babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » Perhaps food for thought....

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Perhaps food for thought....
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is, understandably, considerable consternation and gnashing of teeth here regarding the results of US election.

I came across this post that possibly offers some interesting statistical insight.

To check its validity, I did a Google advanced search limited to 6 months for both "hate bush" and "hate kerry".

"hate bush" = 74,000

"hate kerry" = 6,880

Pretty close match, given it was done a few days later.

Thus:

quote:
Here's a sampling of the civility of the left versus the right. The following are Google results for the exact phrases given, limited by the Advanced Search feature to pages updated in the last 6 months so as not to skew the results with old pre-campaign anti-Bush rhetoric:

"kill bush" = 11,000
"kill kerry" = 840

"bush is evil" = 4,980
"kerry is evil" = 440

"bastard bush" = 746
"bastard kerry" = 207

"bush is stupid" = 5,930
"kerry is stupid" = 355

"hate bush" = 69,700
"hate kerry" = 6,640

"bush is a nazi" = 1,630
"kerry is a nazi" = 28

Pre-election , one could have argued this proves that the vast majority of voters dislike Bush. But with the majority of the popular vote going to Bush, this cannot be the case. A minority has produced a ten-fold and greater majority of uncivil, vicious attacks, leaving no doubt about their ill-mannered, anti-democratic tendencies.


Okay, let me be clear that I'm not posting this here to slap anyone around.

But...

If there was one thing about this election that was particularly memorable, it was the degree of rancor and even outright viciousness demonstrated all too often on the Democrat (Liberal) side of this division. (The same thing was evident leading up to our own election, just not as volumous because of numbers involved.)

I think the point needed to made here, if anyone is serious about figuring out what went wrong, is that...to put it bluntly...one does not attract voters to their cause by crapping all over anyone who won't join them.

You know, "If you don't vote my way, you're obviously some sort of knuckle dragging neanderthal!"

That don't cut it, no matter whose saying it...and on either side.

Were I to summarize a great deal of the political rhetoric on the Democrat side, it might sound like this:

Reporter: "Sir, for you what is the main issue in this election?"

Democrat: "I am appalled with George Bush's campaign of fear and intollerence!"

Reporter: "I see. And the reason you are supporting John Kerry is?"

Democrat: "Because George Bush is a murdering bastard, and I hate his guts!"

More than just a tad bit preposterous, if not inane, eh?

FWIW.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 November 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
What a laugh, coming from you of all people.

Google wasn't around, but it's a fair bet more people hated Hitler than Churchill too. Nothing to do with civility towards opponents.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 04:46 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nothing to do with civility towards opponents.

More to the point, I assume, the lack thereof, eh?

To be honest, I can't think of a response to that.

Your logic totally escapes me.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 06 November 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think springer has a point, actually. The palpable venom of the GOP towards Clinton is a big part of what did in Bob Dole in 1996... I think the average, non-political person, saw the [in my mind entirely justified] anger on the left towards Bush and was repelled by it. Remember, the best revenge is living well, after an election win.
From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 November 2004 05:18 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:

To check its validity, I did a Google advanced search limited to 6 months for both "hate bush" and "hate kerry".

"hate bush" = 74,000


And did you, or the writer you quote, do any research to determine how many of those hits represented people who "hate Bush" vs. people who insist that all opposition to his policies comes from people who "hate Bush"? The most frequent use of the term "Bush haters" comes from conservative writers in my experience. They keep trying to pretend that even principled opposition to GOP policy comes from some irrational basis.

In other words, your little exercise with google proves absolutely nothing.

Now wander over to Orcinus where David Neiwert has a post called Thug Watch in which he's tried to track incidents of violence and intimidation coming from both sides. His information is backed up by links and seems to prove that the real viciousness is coming disproportionately from the right, not the left.

Then read this op-ed in the LA Times. Since it requires registration, I'll give you some of it.

quote:
On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology.

In the weeks and months to come, we will hear the voices of well-meaning people beseeching the victor to compromise with the vanquished. This would be a mistake. Conservatives must not compromise with the left. Good people holding false ideas are won over only if we defeat what is false with the truth.

The left must be defeated in the realm of ideas, just as it was on Tuesday at the ballot box. The left hates the ballot box and loves its courtrooms, which is why it hopes to continue to advance its agenda through the courts. This must end.

