|
wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio) where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let alone unbiased. Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press). |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. Funny, you don't ask that same question when the Rasmussen Robot Poll was slower to report Bush's slide. Repeatability is often a sign of accuracy. Rasmussen's polling data doesn't show the wild day to day fluctuations that the other polls do. He also holds the the title of "most-accurate-pollster-in-the-last-two-Presidential-elections". |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 +0000, NOYB wrote: If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides. Of course Iran will pick a side, as will the Saudis, the Syrians, the Turks. That is the problem with unrest. Blink your eyes, and you have a full blown regional conflict. Definitely not a good outcome. Actually, that might be a very good outcome. It'll be easy to choose sides in a conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. The questions are not necessarily the only way to manipulate the data. The sample group and means of obtaining data are even more important. For example, before the 2002 and 2004 elections, many pollsters were oversampling Democratic voters. They erroneously believed that the number of voting Democrats greatly outnumbered the number of voting Republicans. They used exit polling data from the 1996 election to reach this conclusion. But they missed two very important facts about both the 1996 election, and the time period between the elections: 1) the Republican base was apathetic about the Dole/Kemp ticket, so didn't turn out in force 2) the country's voting habits leaned more towards the Republican candidate in the mid-to-latter half of the 90's.....particularly when voting for gubernatorial and congressional candidates. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. The questions are not necessarily the only way to manipulate the data. The sample group and means of obtaining data are even more important. Even the order in which questions are asked can tilt a poll. For example, before the 2002 and 2004 elections, many pollsters were oversampling Democratic voters. They erroneously believed that the number of voting Democrats greatly outnumbered the number of voting Republicans. They used exit polling data from the 1996 election to reach this conclusion. But they missed two very important facts about both the 1996 election, and the time period between the elections: 1) the Republican base was apathetic about the Dole/Kemp ticket, so didn't turn out in force 2) the country's voting habits leaned more towards the Republican candidate in the mid-to-latter half of the 90's.....particularly when voting for gubernatorial and congressional candidates. |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio) where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let alone unbiased. Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press). Is this bias? In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military and police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security situation for their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a car full of explosives right in front of a police station and turns it into rubble. Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he said? |
Jeff Rigby wrote: Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press). What you mean of course, is that you prefer to have your prejudices catered to, and desperately want to believe that your biases & bigorty are "the truth." The obvious bias of Fex News is a more palatable alternative to you (and many) it must have been very uncomfortable before Fox News came to your rescue. DSK |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:
I believe the true purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia. I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote: I believe the true purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia. I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about. I believe that it's a case of "be careful what you wish for". bin Laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, but I doubt he wanted 5 times as many troops in the country next door. When we left Saudi Arabia, the Saudi royals were having a hard time with internal strife, and were in real danger of losing control of the country. By leaving, we removed a huge burden on them, as there was no longer a casus belli among the Saudi population to overthrow the royals. Regardless, we're better situated now to deal with any threats arising from the Middle East. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. 1 - What is your name? 2 - Where do you live? 3 - What is your age? 4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes? No? Would that last question be biased? |
So are you. Print newspapers are losing readers all across the
editorial/political spectrum. Any idea why? Sure. its COSTLY! to print paper, and cheap to look on the net. Subscription prices climb because of the cost of printing, and when you do get the paper, you look at all the ads and little news. Amazing, you get to pay for advertisments that somebody paid to put them in there. what a waste! |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:07:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. 1 - What is your name? 2 - Where do you live? 3 - What is your age? 4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes? No? Would that last question be biased? No fair- you only asked for three. Outside. We're throwin' down right now. But first, ice cream. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:46:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:07:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message m... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. 