim the Dems are for big gov. It's already happened in the last 6 years, under republican congress. The majority of you know this, but apparently keep quiet about it to blonde. The dems want accountability and less corporate welfare. Don't you?
( and for the folk using conservapedia instead of wiki, phoneutria is the brazilian wandering spider. check it with one of the googles or the internets. lol. )
Hold on, I'm confused.
August 4, 2007 - 17:50 ET by sarcasmoHold on, I'm confused. You're citing CATO (a good sign, please keep it up, but it's from March, 2004, and things are now much-worse spending-wise!) but saying the Democrats want small government? I'm stipulating here that neither do many of the Republicans, but as to the Democrats, considering all their current positions, not to mention their sordid -- even Bush-like -- history during my lifetime, this is a novel & fascinating theory. Please, tell me more!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ratso
August 4, 2007 - 18:12 ET by BlondeWhat statement of mine?
Back up your statement about GOP spending.
FYI, little trollster...when I put something in italics...that means I'm directly quoting you. So don't you even try to throw your own idiot cut & paste back at me as a statement of mine.
Not only are you a troll, you're reading impaired.
That's it, done with you.
Phone
August 4, 2007 - 18:17 ET by Noel SheppardPhone,
As the resident federal budget expert here, I'll take on your following contention:
So, are you making this 400 percent increase in spending over the passed five years contention with a tongue in your cheek, or a spike in your forehead?
After all, as evidenced by the historical data of federal budgets supplied by OMB (go to PDF page 26 here), you'll find that the total unified spending in FY 2003 was $2.160 trillion. The proposed FY 2008 spending is $2.901 trillion.
I know that using liberal arithmetic, this is a 400 percent increase. However, folks that actually paid attention in fourth grade know this to be a 34 percent rise.
That said, could you please share with us how this liberal arithmetic folks like you feel comfortable employing at conservative websites actually works? None of your compatriots has ever had the decency to show us how numbers can mysteriously increase ten-fold when the agenda requires it.
Of course, we're never surprised by such. After all, you folks all believe that if a program which last year had a ten percent increase is this year given a seven percent bump, that represents a cut. ns
My apologies, Noel. I seem
August 4, 2007 - 18:28 ET by sarcasmoMy apologies, Noel. I seem to have "cloaked" us all. And for the record, I wish my investments could always go up by 34% like that, and I'll bet you do, too...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc
August 4, 2007 - 18:31 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
You know I'm not happy about that 34 percent increase in spending. If the budget had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, we'd be in balance now. Easily.
As for 34 percent in five years, my portfolio is up more than that since August 2002. Isn't yours? ns
balanced for inflation ??
August 4, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Phoneutriathis goes into the record books for you, Noel.
First, saying your portfolio has increased has no automatic ratio connection to spending - yours or the countries.
Second, you say " If the budget had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, we'd be in balance now. Easily. "
Where were you home schooled? Home? Are you saying we've had 60 percent inflation, each year, for the last 5 years?? That equals your 340 percent increase in spending by the republicans.
Hopefully you were napping when you typed that response. And, you should have invested in HaliBurton or BechTel ...I have nothing against good investements.
Ladies and gentlemen, More
August 4, 2007 - 19:29 ET by Noel SheppardLadies and gentlemen,
More liberal math. Pretty extraordinary, really. However, what we have here is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate just how easy it is for Democrats to pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents.
I wrote to Sarc that if spending had increased at the rate of inflation since 2001, the budget would be in balance. Here are the numbers:
In 2001, we spent $1.863 trillion. According to the BLS inflation calculator, that would be $2.192 trillion today. As the most recent estimate has us bringing in $2.540 trillion in unified tax receipts in FY 2007, this means that if we only increased spending at the rate of inflation since 2001, we would currently have a $348 billion surplus.
Simple stuff, folks, if you actually understand arithmetic. ns
Of course, Noel, I kind
August 4, 2007 - 20:02 ET by BlondeOf course, Noel,
I kind of turned off my liberal math detector at Phone's first mention of a "$400 percent" budget increase over five years (and I posted that little error back to him just to be annoying, BTW). An obvious cut/paste job on his part. Erroneous, too.
As someone who regularly works with multiple comma money, I have to laugh at the lib math I see displayed here frequently.