The left bewitches with its potions and elixirs, served daily in its strongholds of academe, Hollywood and old media. It vomits upon the morals, values and traditions we hold sacred: God, family and country. As we learned Tuesday, it is clear the left holds the majority of Americans, the majority of us, in contempt.


Neat, eh? The Democrats didn't just lose the election, they were "vanquished". They don't just hold different views, they've been bewitched. They don't just disagree, they "vomit" on the morals, values and traditions of the right. This is "love the sinner, hate the sin". This says that liberals can't be compromised with or accommodated in any way. They can only be rehabilitated (read re-educated) by being converted because their ideas aren't just wrong, they're evil.

So who's being unreasonable here?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 November 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And did you, or the writer you quote, do any research to determine how many of those hits represented people who "hate Bush" vs. people who insist that all opposition to his policies comes from people who "hate Bush"? The most frequent use of the term "Bush haters" comes from conservative writers in my experience. They keep trying to pretend that even principled opposition to GOP policy comes from some irrational basis.

In other words, your little exercise with google proves absolutely nothing.


Doesn't clarity feel good in the brain?

Yay, pogge.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 07:27 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a random search incorporating the very same parameters in either example is going to produce generally unbiased results.

The general rhetoric coming from Democrats...but not necessarily from the party apparatchiks themselves...in this election was, to put it mildly, over the top...much more so than that from Republicans.

Just as it was from Liberals in the last Canadian election...hell, last 4 elections.

Twist that anyway you want, it doesn't change the fact of it.

And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here over it.

I merely offered up an interesting result that anyone here can similarly verify.

Make of it what you will.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Montovan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4972

posted 06 November 2004 07:32 PM      Profile for Montovan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sir_springer, "Perhaps food for thought?" For whom?

Bush IS hated--for good reason--not only by a vast number of Democrats but also by people all around the world who've taken it upon themselves to read, listen, observe and conclude that little other than evil has come out of his regime, with the prospects of things getting any better slim to none. I mean who can argue that he's not a "murdering bastard"? All right already, so he's not technically a bastard, but a bastard all the same. He evokes hatred.

Your pennings reflect that you are exactly the type of person who got Bush re-elected (and for now, we'll not touch on probable skullduggery aspects of the election)--one who is capable of retaining only itty bitty bits of info at any one time and who even then can't put all the itty bitty parts together to form the big picture; supportive of selfish ends at any expense; is easily duped, uneducated, indifferent, complacent, and history challenged.

And then John_D shamelessly writes, "I think the average, non-political person, saw the [in my mind entirely justified] anger on the left towards Bush and was repelled by it." WELL! Better that they be repelled by Bush's blatant actions against humanity. That the so-called venemous left was justifiable cause for the "average, non-political person" to be party to Bush being elected is indicative of so much electorate ignorance. But then the U.S. masses have been programmed for idiocy; to wit their totally inadequate public school system, their propagandizing media and their violent-driven entertainment fare. But I digress.

When an administration values money and power so egregiously over the sanctity of human life, what part of peoples' hatred of Bush don't you understand?

Bush has proven that he makes no compromises with his avowed enemies--and god knows he's racked up a helluva lot of them--"If yur not with us yur agin' us" is, afterall, his mantra.

He prides himself in staying the course no matter who (just NOT him and his)and what he sacrifices; abhors intellect in others and himself(takes enormous pride on attaining a"C" average--and you can be sure even that mark is a stretch); can't and/or won't reason; purges his regime of those who don't fall into line; and has the demenor and swagger of a bully. He lies. He cheats. He's a clear and present danger to his own country and the rest of the world. Democracy and Bush are mutually exclusive.

Yes, he IS scorned and hated around the world. Batten down the hatches--Under Bush it's only going to get uglier.


From: B.C. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 November 2004 07:38 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:

The general rhetoric coming from Democrats...but not necessarily from the party apparatchiks themselves...in this election was, to put it mildly, over the top...much more so than that from Republicans.

And yet you offer nothing to back that up.

quote:
Twist that anyway you want, it doesn't change the fact of it.

What fact? All we have is your assertion. Go find me some bile. Then I'll be glad to find some GOP bile to counter it. Heard of Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Do I have to go on?

quote:
And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here over it.

Every time someone proves you wrong or questions your unfounded assertions, you say this. If you win it's a debate. If you lose, it's a pissing contest and you don't want to play.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 10:00 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't if anyone has even noticed, but mostly I go out of my way here to avoid wading directly into the "us vs. them" debate.