1 - What is your name? 2 - Where do you live? 3 - What is your age? 4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes? No? Would that last question be biased? No fair- you only asked for three. Outside. We're throwin' down right now. But first, ice cream. OH OH - Strawberry banana split please... EAT!!!!!!!!!!!! |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jeff Rigby" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to "punish" the Times? You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in sync with your editorial view. People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers present! I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio) where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let alone unbiased. Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press). Is this bias? In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military and police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security situation for their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a car full of explosives right in front of a police station and turns it into rubble. Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he said? No, and Fox reported both. The difference is that Fox reports WHY we are there and the national press keeps insisting that the only reason we are there is WMD. They never report on the strategic value Iraq has. IF it has no value then why is there such a massive terrorism campaign there and not in Afghanistan. Everytime I hear of more terrorism in Iraq I KNOW we are in the right place. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dan J.S." wrote in message ... NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why? :) Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be aware of. I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into any of the online newspapers that require free registration. It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet, surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership. I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another newspaper. Hardly anyone uses those charts - plus there are not that many charts. You may be thinking USA TODAY :) . Anyone in the financial world will use real time charting like Bloomberg terminals or Reuters Bridge systems. On a subway? :-) Doug Seriously - the charts, etc are old news (last nights closing prices, etc). Businessmen have blackberries that provide them with real time data too. WSJ is really about the articles, insights, commentaries, reviews and trends. |
Debate issue: Resolved, that the people of the United States need a mechanism to remove incompetent voters from the voter rolls Issue: define incompetent Felons Anyone on public assistance Illiterate |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote: Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. . "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" . Approve 40% Disapprove 53% Rasmussen: 47% Fox: 45% CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth. I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that information? I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that continually comes out of Newsweek. There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped" to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the President. OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions. 1 - What is your name? 2 - Where do you live? 3 - What is your age? 4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes? No? Would that last question be biased? It could be if they used the earlier questions to profile you...and then hung up if you didn't fit their sample population. |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... Debate issue: Resolved, that the people of the United States need a mechanism to remove incompetent voters from the voter rolls Issue: define incompetent Felons Anyone on public assistance Illiterate Public assistance? You still hold the belief that everyone receiving it is a bum who's not trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
... Is this bias? In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military and police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security situation for their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a car full of explosives right in front of a police station and turns it into rubble. Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he said? No, and Fox reported both. Good. But when other news organizations report the bit about the crumbling police station, certain ditto-heads point to that and say "Ah ha! They only report the bad news!" In fact, sources like PBS play the exact same clips of Nookular Boy talking about how "ready" the Iraqis are to take care of themselves, but the ditto-heads choose not to listen. |
Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he said? Jeff Rigby wrote: No, and Fox reported both. The difference is that Fox reports WHY we are there Uh huh. Why is that, exactly? Because Saddam was responsible for Sept 11th? Face facts, Fox is nothing but a Bush-Cheney propaganda outlet. It's amazing to me that with the millions they spend primping the Bush Administration (thru Fox and other media), they're still in the mud. Nixon did a better job... at least, up until he got caught. ... They never report on the strategic value Iraq has. IF it has no value then why is there such a massive terrorism campaign there and not in Afghanistan. Excuse me, there *is* a massive terrorism campaign going on in Afghanistan. The difference is that there are far fewer U.S. troops there, they're better insulated, and the whole country has a far lower population density. ... Everytime I hear of more terrorism in Iraq I KNOW we are in the right place. That figures. No explain why we're doing sucha great job in Iraq if fewer people have running water & electricity now than 2 years ago, and the Army can't even keep the road to the airport safe. DSK |
thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:54:07 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:23:56 -0400, thunder wrote: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote: What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy. At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from. I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded, additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say failed Presidency? http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm What was there to cover up? According to what I've read, everybody in the known universe knew that Valerie Palme was Wilson's wife and she worked at the CIA. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the IIPA. There are quite a few more laws that could apply and may have been broken. Try the Espionage Act, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, all could apply. I would also point out, that the IIPA may indeed apply. The CIA initially filed the complaint, with the Justice Dept., that started this investigation. I'm just guessing here, because we know how frivolous the CIA can be, but perhaps, their lawyers felt a law may have been broken. The IIPA is the only thing anybody is talking about. You have brought up the Espionage Act, perjury, obstruction and conspiracy before. All of the elements of a crime must be met for there to even be a crime - which is what will probably send anything under the IIPA out the window. What elements do you think have been met under the EA? Perjury would be applicable if anyone lied under oath - I don't know that anyone has. Obstruction may be in order if anyone stiffled the investigation - however refusing to incriminate ones self is not obstruction, nor would it necessarily be obstruction to fail to volunteer information. Jesus - doesn't take a freakin' intelligence genius to put two and two together and come up with four. That's truly fortunate, because we are not talking intelligence geniuses, we are talking the Bush administration. |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:00:31 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:
The IIPA is the only thing anybody is talking about. You have brought up the Espionage Act, perjury, obstruction and conspiracy before. All of the elements of a crime must be met for there to even be a crime - which is what will probably send anything under the IIPA out the window. What elements do you think have been met under the EA? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not claiming that the EA will be used, but it has in the past been used for plain, old fashioned leaks. See the Morison case. http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopoli...nofficial.html Perjury would be applicable if anyone lied under oath - I don't know that anyone has. Obstruction may be in order if anyone stiffled the investigation - however refusing to incriminate ones self is not obstruction, nor would it necessarily be obstruction to fail to volunteer information. Again, this is speculation, but: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004956.php I have no inside information that there will be any charges brought. I am just pointing out that the prosecutor is not limited to the IIPA. |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he said? Jeff Rigby wrote: No, and Fox reported both. The difference is that Fox reports WHY we are there Uh huh. Why is that, exactly? Because Saddam was responsible for Sept 11th? Face facts, Fox is nothing but a Bush-Cheney propaganda outlet. It's amazing to me that with the millions they spend primping the Bush Administration (thru Fox and other media), they're still in the mud. Nixon did a better job... at least, up until he got caught. ... They never report on the strategic value Iraq has. IF it has no value then why is there such a massive terrorism campaign there and not in Afghanistan. Excuse me, there *is* a massive terrorism campaign going on in Afghanistan. The difference is that there are far fewer U.S. troops there, they're better insulated, and the whole country has a far lower population density. ... Everytime I hear of more terrorism in Iraq I KNOW we are in the right place. That figures. You don't think that these people are evil incarnate, worse than Hitler or Stalin. Saddam is tame in comparison. One of the only arguments that I accept from the left is that it would have been better to leave Saddam in power than to allow the terrorists to control Iraq. No explain why we're doing sucha great job in Iraq if fewer people have running water & electricity now than 2 years ago, and the Army can't even keep the road to the airport safe. DSK Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons, we may NOT be doing a good job. You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. Thus it appears that we are always defending Bush administration policy. "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Do you understand this???? You set the argument, You are ill informed about policy goals of the administration, You do not listen to various news medias and have a BIAS because of this. You assume others are biased because all the news medias you listen to are agreed. Think about it, reread the news articles and you will see "US" responding to distortions of facts, obvious distortions. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... Debate issue: Resolved, that the people of the United States need a mechanism to remove incompetent voters from the voter rolls Issue: define incompetent Felons Anyone on public assistance Illiterate Public assistance? You still hold the belief that everyone receiving it is a bum who's not trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? No but it eliminates those who are susceptible to the politician that promises a chicken in every pot from government money. And to Harry, illiterate is not someone who can not speak the words but someone who can't understand the words. Understanding, something that all of us lack to some degree. I really wanted to put there a sense of history instead of Illiterate but that would be too hard to test. |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons Agreed. Should have been done a lot differently, but it's too late for that now. ... we may NOT be doing a good job. "May"??? There is no area in which the US is doing a good job in Iraq, other than handing gazillions of dollars to the "rebuilding" corporations (surprise surprise, they turn out to be heavy Bush-Cheney sponsors). Iraq is broken, probably at least as broken as any Palestinian state could be. ... You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. Well, you are. It's very simple. President Bush has done a rotten job of running the country. Very few (if any) of his policies have resulted in a benefit to the country. ... "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. 1- what news media do you think I watch? It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are. It is certainly true that *none* (and I mean zero, zip, nada, zilch-o) of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have shown any of the points I make here are wrong, desptie their constant yapping about it. 2- It looks like a "slam dunk" to you because the facts are so uniformly against you. An intelligent person observes the facts and bases his opinions on reality, not twisting & spinning (and lying) to justify his opinions regardless of fact. ... "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Really? You think it's a good idea to destroy the American education system, to drive the US backwards in science, to push industry offshore and encourage corporations to duck their taxes (as long as they make political contributions to the right party), to destroy the environment for the profit of a few, to eliminate Social Security (or at least, the Security part), to drive away any country that may want to be our allies, to increase US dependence on foreign oil now that we're past the Hubbert peak, to increase military spending while not accomplishing any military goals, to leave ouor borders largely unsecured... wait that's enough for now. Do you understand this???? You set the argument, You are ill informed about policy goals of the administration, Actually, the policy goals of this Administration make no sense at all. ... You do not listen to various news medias and have a BIAS because of this. How do you know what news medias I listen to? ... You assume others are biased because all the news medias you listen to are agreed. Wrong. You assume you know what I listen to (or watch) when you clearly don't have a clue. Since you have stated your reliance ont Fox News, stated by Vice President Cheney to be the best news source, we know that you are both ill informed and heavily biased. Yet because they spoon feed you a lot of flattery about how smart you are to watch Fox, you believe it all. And you have nice little support group of like minded Clinton-hating Bush-Cheney cheerleaders right here. Must make you feel good, but it doesn't change what you are. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons Agreed. Should have been done a lot differently, but it's too late for that now. ... we may NOT be doing a good job. "May"??? There is no area in which the US is doing a good job in Iraq, other than handing gazillions of dollars to the "rebuilding" corporations (surprise surprise, they turn out to be heavy Bush-Cheney sponsors). Iraq is broken, probably at least as broken as any Palestinian state could be. ... You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. Well, you are. It's very simple. President Bush has done a rotten job of running the country. Very few (if any) of his policies have resulted in a benefit to the country. ... "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. 1- what news media do you think I watch? It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are. It is certainly true that *none* (and I mean zero, zip, nada, zilch-o) of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have shown any of the points I make here are wrong, desptie their constant yapping about it. 2- It looks like a "slam dunk" to you because the facts are so uniformly against you. An intelligent person observes the facts and bases his opinions on reality, not twisting & spinning (and lying) to justify his opinions regardless of fact. ... "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Really? You think it's a good idea to destroy the American education system, to drive the US backwards in science, to push industry offshore and encourage corporations to duck their taxes (as long as they make political contributions to the right party), to destroy the environment for the profit of a few, to eliminate Social Security (or at least, the Security part), to drive away any country that may want to be our allies, to increase US dependence on foreign oil now that we're past the Hubbert peak, to increase military spending while not accomplishing any military goals, to leave ouor borders largely unsecured... wait that's enough for now. The above is a perfect example of our difference in facts, take education. CSPAN had a congressional hearing on the No Child Left Behind Act on Monday. It appears from the majority of the testimony that it's working. There were representitives from many states. The REP from Minnisota was claiming that it wasn't NCLB but an initiative that they started two years before that resulted in Minnisota test results showing such a large improvement. That may be true but what they started before NCLB looked alot like NCLB. the news medias you listen to are agreed. Wrong. You assume you know what I listen to (or watch) when you clearly don't have a clue. Since you have stated your reliance on Fox News, I didn't state my reliance but that I thought that it's only 20% obviously biased while I thought that the other news groups were 80% hidden agenda biased. It's easier for me to see bias in Fox while I have to find the news and data that is left out of the other national news media. stated by Vice President Cheney to be the best news source, we know that you are both ill informed and heavily biased. Yet because they spoon feed you a lot of flattery about how smart you are to watch Fox, you believe it all. bull****, the spoon fed news I usually don't watch, I like the panel discussions, CSPAN and CNN And you have nice little support group of like minded Clinton-hating Bush-Cheney cheerleaders right here. AGAIN, YOU set the arguments we respond to errors in data Must make you feel good, but it doesn't change what you are. Your goal is to change me and my goal is to set the facts straight DSK |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons Agreed. Should have been done a lot differently, but it's too late for that now. ... we may NOT be doing a good job. "May"??? There is no area in which the US is doing a good job in Iraq, other than handing gazillions of dollars to the "rebuilding" corporations (surprise surprise, they turn out to be heavy Bush-Cheney sponsors). Iraq is broken, probably at least as broken as any Palestinian state could be. ... You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. Well, you are. It's very simple. President Bush has done a rotten job of running the country. Very few (if any) of his policies have resulted in a benefit to the country. ... "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. 1- what news media do you think I watch? It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are. It is certainly true that *none* (and I mean zero, zip, nada, zilch-o) of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have shown any of the points I make here are wrong, desptie their constant yapping about it. 2- It looks like a "slam dunk" to you because the facts are so uniformly against you. An intelligent person observes the facts and bases his opinions on reality, not twisting & spinning (and lying) to justify his opinions regardless of fact. ... "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Really? You think it's a good idea to destroy the American education system, to drive the US backwards in science, to push industry offshore and encourage corporations to duck their taxes (as long as they make political contributions to the right party), to destroy the environment for the profit of a few, to eliminate Social Security (or at least, the Security part), to drive away any country that may want to be our allies, to increase US dependence on foreign oil now that we're past the Hubbert peak, to increase military spending while not accomplishing any military goals, to leave ouor borders largely unsecured... wait that's enough for now. The above is a perfect example of our difference in facts, take education. CSPAN had a congressional hearing on the No Child Left Behind Act on Monday. It appears from the majority of the testimony that it's working. Working at what? Improving test scores? Yes, good. How much of that is done by excluding certain groups of kids from the test pool? The NCLB act is actually a program to reduce the effectiveness of getting public school kids into college, where they can practice upward social & political mobility, and the big goal is to reduce the political influence of the teacher's unions (the last is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is undertaken as a tactic to solidify Republican hegemony which *is* a bad thing). So, in short, your breezy & shallow assurances that the No Child Left Behind Act is "working" is actually more sinister than you realize. Is this the direction you really want the country to take? I didn't state my reliance but that I thought that it's only 20% obviously biased while I thought that the other news groups were 80% hidden agenda biased. Many are, yes. Many more are not, or (like the foreign media for example) are biased in a direction that is not derived from US politics. The presumption that the majority of media are liberal biased is a lot of hooey. ... It's easier for me to see bias in Fox while I have to find the news and data that is left out of the other national news media. The great thing about the Internet is the huge variety of information offered. Of course, that also means that you can always find somebody who agrees with you, even if you are the type of sicko who is looking for sex with goats. AGAIN, YOU set the arguments we respond to errors in data Well, you certainly haven't responded to any errors in any data that I have posted here. ... Must make you feel good, but it doesn't change what you are. Your goal is to change me Not at all. My goal is to present facts and 2ndarily to amuse myself with what a pack of dishonest boneheads the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders are. ... and my goal is to set the facts straight You seem to be a bit above the average, but you share the self-delusion. And it's clear that you're mightily offended by any criticism of President Bush no matter how justified, and prefer to either ignore or distort the "facts" you are determined to "set straight" since most of them don't show the Bush-Cheney Administration in a favorable light. DSK |
The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display
"It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." And they wonder why they keep losing elections? "Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... Jeff Rigby wrote: Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons Agreed. Should have been done a lot differently, but it's too late for that now. ... we may NOT be doing a good job. "May"??? There is no area in which the US is doing a good job in Iraq, other than handing gazillions of dollars to the "rebuilding" corporations (surprise surprise, they turn out to be heavy Bush-Cheney sponsors). Iraq is broken, probably at least as broken as any Palestinian state could be. ... You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. Well, you are. It's very simple. President Bush has done a rotten job of running the country. Very few (if any) of his policies have resulted in a benefit to the country. ... "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. 1- what news media do you think I watch? It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are. It is certainly true that *none* (and I mean zero, zip, nada, zilch-o) of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have shown any of the points I make here are wrong, desptie their constant yapping about it. 2- It looks like a "slam dunk" to you because the facts are so uniformly against you. An intelligent person observes the facts and bases his opinions on reality, not twisting & spinning (and lying) to justify his opinions regardless of fact. ... "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Really? You think it's a good idea to destroy the American education system, to drive the US backwards in science, to push industry offshore and encourage corporations to duck their taxes (as long as they make political contributions to the right party), to destroy the environment for the profit of a few, to eliminate Social Security (or at least, the Security part), to drive away any country that may want to be our allies, to increase US dependence on foreign oil now that we're past the Hubbert peak, to increase military spending while not accomplishing any military goals, to leave ouor borders largely unsecured... wait that's enough for now. The above is a perfect example of our difference in facts, take education. CSPAN had a congressional hearing on the No Child Left Behind Act on Monday. It appears from the majority of the testimony that it's working. There were representitives from many states. The REP from Minnisota was claiming that it wasn't NCLB but an initiative that they started two years before that resulted in Minnisota test results showing such a large improvement. That may be true but what they started before NCLB looked alot like NCLB. the news medias you listen to are agreed. Wrong. You assume you know what I listen to (or watch) when you clearly don't have a clue. Since you have stated your reliance on Fox News, I didn't state my reliance but that I thought that it's only 20% obviously biased while I thought that the other news groups were 80% hidden agenda biased. It's easier for me to see bias in Fox while I have to find the news and data that is left out of the other national news media. stated by Vice President Cheney to be the best news source, we know that you are both ill informed and heavily biased. Yet because they spoon feed you a lot of flattery about how smart you are to watch Fox, you believe it all. bull****, the spoon fed news I usually don't watch, I like the panel discussions, CSPAN and CNN And you have nice little support group of like minded Clinton-hating Bush-Cheney cheerleaders right here. AGAIN, YOU set the arguments we respond to errors in data Must make you feel good, but it doesn't change what you are. Your goal is to change me and my goal is to set the facts straight DSK |
P Fritz wrote:
The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." Is it brain-dead or arrogant to have posted plain fact and proven many right-wingers here to be wrong, and yet none of them has ever once... not the first time... proven any of the facts I post to be incorrect? Is it arrogant or brain-dead to continually proclaim oneself always right, and smarter than "the other guys" when you are in fact the one who is always wrong? And they wonder why they keep losing elections? I've never lost an election once. BTW the subject here is BOATS. Do you have a boat? DSK |
DSK wrote: P Fritz wrote: The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." Is it brain-dead or arrogant to have posted plain fact and proven many right-wingers here to be wrong, and yet none of them has ever once... not the first time... proven any of the facts I post to be incorrect? Is it arrogant or brain-dead to continually proclaim oneself always right, and smarter than "the other guys" when you are in fact the one who is always wrong? And they wonder why they keep losing elections? I've never lost an election once. BTW the subject here is BOATS. Do you have a boat? DSK Fritz's powers are waning, he doesn't have JimH's ass to stick his nose in for nourishment. He'll take to someone else, like NOYB soon. |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:11:53 -0400, DSK wrote:
Jeff Rigby wrote: Here is where the problem occurs, we are in Iraq for a number of good reasons Agreed. Should have been done a lot differently, but it's too late for that now. ... we may NOT be doing a good job. "May"??? There is no area in which the US is doing a good job in Iraq, other than handing gazillions of dollars to the "rebuilding" corporations (surprise surprise, they turn out to be heavy Bush-Cheney sponsors). Iraq is broken, probably at least as broken as any Palestinian state could be. ... You seem to think that "we" give Bush a pass on all things when "we" respond to the Bush bashing. Well, you are. It's very simple. President Bush has done a rotten job of running the country. Very few (if any) of his policies have resulted in a benefit to the country. ... "YOU" focus the arguments to areas that you think (because of the incestuous nature of the news medias you watch) are a slam dunk. 1- what news media do you think I watch? It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are. It is certainly true that *none* (and I mean zero, zip, nada, zilch-o) of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have shown any of the points I make here are wrong, desptie their constant yapping about it. 2- It looks like a "slam dunk" to you because the facts are so uniformly against you. An intelligent person observes the facts and bases his opinions on reality, not twisting & spinning (and lying) to justify his opinions regardless of fact. ... "We" have no argument with Bush policy, just it's implementation (at times). Really? You think it's a good idea to destroy the American education system, to drive the US backwards in science, to push industry offshore and encourage corporations to duck their taxes (as long as they make political contributions to the right party), to destroy the environment for the profit of a few, to eliminate Social Security (or at least, the Security part), to drive away any country that may want to be our allies, to increase US dependence on foreign oil now that we're past the Hubbert peak, to increase military spending while not accomplishing any military goals, to leave ouor borders largely unsecured... wait that's enough for now. Do you understand this???? You set the argument, You are ill informed about policy goals of the administration, Actually, the policy goals of this Administration make no sense at all. ... You do not listen to various news medias and have a BIAS because of this. How do you know what news medias I listen to? ... You assume others are biased because all the news medias you listen to are agreed. Wrong. You assume you know what I listen to (or watch) when you clearly don't have a clue. Since you have stated your reliance ont Fox News, stated by Vice President Cheney to be the best news source, we know that you are both ill informed and heavily biased. Yet because they spoon feed you a lot of flattery about how smart you are to watch Fox, you believe it all. And you have nice little support group of like minded Clinton-hating Bush-Cheney cheerleaders right here. Must make you feel good, but it doesn't change what you are. DSK Fox News has been stating for a long time that Iraq is 'broken'. Does that, in your opinion, mean that Iraq *isn't* broken? When you've watched one side of the news for your whole life, seeing both sides will naturally give the impression that you are seeing 'biased' news. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:38:56 -0400, DSK wrote:
P Fritz wrote: The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." Is it brain-dead or arrogant to have posted plain fact and proven many right-wingers here to be wrong, and yet none of them has ever once... not the first time... proven any of the facts I post to be incorrect? Is it arrogant or brain-dead to continually proclaim oneself always right, and smarter than "the other guys" when you are in fact the one who is always wrong? And they wonder why they keep losing elections? I've never lost an election once. BTW the subject here is BOATS. Do you have a boat? DSK When have you ever posted 'plain fact'? You post opiniated, name-calling statements with little basis in fact. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
|
PocoLoco wrote:
Fox News has been stating for a long time that Iraq is 'broken'. Does that, in your opinion, mean that Iraq *isn't* broken? No I think it's a case of admitting the obvious. When you've watched one side of the news for your whole life, seeing both sides will naturally give the impression that you are seeing 'biased' news. Yep. Funny how that works, and how it directly feeds the whole "liberal biased media" delusion. DSK |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:33:21 -0400, DSK wrote:
PocoLoco wrote: Fox News has been stating for a long time that Iraq is 'broken'. Does that, in your opinion, mean that Iraq *isn't* broken? No I think it's a case of admitting the obvious. Well! At least you agree they are being truthful. When you've watched one side of the news for your whole life, seeing both sides will naturally give the impression that you are seeing 'biased' news. Yep. Funny how that works, and how it directly feeds the whole "liberal biased media" delusion. Again we agree, except that you're confusing 'delusion' and 'reality'. Hopefully you'll learn. DSK -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:38:56 -0400, DSK wrote: P Fritz wrote: The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." Is it brain-dead or arrogant to have posted plain fact and proven many right-wingers here to be wrong, and yet none of them has ever once... not the first time... proven any of the facts I post to be incorrect? Is it arrogant or brain-dead to continually proclaim oneself always right, and smarter than "the other guys" when you are in fact the one who is always wrong? And they wonder why they keep losing elections? I've never lost an election once. BTW the subject here is BOATS. Do you have a boat? DSK When have you ever posted 'plain fact'? To a liebral...."I believe" = fact You post opiniated, name-calling statements with little basis in fact. Then the "do you have a boat" dodge when he is losing the debate. BTW, I've posted in the past what type of boat I own, it is not my problem if so many of the liebrals lack reading comprehension. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On 5 Oct 2005 10:05:15 -0700, wrote: DSK wrote: P Fritz wrote: The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." Is it brain-dead or arrogant to have posted plain fact and proven many right-wingers here to be wrong, and yet none of them has ever once... not the first time... proven any of the facts I post to be incorrect? Is it arrogant or brain-dead to continually proclaim oneself always right, and smarter than "the other guys" when you are in fact the one who is always wrong? And they wonder why they keep losing elections? I've never lost an election once. BTW the subject here is BOATS. Do you have a boat? DSK Fritz's powers are waning, he doesn't have JimH's ass to stick his nose in for nourishment. He'll take to someone else, like NOYB soon. Kevin, did you know that anal fixation and narcissistic personality disorder are closely related? Did you show those web sites to an adult as I asked you? Power? in a NG................ROTFLMAO.................... And kevin wonders why he is still "the King" ?????? -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... The typical arrogance of the brain dead liebral is once again on display "It's very likely that I am far better informed of what is *really* going on than you are." And they wonder why they keep losing elections? DSK is well informed but tends to give weight to arguments that are the exception rather than look at the whole. For example his response to my Statement about NCLB was that certain students were left out of the figures, he didn't mention that some districts are also encourging dropouts to improve test scores. This was mentioned in the CSPAN coverage of the NCLB act. He obviously watched it (or selected parts from a biased news network) but came out of it with a totally different impression than I did. I actually heard many say that it's working regardless of some districts being under so much pressure to perform that they cheat. That's an interesting thought, did he see it in it's entirety or just selected parts from a biased new media????? Hmmm. |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
DSK is well informed Thanks ... but tends to give weight to arguments that are the exception rather than look at the whole. Which is still better (if it were true) than simply making stuff up. ... For example his response to my Statement about NCLB was that certain students were left out of the figures, he didn't mention that some districts are also encourging dropouts to improve test scores. Which is more common? ... This was mentioned in the CSPAN coverage of the NCLB act. He obviously watched it (or selected parts from a biased news network) but came out of it with a totally different impression than I did. Actually, I skimmed it on the internet. Marvelous invention. ... I actually heard many say that it's working regardless of some districts being under so much pressure to perform that they cheat. ??? Better think this over one more time... the program is working so well that some school districts are holding kids back from taking the tests, and others are cheating... yep it's working! That's an interesting thought, did he see it in it's entirety or just selected parts from a biased new media????? Hmmm. Neither. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com