I truly admire your patience, Noel. I usually can't stand more than one post from these mathematically challenged KosKids.
Blonde
August 4, 2007 - 20:16 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Well, as you mentioned to me earlier, he's rather trollish and has one foot out the door. ns
And he's currently
August 4, 2007 - 20:41 ET by KJ_sezAnd he's currently deep-throating his other foot...
Do you REALLY want Hitlary and Kaiser Bill in the White House?
340 percent versus 400 percent. man you're grabbing at straws.
August 4, 2007 - 18:52 ET by PhoneutriaMy mistake, Noel. Under the republicans spending only went up three hundred and forty percent, not four hundred. I was looking at the Cato Intitute's info from 1999 to 2003 and it looked like 400 percent to me cuz it was so freaking huge the graph chart overwhelmed me.
Care to defend 340% increases, as the blog's resident federal budget expert? You can feel free to use such terms as no bid contracts, mega influence and expansion of lobbyists, corporate kickback tax welfare, and corruption. War spending doesn't cover the gap so don't use that card.
See...I correct myself. Now explain yourself. A fourth grader knows what 3 and a half times means. Do you?
Phone
August 4, 2007 - 19:14 ET by Noel SheppardPhone,
Here's what's going to happen for you to continue to be a registered member here:
If you don't do this in your next post to me, I will freeze your account. Is that clear? ns
Yikes...That's a little
August 4, 2007 - 19:31 ET by balboaYikes...That's a little harsh, isn't it Noel? Apologize or be banished?
FWIW, his posts don't look any different on my computer screen than anyone else's.
B
August 4, 2007 - 19:36 ET by Noel SheppardB,
I don't think it's harsh at all. He made a comment that spending has risen 400 percent in the past five years, and challenged someone to prove him wrong. I did, and now he's claiming that a 34 percent increase is actually a 340 percent increase as he arrogantly belittles the person who accurately refuted his numbers with a link to support it.
If the shoe was on the other foot, B, would you admit your error like a gentleman, or stick to your position utilizing childish invective to support your view?
As for the appearance of his posts, I've been yanking the breaks out. As such, they look fine now.
For some reason, many of our liberal members like playing this same game of using breaks to highlight their posts. Nightnoise liked doing that if you recall. ns
Hm. Well, I enjoy childish
August 4, 2007 - 20:37 ET by balboaHm. Well, I enjoy childish invective as much as the next guy, but I tend to admit when I've been proven wrong and just move on.
I probably butted in where I didn't know exactly what was going on.
Balboa
August 4, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Noel SheppardB,
That's ok. You're always welcomed. And, I don't mind someone questioning such a response from me. As you know, I'm pretty unflappable on these boards, and it takes a lot to provoke me.
However, you make an economic or budget-oriented statement, ask for challengers, and get totally debunked with an attached link to OMB, and you'd better not come back grabbing your crotch like a rap star. Go back and read through this thread, and tell me whether you think this guy needs to gracefully retreat, and apologize for appearing like a troll. ns
Noel
August 4, 2007 - 21:02 ET by balboaI've been reading, and though I'm not a big econ guy, think I understand what's going on. Phone seems to be converting 34% to 340% without reason, then twisted your point about spending according to inflation.
And there's definitely nothing worse than trying to debate with someone who won't acknowledge your questions or points.
Balboa
August 4, 2007 - 21:15 ET by Noel SheppardB,
And this is why we love you, because you are a bastion of reason and impartiality in a sometimes-unfriendly environment. If I could get a hundred folks like you, Shawn, and Leon here, this message board would be the best example of civil, bipartisan debate on the Internet. ns
the reason why is they are
August 4, 2007 - 21:39 ET by Conservative Voicethe reason why is they are intellectually honest and not tools.
Noel:
August 5, 2007 - 02:50 ET by JerNoel:
Does the "civil, bipartisan debate" to which you refer include labeling Leon a 'sorry', 'stupid', 'pathetic', 'Al Quaeda supporting' 'loser' who is 'owed no respect'?
[See Tancredo 'Radical Republican' blog...Aug. 3 by Pam Meister] Seems a little excessive to me. What do you think?
Jer
You are going by the
August 5, 2007 - 07:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou are going by the assumption that Leon, er, Hater ISN'T 'sorry', 'stupid', and 'pathetic'. 'Dumbass', 'douchebag', and 'borderline-retarded' would also have been acceptable answers as well.