I posted about the rural/urban thing, offering no judgements on either side of it.

I started this thread for the sake of shedding some light on the machinations of the election, specifically: Why it might have turned out the way it did.

Nowhere have I criticized Kerry or complimented Bush.

I wander in here now and again, generally after a major political event of some kind, to get a different perspective on it.

Frankly, the moment I get too far into the actual political meat or philosophy on this particular forum, the pile-on starts, I get called all sorts of names, and then I get disgusted and leave.

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm just as ready to take on hard-right conservatives as any liberal...or ignore either outright.

Regardless of what I think of liberal/leftist politics, I am well aware this is a leftwing forum and I try to respect that.

So...

I'm not looking to turn a relevant "observation" into merely another pissing contest.

If you don't agree with the observation, say so...but spare me the defensive attack-dog posturing. I already know where you're coming from.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 06 November 2004 11:01 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you try this?

"hate Bill Clinton" = 633,000

"hate Bob Dole" = 52,100

I think you're overlooking the obvious, sir. Sitting presidents who are actually exercising their power and making decisions will incur much more hatred than challengers. If we were to accept your premise that these numbers mean anything, it would seem that the "right" are far more hateful.

Of course, the numbers mean nothing.

Despite the vacuity of his observations, however, sir does have a good point. The "Bush is stupid" lament, for instance, was always a losing strategy. Bush's constituency is much less educated than Kerry supporters were in this election, and hence, more likely to be resentful and defensive about charges of stupidity. When you call Bush stupid, you're calling them stupid too, which gets their back up and hardens their resolve. After that point it ceases to matter what the facts are (if it ever did) because to admit that Bush isn't worth your support is the same as admitting that all those Eastern elitists were right and you were stupid after all. Your arguments have to give the people you're trying to convince an easy out for their egos. "Bush is a liar" suffered from the same problem, since it again implies that the person is stupid for believing lies, however it was at least relevent to the presidency, as subjective evaluations of intelligence (no matter how accurate) are not.

The point is that if you're serious about defeating somebody, then your criticisms have to be strategic, rather than just venting for your own personal gratification.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Did you try this?

"hate Bill Clinton" = 633,000

"hate Bob Dole" = 52,100

I think you're overlooking the obvious, sir. Sitting presidents who are actually exercising their power and making decisions will incur much more hatred than challengers. If we were to accept your premise that these numbers mean anything, it would seem that the "right" are far more hateful.


Note that someone else here pointed out already that the GOP's campaign against Clinton was so vitriolic that it cost Dole any chance.

I don't know, I wasn't paying much attention then...and I thought Dole was just about the worst Republican candidate for President I'd ever seen.

quote:
Of course, the numbers mean nothing.

I think statistical evidence has some validity...except when they don't line up with one's own position, eh?

quote:
Despite the vacuity of his observations, however, sir does have a good point. The "Bush is stupid" lament, for instance, was always a losing strategy. Bush's constituency is much less educated than Kerry supporters were in this election, and hence, more likely to be resentful and defensive about charges of stupidity. When you call Bush stupid, you're calling them stupid too, which gets their back up and hardens their resolve. After that point it ceases to matter what the facts are (if it ever did) because to admit that Bush isn't worth your support is the same as admitting that all those Eastern elitists were right and you were stupid after all. Your arguments have to give the people you're trying to convince an easy out for their egos. "Bush is a liar" suffered from the same problem, since it again implies that the person is stupid for believing lies, however it was at least relevent to the presidency, as subjective evaluations of intelligence (no matter how accurate) are not.

Yes, most definitely the incumbant is much more vulnerable because he/she has a ready made record to attack.

However...

It's one thing to say that a person is dishonest, or wrong, or even inept.

It is quite another to say that one is a "bigot", or a "murderer", or "racist".

People supporting one or another leader can accept that some might not think their leader is honest or whatever. That's more or less a matter of subjective opinion, and open to interpetation.

But...

When a leader is called a "bigot" or a "racist", that type of stuff runs downhill onto his supporters to imply that they also are bigots or racists. That's no longer an opinion, that's outright slander...especially if it has no basis in fact.

When I, as a longtime Reformer, hear the likes of Manning or Harper called such things...which have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever...it's infuriating. I take it...as do most others...personally as an attack on me, the implication being that I also am a bigot or racist.

