Plus, don't forget the times matter. The incumbent always faces more outrage and anger than the relatively unknown challenger. I'd put the Right wing "hate" for Clinton up against the Left's "hate" for Bush any day.
Or, as the host of "What do you Know?" (Michael Feldman?) this morning quipped: If he loses the election, at least he can find work on Easter Island.
As for Bin Laden, if you haven't looked further into Al-Qaida and how it operates than your question is half-informed, there simply is not a central leader behind Al-Qaida. Each cell has their very own leader and replacement leaders, so capturing Bin Laden (if he still is alive, and currently there is no proof that he is) will no
The same Kerry that has done everything in his power to silence the voices of all the Vietnam vets that do not support him? The same Kerry that attempts to discourage book stores from selling a book that does not show him favor (while there are numerous books that blast Bush to no end) Apparently he doe
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found plenty of evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq & al-Qaeda (just read the report), though not of the "operational" variety. Your use of and emphasis on the word "operational" in that statement, in an effort to dismiss what the Commission actually said and to use that evidence
I actually agree with you. And actually, I don't. Damn it! And I was trying to get over the whole liberal "flip-flopper" stigma. My problem with your argument is that you are trying to essentialize all religions and all functions of religion. You are persuasive and you have lot's of evidence available to you to make this point. But couldn't the same thing be said about, say
I’ve been blogging around on JU for the last three weeks or so. I came here mobilized by claims that blog sites were doing much to encourage civil discourse and provide public domain pressure on the press not to drop important stories. I suspected those claims were a bit utopian and my reading and participation on discussion threads have only supported that suspicio
Thanks, Gideon. I can live with "accurate but irrelevant." It could well turn out to be my epitaph. I also appreciate the "common ground" you've articulated here -- we clearly do share some points of agreement. Having a sense of what those are is very helpful to me. I'm sure I'll catch you on another thread. And yeah, the additional fun numbers are fun. I
"Please point me to a post where I stated this. " You haven't. Media pundits have. I can provide sources if you want, but I thought this was pretty much common knowledge by now. Kind of like the way you assume it is common knowledge that media pundits posit that Moore has his finger on the pulse of the nation. You call it a red herring. I call it a challenge to your method by parallel case. I'd be glad to write about this on my
"I think my figure of 2-3% that hold hard to Moore's ideology is a reasonable number (actually, I consider it high; my personal theory about groupthink is that 10% of the group is actually doing the thinking, the other 90% are doing the following; this would place the numbers of Moore idealogues well under 1%. But since that is a theory with no statistical base, I can't include that in my stats)." "Reasonable" is debatable. Maybe you have oth
Nicely done. I agree with you generally, but I also want the charge of "flip flopping" qualified (if not abandoned) in both cases. So, for example, some argue that some of President Bush's flip flops from campaign promises (nation building, world police, etc.) are a direct result of 9/11 changing the political landscape. Fair enough. But if there are contextual influences and nuances to his flip flops, then we should also assume and do our
"Good, because those numbers do not affect the GROSS of a film. Gross is income BEFORE expenses, just so you know." Granted. Good thing I wasn't considering those factors, as I said. Of course, I was pointing them out at the same time I was dismissing them. Naughty me! "If this is going to turn into a "Michael Moore is right" debate, I would suggest it would make a b
Interesting point, Gideon. But I have reservations about the assumptions undergirding your methodology. I decided to test it out on another hot topic film of the past year. The domestic gross for "The Passion of the Christ" was an impressive $370,274,604. Preserving all of your assumptions (even though we know some people were taken to the film by caring relatives and others saw it many times), I am able to conclude that 17.6% of the countr
"Nice jab to the right. There's really no point in discussing anything with you, is there?" Yeah, we're pretty much polarized on this topic, aren't we? Messy Blau goes straight to my "jab," ignoring everything else I've said as well as his/her own jabs that I was responding to. And I slip into the fallacy of "tu quoque" ("you also") in pointing that out. Daiwa essentializes me by negative association with Michael Moore, someone ma
"Since when is the Daily Show known for objectivity and accuracy?" It isn't, necessarily. But in this particular case, it isn't bending the facts for a funny. It is pointing out, quite accurately, that the links are considerably smaller than 6 degrees, thereby responding to an unsupported dismissal of the connections between "SBVftT" being slight or links on a long chain. It may be a fake news program, but that doesn't mean they make up (al
It's too soon to say, but Zogby shows Bush leading by a healthy margin in Ohio. Kerry seems to have PA though (er, today). I watch these numbers go up and down (recently up for Bush), but I think it is too soon to tell. It still seems to be a pretty even match, even in the Electoral College. I grant that Ohio is important, but I think there are too many battleground states (some with impressive Electoral votes) to make Ohio the be
Thank-you, Daiwa. You have effectively demonstrated that you disagree with the differences I have suggested between "MoveOn" and "SBVftT" as organizations. In doing so, I think you implicitly grant that liberals (at least this liberal) have not been blind to the connection between Kerry and "unaffiliated groups" (as you originally asserted) but, rather, see that connection as different from Bush's connection to a group like "SBVftT." You do not see
Except, well, his "unaffiliated supporters" weren't supporting him until he emerged as front runner from the primaries. That doesn't mean he doesn't benefit from them now, of course. But there is a significant difference between, say, "MoveOn.org" and "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth." One has been committed for a while to defeating Bush and getting the country to "move on" from his policies. When Kerry emerged from the primaries as the most like
I am struck by the fact that "Statists" outnumber Right/Conservative. Don't quite know what to make of that, but it is interesting. Big Surprise, I am a Left/Liberal....but not an extreme Left/Liberal. Your Personal issues Score is 70%. Your Economic issues Score is 30%.
I know it’s just election year politics. I know it is just name-calling and divisiveness. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me – and mostly I don’t. But the Right-wing, neo-con charge that liberals “hate America first” bugs me. It was all over the RNC last week. It is all over discussions on this blog site. If you are liberal or democrat or basically not “one of
I don't support the kind of violence that you experienced in your counter-protest. I also don't support that folks probably stood by and let more radical protestors respond to you with violence. At the same time, I think it is a mistake to let the actions of a few serve as the description fo the 250-500K people protesting in NY. The Left is a rainbow mix of different groups who are committed to a wide array of issues and who deploy a wide array of t
Good article, Draginol. It might also be worth pointing out that we are talking pretty colloquially here about debate. Really, what takes place on-line is more accurately a discussion or, as they are named here, "forums" (technically, the plural should be "fora" -- but let's not be picky!). What's the difference? Debates usually operate under a time constraint and are judged by a moderator(s) such that an actual winner can be picked
[I'm not sure I've got this quotation thing working right, so in case it isn't...this is me responding to the call to show ONE Bush lie] I have no illusions that my response will satisfy anyone who thinks Bush is God's perfect little angel who never lies or makes a mistake. We can play semantic games until we are blue in the face about whether something is a "lie," a "slant" or merely "misleading." But here goes. Foregoing the obv
Tex-- Well, as someone on the Left, I have to say you haven't infuriated me. In fact, you've pretty well stated my opinion and position on the matter. I have never believed that the vast majority of women who have abortions do so "lightly." It is one of the most difficult decisions to make. Moreover, this decision is made in full possession of all of the facts of their particular contexts -- something neither pro-life protestors nor lawmak
Bush's popularity "surges"? Hmmm. That seems a bit, well, hyperbolic. But then, I think it was probably a mistake for Dems to celebrate Kerry's "surge" during the DNC. As a Democrat, I find myself oddly comforted by the Bush campaign's words of just a couple of weeks ago: It is too soon to put much stock in the state of the polls -- it is still two months to the election, and the only poll that matters is the one on November 2. Having sai
JoeUser Forums