Jer
August 5, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Actually, I think that speaks to the point I was making. The debate would be more civil and bipartisan with more civil leftwing posters present. Until that occurs, we'll get such talk because of how they're outnumbered.
However, even if the numbers were more balanced, we'd still get such incivility. This is politics today. Do we see our politicians behaving civilly? Not even close, right? As such, I think a large part of the incivility at political message boards is an aping of how our political leaders treat one another.
I've advocated for years that people at message boards who are disgusted by the caustic tone in Washington lead by example by being exceptionally civil in such forums. Sadly, this has fallen on deaf ears. ns
Noel, Jer is quoting me
August 5, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BlondeNoel,
Jer is quoting me above (cherry picked & out of context, natch). And I stand by every one of them.
Well, yes, Blonde... I
August 5, 2007 - 22:58 ET by JerWell, yes, Blonde...
I did 'cherry pick' from your (and Cool Arrow's) posted replies to Leon in the previously referenced thread. Inasmuch as my intention was to provide examples of words which I felt were unnecessary and demeaning, providing a list of those particular words seemed entirely appropriate. However, if there were any overlooked magnanimous statements praising Leon or his polemical prowess, then, by all means, please correct the record. My recitation of selected quotes was not drawn from some arcane, unlinked verbal exchange. It was a contemporaneous NewsBusters blog which could be instantly accessed for a verbatim, fully contexturalized review.
Blonde, I'm not here to be a whiner about the sometimes rough and tumble atmosphere associated with political blogging. Frankly, I enjoy witnessing the adroit verbal skewering of someone's (liberal or conservative argument [I wish I were better at it], whether by force of logic, superior knowledge, or even the sarcastic put-down. I don't really object (well maybe just a little bit) to the occasional free fire zone in which the NB troops are allowed to flip on full automatic and riddle cardboard liberal targets, e.g. the recent poll regarding "left wing profanity."
In the short time I have been registered here, I have read many of your [Blonde's] comments. You have a sharp mind as well as a sharp tongue. The former is always an asset, and the latter often is. But, unless it's clearly warranted--i.e. responding to a patent provocation or the offensive behavior of another poster--personal attacks simply don't advance the debate. I despise character assassination whether practiced by the left or right, and it's the reason for my strong condemnation of the outrageous comments directed at Noel recently at Whiskey Dog. [And, for the record, I have been treated very courteously here--so far, at least--it may change after this post.]
In closing, you may "stand by" your remarks if you wish. But I think you should reconsider. You are more than capable of both holding your own and intellectually vanquishing your opponents without 'personaliing' the debate.
Jer
Well, Jer. I shall
August 5, 2007 - 23:15 ET by BlondeWell, Jer.
I shall certainly stand by my remarks.
And I would invite anyone to reread them, in context. And in doing so, one would find that they were perfectly warranted in that particular conversation. My remarks had nothing to do with "character assasination" as you so erroneously state. They had to do with Leon's (rather inept) debating tactics.
A question for you...why on earth would I praise Leon for his "prowress". He offered up not one fact to defend my challenge. Opinions, feelings and deflections. No facts.
Blonde... I guess we'll
August 6, 2007 - 01:27 ET by JerBlonde...
I guess we'll both just remain standing, facing opposite directions.
But to address two or three points raised in your post:
1. The statement about praising Leon etc. was obviously 'tongue in cheek'
2. I didn't accuse you of character assassination and don't believe your rhetoric rose to that level. But I do think you were getting close to it by using the personally insulting language which I quoted previously. How does calling someone a 'loser' 'stupid' and a 'sorry' person describe his or her debating tactics, be they inept or otherwise?
3. While I likewise believe it would be a strategic, if not tactical, blunder to launch a full scale military invasion of Pakistan, Leon's position was not completely devoid of rational, historical underpinnings. After all, the Bush Doctrine dictates that any state which harbors terrorists will be considered hostile and thus subject to the full range of military options available to the U.S. To dismiss Leon's argument so cavalierly was inappropriate.
Finally, is this post going to format in the narrow one or two word column again? It's driving me nuts.