Even worse yet, it implies millions of voters are bigots and racists. Couple this with the reality of regional support, and you've now categorized an entire region/culture of the country as bigots or racists.

Don't think that doesn't get voters' backs up within that region/culture and motivate them to fight back.

That's why handling Quebec nationalism requires political tact and a degree of sophistication; one does not want to unify all Quebeccers to the separatist cause merely because all Quebeccers suddenly feel offended or threatened for reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism.

quote:
The point is that if you're serious about defeating somebody, then your criticisms have to be strategic, rather than just venting for your own personal gratification.

Thank you.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: sir_springer ]

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: sir_springer ]

Sorry for all the edits. I gotta slow down, eh?

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: sir_springer ]


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 November 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think statistical evidence has some validity...except when they don't line up with one's own position, eh?

But that's not statistical evidence. For example, the first page of the "hate Bill Clinton" search I did had several links of the "why do people hate Bill Clinton so much?" variety. Without a substantive analysis of all 633, 000 of those matches (many of which are probably redundant) you can't really say anything at all about the articles, pages, etc, that happened to have matches of those words.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 November 2004 12:55 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I, as a longtime Reformer, hear the likes of Manning or Harper called such things...which have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever...it's infuriating. I take it...as do most others...personally as an attack on me, the implication being that I also am a bigot or racist.

They both support REQUIRED discrimination against homosexuals in marriage. They both have voted as MPs to perpetuate discrimination against homosexuals in every possible way, from employment to pension rights, on every possible occasion they could.

I realize that doesn't count as bigotry in Springerland, but to decent people with a moral compass that isn't completely fucked, it does.

And yes, Springer, you sure as hell ARE a bigot if you share those beliefs. If you don't, but support leaders who do, you're just someone without any morals or principles. Your choice.

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 07 November 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the exceptions can be applied...for the sake of arguement...more or less evenly across the sampling.

IOW, if you were to wash out all the exceptions on both sides, it's mathematically probable that you would still end up with the same split.

I mean, face it. You and I both know that statistics ultimately can be manipulated to prove whatever one wants to prove.

This particular demonstration draws upon a data bank of relatively mammoth proportions, thus providing an unusally large sampling that otherwise (minus Google's technological expertise) would be virtually impossible...if not incredibly impractical.

The main point here is that these results are not manipulated whatsoever.

Nor are they highly refined, admittedly. But nobody said they were, either.

It's worth noting that the same test...as has been shown...can legitimately be applied to the anti-Clinton campaign as this latest anti-Bush effort, with the results verifying, more or less, the reality of the harshness of both as witnessed.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
monkeyweather
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7307

posted 07 November 2004 01:03 AM      Profile for monkeyweather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pogge, you quote the sources LA Times - notoriously LEFT WING, and David Neiwert, a freelance journalist whose blog contains an "important analysis" of the developing fascist tendencies of the right.

Not exactly neutral sources, huh? All you left out was the NY Times.

I live here, hear the reports, see the evidence first hand, LIVED it, and I can tell you that there has been WAY more sign ripping, vandalism, voter intimidation, etc from the left than you are apparently aware of.

Everyone was scared to death to put a "Bush/Cheney" sign in their car window or on their bumper because everyone's cars were being key-scratched, dented, or even getting their windows smashed.

Why don't you come down here and take a seat downtown in one of our major cities with a giant Bush/Cheney sign hanging around your neck and find out what happens?

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: monkeyweather ]


From: USA | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2004 01:41 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by monkeyweather:
Pogge, you quote the sources LA Times - notoriously LEFT WING,

Did you read the op-ed I linked to? Any partisanship on the part of the LAT had no bearing on the opinions expressed within that piece. It's a stand alone editorial.

quote:
... and David Neiwert, a freelance journalist whose blog contains an "important analysis" of the developing fascist tendencies of the right.

Yes, it does. But it also contains the post I wrote about which contains documentation of the incidents he cites. That's more than you've provided.

quote:

I live here, hear the reports, see the evidence first hand, LIVED it, and I can tell you that there has been WAY more sign ripping, vandalism, voter intimidation, etc from the left than you are apparently aware of.

I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence isn't going to convince me. I've seen all kinds of anecdotal reports that say just the opposite.

It's the easiest thing in the world to assert it and insist that you know because you know and no one else could possibly understand.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 07 November 2004 01:55 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

They both support REQUIRED discrimination against homosexuals in marriage.


That's a pretty broad oversimplification.

Let me remind of several things here:

a) Reservations regarding s/s marriage span the political spectrum. There is a considerable element within the Liberal Party caucus who do not support this, and we have just seen that a very large number of people who voted Democrat also do not accept this premise.

b) Much of this reservation is predicated upon religious conviction...and NOT just Christian, either. There is a great many of a wide variety of faiths who feel morally bound according to their religion to oppose s/s marriage...if not the very notion of homosexuality in and of itself.

c) Is it not one of principle tenets of "democracy" that all constituencies are entitled to their voice in the affairs of their nation, at least reasonably relative to thier numbers?

d) You are waging war against a very long standing convention here. Concepts of hetrosexual marriage go back millennia. You are not going to overcome such deeply held values merely with the invoking of edict, certainly not with derogatory invective, and definitely not overnight.

e) Morals evolve, and are in a constant state of transition. It is understandable that the rapid pace of change in our modern world causes more than a few a hell of a lot of stress and confliction regarding the redefining of morality.

quote:
They both have voted as MPs to perpetuate discrimination against homosexuals in every possible way, from employment to pension rights, on every possible occasion they could.

That's another gross oversimplification.

On matters of pensions and spousal benefits, the Reform/CA took exception to the implications of the law as presented regarding how s/s civil union would be determined. I don't remember all the details of it, so I'm not going to pursue this particular arguement. But, bottom line, they did not oppose the concept, but rather the machinations of the application of the law.

I remind you that Harper came down like a ton of shite on that Saskatchewan MP over his anti-gay rhetoric, and did so in a virtual heartbeat. That MP is how history. And then, minutes later, he stormed into a caucus meeting and in no uncertain terms laid down the law regarding similar nonsense. As one somewhat shaken MP said )according to an article in the Toronto Star, if I remember correctly) there was no doubt in anyone's mind where he stood after he was finished.

quote:
I realize that doesn't count as bigotry in Springerland, but to decent people with a moral compass that isn't completely fucked, it does.

Again, morals per se are a personal/cultural matter. "Decency" thus is a matter of subjective opinion, generally based in religion, upbringing, environment, you name it.

It serves nobody to tell them that their morals are "fucked".

History, I remind you, is a litany of wars and killing primarily between peoples each trying to stuff their moral values down the other's throats...or IOW, telling each other that their morals were fucked.

Religion runs deep, and thus change will come slowly...and with the application of patience and understanding.

(Incidently, I personally don't do religion of any kind, pretty much agnostic.)

quote:
And yes, Springer, you sure as hell ARE a bigot if you share those beliefs. If you don't, but support leaders who do, you're just someone without any morals or principles. Your choice.

FYI, and from the files of my handy WordWeb program...

bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

This one runs both ways, partner.

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: sir_springer ]


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
monkeyweather
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7307

posted 07 November 2004 02:52 AM      Profile for monkeyweather     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
pogge - That's more than you've provided.....I'm sorry but anecdotal evidence isn't going to convince me. I've seen all kinds of anecdotal reports that say just the opposite. It's the easiest thing in the world to assert it and insist that you know because you know and no one else could possibly understand.

Well Pogge, I was not telling you about what has been occurring here to CONVINCE you of anything.

If you are terribly interested in hearing more than one side of the vandalism story, you can do the research on it yourself. If you stick to guys like Neiwert though, it is unlikely you will be blessed with the facts.

H wants the "right" to be fascists, and that is how he shapes his reports.

Check through the US blogs during the election period and watch how many personal statements you read about regular people - Republicans - having their property stolen or damaged by the Democrats. Check out blogs like Daily Kos, and you will find slim pickens on vandal stories.

I seriously doubt you will take the time to investigate this, because you have no reason to do so - it would hardly support your point of view.


From: USA | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2004 03:44 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by monkeyweather:

If you are terribly interested in hearing more than one side of the vandalism story, you can do the research on it yourself.

So evidence I supply to support my position is dismissed out of hand because the sources are biased. And when it comes to evidence to support your position, I'm supposed to go out and get it myself?