Jer
Noel: Before I get jumped
August 5, 2007 - 03:04 ET by JerNoel:
Before I get jumped on for the enormously elongated comment box, it certainly was unintentional. I am not sure what caused it...(hadn't happened with any of my previous posts.) Sorry!
Jer
no...it's 340 percent, as Noel corrected.
August 4, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Phoneutriaif you have a 50 billon budget and the next year is't 190 billion, that's a 380 percent increase. this number is just an example.
I was wrong to yell out 400 percent...I heard it from liberal talk shows. But it's not that far an exaggeration from 340 percent. I'm wondering both why the liberal talk shows exaggerated it, and why the conservative ones never mentioned any bloat at all.
So who's more truthy?
Phone, the budget didn't
August 4, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Conservative VoicePhone, the budget didn't increase 3 fold, give it up.
but I must say, I thought liberals were all for bigger government anyway, are you saying you want the government to spend less? Because that would make you a fiscal conservative.
It could be that you got
August 4, 2007 - 22:13 ET by Conservative VoiceIt could be that you got confused with the rate and the acceleration of growth...it wouldn't surprise me that the acceleration is up there. But then again you would find a number of folks here who agree we need to control spending and lower taxes.
Pho-no
August 4, 2007 - 22:40 ET by botgAs Noel corrected:
2.1 trillion 2003
2.9 trillion 2008
2.1 x 3.4 = 7.14
7.14 does not = 2.9
how long are you going to continue to show yourself the fool?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Come on Bruce. He's a
August 4, 2007 - 22:51 ET by BlondeCome on Bruce.
He's a liberal. You know...they just keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
It's really rather comical though, when they try to do it with factual things, like numbers....rather than feelings.
Makes the resulting, um, results, that much better, don't you think?
This one thrashes a bit more energetically than my pal Leon, actually. Fun to watch, kind of like a wreck.
Blonde
August 4, 2007 - 23:01 ET by botgi think this one won't last however, poor little guy, the way he squirms, just like a mouse in Lenny's hands
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
a 340 percent increase in spending = 3 and a half times more
August 4, 2007 - 22:11 ET by Phoneutriaspending 3 and a half times more money than 1999.
the spending increased by a multiple of 3.4
that's not .34 .........it's multiplying the spending by 3.4.
three times bigger. look it up, ask Noel.
Phobia
August 4, 2007 - 22:30 ET by botgSee above and seek counselling for your arithmaphobia
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
not sure of this ettiquette breach
August 4, 2007 - 21:30 ET by Phoneutria1) not sure how this formatting works but I'm doing what everyone else is, as far as paragraphing...I think? Not trying to cause a problem.
2) take 2.160 trillion and multiply by .340 and then add it to the 2.160. you get your numbers. if it's off by a bit....better not mentioning. it only gets worse.
3) I gave Blonde many chance to correct "HER" arrogance and name calling on me, without checking the facts or replying with data. She refused. And insulted me. You want me to apologize for giving data to someone that bashed me. Hmm? How'd she get her creds? Blindly agreeing, I bet. Prove me wrong.
And your data? Uhm....I understand that you have a closed blog and only take like-minded folk, and like data. The screenshot of this web page you've presented me with is enough to make you look like an even bigger incredulous dreeb, when confronted with fact. I'd like to see that 340 percent increase posted loud so everyone can talk about it, and think up new ideas. But you want to hide it and banish me.
I think you guys are good and part of the process. I've been called all kinda names...yay. This is the debate. I apologize for breaking any rules and I'm looking for the truth as I hope your bloggers are.
I know how this goes. You look bad, you ban the blogger. Stuff's out there already, man. We're both Americans, and you've got a good thing going, if it's really open to our best interests.
I would even advertise on this site if you have some kind of localized delivery.
.340 does not equal to 34.0
August 4, 2007 - 21:35 ET by Conservative Voice.340 does not equal to 34.0 ( ie 34% does not equal to 340% ) 340% means take the original value and add it to itself 34 times ( ie multiply it by 34 )
Nice Kerry apology btw
LOL...Classic, just classic.
August 4, 2007 - 21:43 ET by contraryLOL...Classic, just classic.
oops, now I'm off by a
August 4, 2007 - 21:47 ET by Conservative Voiceoops, now I'm off by a digit...
.34 does not equal 3.4
see how easy it is to apologize
I'm betting your not going
August 4, 2007 - 21:37 ET by