Good night.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 07 November 2004 03:45 AM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's too bad this devolved into a flame war, because I think springer had an interesting point. I am not trying to justify voting for anyone... I might have voted for Kerry, or more likely Nader or David Cobb if I were in a non-swing state. I am just saying, tactically, that it makes sense that seething anger is not a great emotion to put on display on the campaign trail.

I also think the "google index", for what it is, is a fun little tool. Obviously not scientific, but interesting none the less. Even "why do they hate Bush?" hits still refer to a hatred that probably has some basis in fact.

For the record, if we look at other incumbents who end up winning a new term...

"Hate Reagan" beats "Hate Mondale" 888-2
"Hate Nixon" beats "Hate McGovern" 354-14
"Hate LBJ" beats "Hate Goldwater" 22-2
["Hate Johnson" turns up a lot of other Johnsons...]
"Hate Eisenhower" beats "Hate Stevenson" 10-6
"Hate FDR" beats "Hate Dewey" 119-55, shuts out "Hate Willkie" 119-0, and knocks off "Hate Landon" 119-20
"Hate Wilson" pulls out a victory over "Hate Hughes" 103-68
You have to go all the way back to 1904, where "Hate Bryan" hammers "Hate McKinley" 311-6, to find a challenger beating the incumbent in the google hate sweepstakes, and yet not win the election. However, if we limit it to "Hate Jennings Bryan", McKinley pulls off a 6-0 shutout.

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: John_D ]


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 November 2004 09:10 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:

FYI, and from the files of my handy WordWeb program...

bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

This one runs both ways, partner.


No it doesn't, Springer. I have no more obligation to be tolerant of someone who seeks to deny me my rights than a woman has to be of a rapist.

Forget about marriage. The Reform party and its successors have been unequivocably against any rights of any kind for gay people. You can spin it any way you want, but all that demonstrates is that in addition to being a bigot, you're a coward who won't even stand up for your disgusting beliefs.

Just like your idol Stephen Harper.

And I'm not your partner. I'd sooner fuck a snake.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 November 2004 09:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
And I'm not your partner. I'd sooner fuck a snake.

Heh. I can hear it now: "See? Those HOmoSEXuals are just one step away from bestiality! One of 'em over on that commie pinko board even admitted it!"

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 November 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Worrying about "getting people's backs up" unless we restrict some of the harder analyses of Bush and his administration -- that is obviously important to anyone involved in electoral politics and a current campaign.

But it is a bit of a one-note preoccupation, and it has its political dangers. I mean, in a sense, the most sensitive thing Democrats could do would be to become Republicans, eh? Then the Bush voters would feel loved?

Seriously, this is always a tension, an important one, for political people, and people will go their different ways as analysts. Those who are more interested in foreign policy, eg, are more likely to be thinking of the longer term and are going to be much harder on individual USian administrations than, say, any Democratic party strategist would dare to be.

Many left activists are more interested in deep political education than in the next election -- that's just the way it is. Even if they work in election campaigns, they are going to have limited tolerance for the packaging and selling of the candidate.

We need all sorts.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fata Morgana
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6919

posted 07 November 2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Fata Morgana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:
I think that the exceptions can be applied...for the sake of arguement...more or less evenly across the sampling.

IOW, if you were to wash out all the exceptions on both sides, it's mathematically probable that you would still end up with the same split.

I mean, face it. You and I both know that statistics ultimately can be manipulated to prove whatever one wants to prove.

This particular demonstration draws upon a data bank of relatively mammoth proportions, thus providing an unusally large sampling that otherwise (minus Google's technological expertise) would be virtually impossible...if not incredibly impractical.

The main point here is that these results are not manipulated whatsoever.

Nor are they highly refined, admittedly. But nobody said they were, either.


A google search is in no way a random or statistically valid sample. People choose to express their opinions via the internet, they are not chosen randomly. We call this a "voluntary response bias". Only people who not only have access to computers and the internet but who choose to use the internet and have the knowledge and inclination to express their opinions via this medium, or to record other people's opinions via this medium, are included in the sample. The size of the sample is irrelevant if there is no way to ensure that the sample is representative of the population.

I agree completely that statistics can be manipulated to present data in whatever light is most favourable to one's point of view. But a bunch of raw data from a google search is not even bad statistics; it isn't statistics at all. Any discussion of "exception" and "mathematically possible" based on what you've given us is meaningless.

It's sort of like those newspaper phone-in polls asking people what they think of some issue or other. Phone one number for yes, another for no. I remember during Ontario teachers' political protest of 1997 such a Star poll asking what side people were on. Teachers were phoning and e-mailing each other to phone in and vote for our side, so of course we all did. That poll came out overwhelmingly in favour of the teachers' side, when more valid polls showed a far more even split, which changed daily. So what value should we put on polls such as a phone-in poll, or the number of hits we get on a google search with the phrase "hate Bush"? Zero. Meaningless.

Hell, maybe some of those hits include people saying "I want to kill people who hate Bush." How do you correct for that? And before you say what I suspect you will say in response, how do you know for sure that the percentage of people who say that is the same as the percentage of people who say "I want to kill people who hate Kerry"? How can you assume an equal distribution of such statements for either side? You can't. You can't assume an equal distribution of any kind of exceptions or errors on either side.

I teach a statistics unit in a course I teach at high school, and I give my students lots of quotes on statistics, my favourite being one from Churchill:

"I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic.''


From: in our collective imagination | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 07 November 2004 06:29 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting item...

Hollywood a liability to Democrats?


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 November 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Heh. I can hear it now: "See? Those HOmoSEXuals are just one step away from bestiality! One of 'em over on that commie pinko board even admitted it!"


If he's the alternative I consider fucking a snake to be a step away from bestiality.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2004 07:09 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting item -- editor being run out of town

quote:
The Lone Star Iconoclast, in Crawford, Texas, where Mr Bush has a ranch, usually confines its coverage to high school American football games and local court cases. But a week ago, in an editorial misjudgment of staggering proportions, the newspaper - circulation 920 - decided to endorse John Kerry in the race for the White House.
...
"In the Old West they hung people for being traitors," wrote one reader. "I sincerely hope that ALL Texans will ban your newspaper."

The owner of a local hair salon was equally forthright. "Thank you Mr Smith, and thanks too to your twin brother Michael Moore. Your demonstration of profound ignorance helped energise a nation to get off its butt to vote against you and the Communists.
...
Another ex-reader advised Mr Smith to leave town: "I guess your candidate lost. Why don't you move to Boston?"
...
...reporters have been harassed and threatened near the Crawford Coffee Station, where President Bush occasionally pops in for fried onion rings.


[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 07 November 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by monkeyweather:
All you left out was the NY Times.


I live in Canada. Praise the Lord that I live in a country -unlike you- where the corporate media has not (yet) succeeded in their dumbing down effort that obviously has been so successful in the USA.

To call the New York Times "left" just makes me want to laugh. You obviously don't read it. (And yet you repeat that rubbish of the American right.) It has been my principal source of information for more than five years now and in addition to superb writers like Krugman, Herbert and Kristof they have such "left wing" writers like Safire and Friedman not to mention some of the guys covering Iraq. (I sometimes wonder if they are on the Pentagon payroll.)

You are a prime example of an American who makes me feel sorry for the level of stupidity Fox News and Murdoch have reduced a good part of your nation.

And in typical Yankee fashion you think you know everything better than the rest of the world. In the fashion of GWB and his cronies: If you're not with us you're against us.

Ever stop to think that there might be a good reason why the vast majority in the world is not with you?

But then again, thinking is not the forte of the majority of Americans, it seems.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 07 November 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fata Morgana

No doubt you know the one aout the three kind of lies varying in severitiy. (Courtesy of my stats prof, who taught me more about classical music than stats and it wasn't his fault)

Simple lie
Grave lie
Statistics

In that order.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another interesting item

quote:
A Rogers School music teacher sent first-graders home on Election Day to warn their parents against voting for pro-choice presidential candidate John Kerry because he "kills babies," according to a School Committee member.

The graphic political lesson so traumatized some of the first- and second-grade students at the Fairhaven school that it prompted a parental backlash and hasty meetings between parents and school officials.

The teacher, Rita Campoli, did not return a call at her New Bedford home seeking comment yesterday. But Fairhaven School Committee member Michael Gagne said he has been swamped with calls and e-mails from irate parents, as have school administrators.

The aunt of one first-grader called The Standard-Times to say that her niece had collapsed in tears at the idea that candidate Kerry was somehow responsible for the killing of babies in abortions. "She hardly has an idea of death. And now she has this vision of John Kerry killing babies."



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 07 November 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The teacher should be fully reprihmanded. These are grade one students in a public school. I'd be irate if they were my children.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca