Poll: Bad Craziness in the GOP Base, Part 2

PoliticsFebruary 2010 • Views: 5,639

Imagine my surprise that linking to a piece about a disturbing Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of Republicans prompted several hyper-emotional meltdowns in our comments, and three hate mails so far today.

Apart from the insult-spewers, though, many readers wanted to know exactly which questions were asked, and where the samples came from. Today the full results from the poll are posted at Daily Kos, and the questions seem very straightforward.

Here’s the methodology used by Research 2000:

Methodology

DKOS REPUBLICAN POLL 2010

The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed by telephone.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.

GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN:

Northeast:
DC, ME, VT, NY, MD, PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, RI, WV, NJ

South:
FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX

Midwest:
IL, MN, MI, OH, WI, IA, MO, KS, IN, ND, SD, OK, NE

West:
NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO

And the results are disturbing indeed. If this poll is accurate (and Research 2000 has a good reputation for accuracy) the Republican base has an absurdly high percentage of wackos of all stripes, from religious fanatics to creationists to secessionists to conspiracy theorists. This is more evidence that the perception of a Republican base dominated by religious right extremists is grounded in solid reality.

Some results:

QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

YES: 39%
NO: 32%
NOT SURE: 29%

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

NO: 36%
YES: 42%
NOT SURE: 22%

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

YES: 63%
NO: 21%
NOT SURE: 16%

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

QUESTION: Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

YES: 53%
NO: 14%
NOT SURE: 33%

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

YES: 31%
NO: 36%
NOT SURE: 33%

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

YES: 23%
NO: 58%
NOT SURE: 19%

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

FAVOR: 26%
OPPOSE: 59%
NOT SURE: 15%

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

YES: 26%
NO: 55%
NOT SURE: 19%

QUESTION: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

YES: 7%
NO: 77%
NOT SURE: 16%

QUESTION: Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

YES: 11%
NO: 68%
NOT SURE: 21%

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

YES: 8%
NO: 73%
NOT SURE: 19%

QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

YES: 42%
NO: 51%
NOT SURE: 7%

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

YES: 77%
NO: 15%
NOT SURE: 8%

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

YES: 31%
NO: 56%
NOT SURE: 13%

QUESTION: Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

YES: 34%
NO: 48%
NOT SURE: 18%

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?

YES: 76%
NO: 8%
NOT SURE: 16%

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?

YES: 91%
NO: 4%
NOT SURE: 5%

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

CHRIST: 67%
OTHER: 15%
NOT SURE: 18%

These numbers are astounding. Social conservatism has a death grip on the GOP.

I mean — 77% of the Republican base wants creationism taught in public schools? And not the “intelligent design” type of creationism, but Biblical literalist the-earth-is-6000-years-old creationism?

77%?

Bad, bad craziness. This is why I had to draw the line and say, “No, I do NOT subscribe to this dysfunctional world view.”

Jump to bottom

656 comments

Cato the Elder Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:27:51am

Apropos crazee: do you think Dennis Prager has actually ever read anything on Pam's site? He's free to think she's not a fascist sympathizer, but can a man of his intellect believe she's sane?

PowerFlip Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:28:10am

Any polling data on how many Democrats still think Bush planned or knew about 9/11 in advance?

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:29:02am

re: #2 PowerFlip

I believe you want to contact the polling firm of T.U. Quoque for that research.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:30:49am

re: #2 PowerFlip

Any polling data on how many Democrats still think Bush planned or knew about 9/11 in advance?

Without being too snippy, I could care less what the Democratic Crazies think when dealing with a poll on Republican crazy.

Besides, just because one side is Well into Bat Country is not justification for the other side to join them from the other side.

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:32:03am

Well, apparently I'm doomed, so I can honestly tell the majority of those polled that they can fuck right off.

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:32:39am

The BC question still gets me....even if it was weighted on the Catholic side we all know that just because the Church says something is so does not mean that most of us actually pay any attention.

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:34:14am

thanks for the posting.
My hope is that like-minded SoMods win the day from the SoCons for the party.

Depending on the geo locals in those states - like here in Washington - if you asked a "Republican" person on the east half of the state vs. a west half of the state, you would have different answers. I know this for fact.

I'm just saying. Even as there are different flavors of liberal, so there are of conservatives.

avanti Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:36:10am

That's why so many social liberals have to make a painful choice. We have to support the religious right, or choose someone that is both socially and fiscally liberal. For me, I'll risk a bigger government that stays out of my private life. I don't like it, but it's the best choice for me.

researchok Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:37:57am

Beaucoup crazy out there. GOP has some serious self correcting to focus on and appealing to the far right/religious right isn't the way to fix things.

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:03am

I'd like to see a similar poll conducted of Democrats and Liberatarians with the appropriate questions.

i.e. -
Do you think monogamy is too constraining?
Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?
Do you think that anyone who believes in a higher power is delusional?
Do you think corporations are inherently evil?

You get the idea. There are crazies all over. I do have to agree than anyone who truly identifies themselves as Republican should review the results of this poll. I have a feeling most don't have a clue what the Party is turning into.

9Iron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:03am

Doesn't pass the smell test to me, and having the Kos brand associated with it makes it even more dubious. Wouldn't be that hard to stack the sample with Dem's saying they're Republicans to make for fodder on the blogs.

researchok Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:10am

re: #1 Cato the Elder

Apropos crazee: do you think Dennis Prager has actually ever read anything on Pam's site? He's free to think she's not a fascist sympathizer, but can a man of his intellect believe she's sane?

Good point.

Only The Lurker Knows Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:12am

Wonder how many melt downs this one will generate?

Reaches for the Popcorn

Daniel Ballard Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:24am

No wonder I'm a party refugee. I can vote to have creationism in the local elementary school, the sex police in my bedroom...yuck.

Or I can have a PC twisted curriculum and the government in my garage and kitchen.

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:39:33am

BC...WTF?
Still, just cannot get past that.

But the other WTH? is the one about impeachment. What would he be impeached for? Do people not realize that there has to be a law broken...that you just can't impeach the President because you think he sucks or you are mad that the rest of the country did not agree that McCain/Palin were teh awesome.

ryannon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:40:01am

Call it crazy if you like, but I call it the writing on the wall.

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:41:05am

I find this particularly confusing...

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?
YES: 91%
NO: 4%
NOT SURE: 5%

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?
YES: 76%
NO: 8%
NOT SURE: 16%

Why is this? So killing a potential human is worse than killing a fully functional human. I don't believe in either to tell the truth, but I have no problem with abortion being completely, 100% legal for whatever reason a woman wants it.

The death penalty can be prone to mistakes, for one, and secondly, it costs the state more money because of lengthy appeals. Usual time on death row is 25 years. I'm happy to keep a prisoner in jail with NO chance of parole until their death for the most heinous crimes.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:41:23am

re: #15 webevintage

BC...WTF?
Still, just cannot get past that.

But the other WTH? is the one about impeachment. What would he be impeached for? Do people not realize that there has to be a law broken...that you just can't impeach the President because you think he sucks or you are mad that the rest of the country did not agree that McCain/Palin were teh awesome.

I would like to impeach my neighbor. He's bugging me.

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:41:28am

re: #15 webevintage

BC...WTF?
Still, just cannot get past that.

But the other WTH? is the one about impeachment. What would he be impeached for? Do people not realize that there has to be a law broken...that you just can't impeach the President because you think he sucks or you are mad that the rest of the country did not agree that McCain/Palin were teh awesome.

Didn't the Democrats hold mock impeachment trials on Bush? I think it is a way to blow off steam.

Scriptorium Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:41:55am

I'd like to be kind. The good folks participating in the study detected an underlying poll assumption that Republicans are batty and simply went along with it for a good laugh. There. I feel better already. I think.

lawhawk Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:41:56am

Bad crazy indeed; and these are self-identified GOPers.

What exactly do these folks think that Obama should be impeached for?

It isn't just the fashionable thing to say or do to the other party's leadership - we did it to Clinton; they tried to do it to Bush; now we're going to try to do it to Obama; it's now ingrained in the polity that impeachment is an option, even when there's no crimes and no misdemeanors - a policy dispute is sufficient to raise the issue.

As for the creationist stuff - very little difference between regions:

Region Yes No Don't Know
NE 70 23 7
South 82 9 9
MW 77 14 9
West 72 21 7

Found that to be quite troubling and surprising. Between 70-80 of these self reporting GOPers think that creationism should be taught in the schools; though the question itself doesn't say where in the curriculum it should be taught. It's fine if you want to teach it in a religion class (comparative religion class) but not in a science classroom in addition (or in lieu of) to evolution.

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:42:05am

re: #10 ggt

I'd like to see a similar poll conducted of Democrats and Liberatarians with the appropriate questions.

i.e. -
Do you think monogamy is too constraining?
Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?
Do you think that anyone who believes in a higher power is delusional?
Do you think corporations are inherently evil?

You get the idea. There are crazies all over. I do have to agree than anyone who truly identifies themselves as Republican should review the results of this poll. I have a feeling most don't have a clue what the Party is turning into.

What would be the point of that? May as well as them if they like chocolate cake?

The questions in the Research 2000 poll relate to policy as it's formed in our government.

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:42:44am

re: #11 9Iron

Doesn't pass the smell test to me, and having the Kos brand associated with it makes it even more dubious. Wouldn't be that hard to stack the sample with Dem's saying they're Republicans to make for fodder on the blogs.

Oh for heaven's sake Research 2000 is not some fly by night concern and just because you don't like the results or don't approve of who paid for this there is no reason to put your head in the sand and go "lalalalalalala I don't hear you, the evil DKOS paid for this, Soros, lalalalalala".

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:43:41am

This poll of the GOP base doesn't surprise me. Right now, the fired up, active base are the crazies, the Teabagger types, and the socons/far right. This poll reflects that in spades.

Slight OT-- I just found out a friend of mine from high school is an Oath Keeper. The guy's a pharmacist and has never served a day in his life in either the military or in law enforcement, for crying out loud. WTF does he have in common with those nutjobs? It's disturbing, to say the least. Yet I still like the guy.

I'd like to believe he's just looked at what they supposedly stand for on the surface and he thinks it sounds all patriotic and "real American" or whatever. That's my hope anyway. I don't want to think about the alternative.

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:43:51am

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:43:57am

23 percent want to repeat the Civil War?

This is a major failure of the public education system to teach youth what the Civil War was like. No sane person would want to repeat it.

lawhawk Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:44:11am

re: #11 9Iron

Kos paid for the poll; Research 2000 conducted the poll, and according to them, they've got a margin of error of +/- 2. That's a fairly representative sample of self-selecting GOPers.

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:44:13am

re: #22 marjoriemoon

What would be the point of that? May as well as them if they like chocolate cake?

The questions in the Research 2000 poll relate to policy as it's formed in our government.

I'd like to see the flavors of crazy on all sides.

I like perspective.

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:44:17am

re: #20 Scriptorium

I'd like to be kind. The good folks participating in the study detected an underlying poll assumption that Republicans are batty and simply went along with it for a good laugh. There. I feel better already. I think.

We can hope.

duck of peace Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:44:49am

Wow, that is disturbing.

I'd like to believe that the modern Republican party has no correlation to this poll, but I'm afraid it would be wishful thinking.

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:46:08am

re: #28 ggt

I'd like to see the flavors of crazy on all sides.

I like perspective.

Well I think if you gave this poll to Democrats you'd see very opposite numbers. Actually, I would love to see (and take part) in it as a comparison.

Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:46:43am

re: #20 Scriptorium

I'd like to be kind. The good folks participating in the study detected an underlying poll assumption that Republicans are batty and simply went along with it for a good laugh. There. I feel better already. I think.

There's a lot of denial about this. Listen to Tea Party speeches, listen to Glenn beck or read right wing blogs. This insanity is rampant and nobody wants to do anything about it.

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:46:46am

re: #10 ggt

I'd like to see a similar poll conducted of Democrats and Liberatarians with the appropriate questions.

i.e. -
Do you think monogamy is too constraining?
Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?
Do you think that anyone who believes in a higher power is delusional?
Do you think corporations are inherently evil?

You get the idea. There are crazies all over. I do have to agree than anyone who truly identifies themselves as Republican should review the results of this poll. I have a feeling most don't have a clue what the Party is turning into.

Those are some of the weirdest broad assumptions of belief I've seen in awhile.

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:46:54am

re: #24 Lidane

I'd like to believe he's just looked at what they supposedly stand for on the surface and he thinks it sounds all patriotic and "real American" or whatever.

Probably and it may also relate to his lack of a large penis....
(yes I am being snarky about guys and their need to prove their manliness)

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:48:16am

re: #27 lawhawk

Kos paid for the poll; Research 2000 conducted the poll, and according to them, they've got a margin of error of +/- 2. That's a fairly representative sample of self-selecting GOPers.

Triple the MoE, and we're still in the rabbit hole.

lawhawk Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:48:20am

Some positives from this poll:

GOPers pretty much think that marriage is an equal partnership between men and women across all age groups, regions, and racial classifications and that women should be able to work outside the home.

Additional negative: that Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven; which is probably a reflection that most asked are Christians (though there are some kludged figures in the poll results).

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:50:20am

Nanook37 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:50:32am

It is hard to choose from all of those questions/responses to determine which is the most crazy but I would have to go with 77% percent believing in the teaching of Genesis in our public schools...

PowerFlip Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:03am

re: #4 bloodstar

What is the word the describes the notion of when you willingly point out other people's deficiencies, but are unwilling to examine their own, or those among their own ranks?

9Iron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:10am

# 27 lawhawk
Yea, I know, but it just doesn't seem believable to me. I don't have any information on Research 2000 good or bad, but I know how polls can and have been manipulated and the results make Repub's look like a band of absolute nutters in numbers that don't match my experience. Just my $0.02.

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:15am

Just leave dammit.

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:21am

My only quible is that I would have liked to have seen a faith breakdown of the people polled.

Kytan Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:24am

....Everything is ruined forever. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the corner weeping.

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:55am

re: #36 lawhawk

Some positives from this poll:

GOPers pretty much think that marriage is an equal partnership between men and women across all age groups, regions, and racial classifications and that women should be able to work outside the home.

Additional negative: that Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven; which is probably a reflection that most asked are Christians (though there are some kludged figures in the poll results).

LOL Marriage is an equal partnership? They figured that out did they? Bless their souls.

ryannon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:51:59am

re: #37 RightWriter

poof.

Third post since registration last May.

SpaceJesus Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:52:15am

what an astoundingly backwards and hateful ideology conservatives have

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:52:48am

re: #33 Stanley Sea

Those are some of the weirdest broad assumptions of belief I've seen in awhile.

No kidding. Those have to be some of the strangest questions I've seen.

Not all of us who are on the left have a problem with monogamy, or hate kids, or inherently hate corporations. Hell, I'm a business major who's trying to get into an MBA program. That's not something an anti-capitalist would do.

I am, however, an atheist. Never could wrap my head around the idea of some guy up on high taking inventory of everything I do, but I'm not going to tell someone else they're wrong to believe in that. Are there things I can't explain? Sure. But that doesn't mean I look to a higher power for answers.

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:53:04am

Very troubling, and generated by the constant talk of our time's Father Coughlins.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:53:35am

re: #39 PowerFlip

What is the word the describes the notion of when you willingly point out other people's deficiencies, but are unwilling to examine their own, or those among their own ranks?

But using those same deficiencies as justification for your own side strikes me as an fallacy. Just because person x sucks doesn't mean person y can suck as well. They both suck.

So, I don't accept that everybody else is doing it, so why can't we? as a valid justification for being in Bat Country.

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:54:06am

re: #39 PowerFlip

Who is 'you'?

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:54:09am

re: #48 Stanley Sea

Very troubling, and generated by the constant talk of our time's Father Coughlins.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

Wonder how much overlap there was between that and the 23% who said their state should leave the Union....

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:54:15am

Listening to NPR right now about the Academy Awards nominations, glad Inglorious Bastards get a nod...that was one hell of a movie.

lawhawk Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:54:16am

re: #48 Stanley Sea

Seems quite a bit of the GOPers polled have lost the concept of being the loyal opposition®

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:55:31am

If that 77% thought about the implications of wanting their child's religious education turned over to a person that they have not met, and whose religious beliefs they do not know, they would reverse their decision.

As a member of a religious minority, we figured this out some time ago.

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:55:35am

re: #52 webevintage

Listening to NPR right now about the Academy Awards nominations, glad Inglorious Bastards get a nod...that was one hell of a movie.

I've been madly in love with Mélanie Laurent ever since I saw that movie.

Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:55:43am

One flounce already.

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:56:08am

re: #48 Stanley Sea

Very troubling, and generated by the constant talk of our time's Father Coughlins.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

Which is why we have left the Middle East and ceased all predator stirkes.

Nanook37 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:56:36am

I also love(and frieightened by) the result that only 24% said no to "Did ACORN steal the 2008 election".... Imagine if the election would have been close what these people would be doing....

Only The Lurker Knows Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:56:41am

re: #46 SpaceJesus

what an astoundingly backwards and hateful ideology social conservatives have

FTFY. You were using a pretty wide brush there

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:56:42am

re: #10 ggt

I'd like to see a similar poll conducted of Democrats and Liberatarians with the appropriate questions.

i.e. -
Do you think monogamy is too constraining?
Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?
Do you think that anyone who believes in a higher power is delusional?
Do you think corporations are inherently evil?

You get the idea. There are crazies all over. I do have to agree than anyone who truly identifies themselves as Republican should review the results of this poll. I have a feeling most don't have a clue what the Party is turning into.

Can you explain to me what is "necessary" about having children within a monogamous relationship exactly?

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:57:45am

re: #55 recusancy

I've been madly in love with Mélanie Laurent ever since I saw that movie.

It would be a crime if Chris Walz does not get Best Supporting Actor for his performance.

lawhawk Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:57:54am

re: #40 9Iron

Nate Silver has 'em rated (last updated to 5/2008 though):

[Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com...]

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:58:23am

I would be very interested in a similar breakdown by self described Democrats and Independents. I'm guessing a lot of fiscally conservative and personally socially conservative people who would not impose their beliefs on others (marriage questions) or seek to impeach a sitting President without cause would identify themselves as moderates or independents. I know I'm tempted to after a lifetime of calling myself Republican.

Hmmm.... perhaps we need a new word for fiscal conservatives like the progressives have to distinguish themselves from hard core liberalism, socialism and atheism?

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:58:39am

re: #43 Kytan

...Everything is ruined forever. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the corner weeping.

We Dems will screw the pooch again in your lifetime--promise.

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:21am

Sorry for going OT...

Murtha in ICU Following 'Complications' From Surgery...

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:29am

re: #39 PowerFlip

What is the word the describes the notion of when you willingly point out other people's deficiencies, but are unwilling to examine their own, or those among their own ranks?

So what you are referring to is the "Pee Wee Herman standard" eh? I know you are but what am I?

I would be interested in a Dem poll with THESE EXACT questions. More with emphasis towards the policy ones, like gays, military, abortion, death penalty.

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:39am

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It would be a crime if Chris Walz does not get Best Supporting Actor for his performance.

That's a bingo!

If he doesn't get that Oscar, I hope Kanye West is in the audience. It would be highway robbery if Christoph Waltz lost.

sergeant major Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:43am

I hate the tit for tat standard but lets asked 2003 Democrats the same questions. I wonder if the answers would swing in the complete opposite direction and then would they be considered bat shit crazy as well.

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:46am

re: #46 SpaceJesus

what an astoundingly backwards and hateful ideology conservatives have

not me

JeffM70 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:51am

This is the effect of talk radio and Fox News. What's ironic though is how the this crowd accuses liberals of being to emotional while being ruled by their emotions. There is nothing remotely rational or logical about their thought process.

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 10:59:53am

re: #26 EmmmieG

23 percent want to repeat the Civil War?

This is a major failure of the public education system to teach youth what the Civil War was like. No sane person would want to repeat it.

Hell bare in mind this time both sides have nukes!

Not to mention how many other world powers might see us turning our guns on each other as a chance to get some payback of their own, surprised that the UK didn't do more to try and fracture the US during the first (pray only) civil war we have....

simoom Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:00:13am

Looking at the details, one observation is that there isn't a huge regional or age disparity in a lot of the results. I guess that could mean the concentration of self identified democratic and independent voters are responsible for a lot of the regional or age group political differentiation seen in previous polls (since this poll only includes self-identified Republicans)?

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:00:29am

re: #63 DaddyG

How about Adults...

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:01:04am

re: #28 ggt

I'd like to see the flavors of crazy on all sides.

I like perspective.

If one flavor of crazy is people having kinky sex in the privacy of their own homes and not having kids as a result of it, and the other is succession... I don't think you can really compare those two brands of crazy....

Only The Lurker Knows Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:02:06am

re: #59 Bubblehead II

Though in retrospect, I could probably be accused of doing the same. Sigh.

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:02:07am

re: #64 Decatur Deb

We Dems will screw the pooch again ~~in your lifetime--~~ this year-- promise.

Just trying to be realistic.

fizzlogic Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:02:13am

The crazies haven't taken over the Party. I've been assured of this over and again by the sane ones who tune in to Glen Beck and Mark Levin to hear the real truth of what's happening in the world.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:03:01am

secession...i still don't get it. never heard that out of anyone's lips since the election. still, it's a depressing poll. sigh.

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:03:14am

re: #73 PT Barnum

How about Adults...

Heh. Too presumptuous.

I don't see inherent virtue in any political party. In fact I sometimes wonder paradoxically if the ambition and agenda that drives someone to lead a political movement doesn't disqualify them to be a virtuous leader.

Kronocide Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:04:34am

How depressing this poll is.

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:04:40am

re: #79 DaddyG

Heh. Too presumptuous.

I don't see inherent virtue in any political party. In fact I sometimes wonder paradoxically if the ambition and agenda that drives someone to lead a political movement doesn't disqualify them to be a virtuous leader.

Ping-pong tournament, then?

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:04:50am

re: #74 jamesfirecat

If one flavor of crazy is people having kinky sex in the privacy of their own homes and not having kids as a result of it, and the other is succession... I don't think you can really compare those two brands of crazy...

/ gee, I hope they are practicing "safe succession"...

Achilles Tang Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:03am

re: #54 EmmmieG

If that 77% thought about the implications of wanting their child's religious education turned over to a person that they have not met, and whose religious beliefs they do not know, they would reverse their decision.

As a member of a religious minority, we figured this out some time ago.

Let's face it; that those respondents are not going to be on the upside of the cognitive bell curve. Some are more, or less, equal than others as Orwell noticed.

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:10am

re: #81 Guanxi88

Ping-pong tournament, then?

I did say it was a paradox didn't I? ;-)

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:15am

re: #79 DaddyG

Heh. Too presumptuous.

I don't see inherent virtue in any political party. In fact I sometimes wonder paradoxically if the ambition and agenda that drives someone to lead a political movement doesn't disqualify them to be a virtuous leader.

Amen. I keep hoping that at some point we'll get to the point where our politics would become a calm discussion of what's best for everyone, but I'm not holding my breath, or I'd be passed out on the floor.

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:25am

re: #80 BigPapa

How depressing this poll is.

two words...
fall back

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:38am

re: #33 Stanley Sea

Those are some of the weirdest broad assumptions of belief I've seen in awhile.

Oh, crazies come with all beliefs.

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:46am

I am sick and astonished at this poll.

So once again, does anyone doubt why I think the GOP is immoral, stupid and evil?

Let's break it down.

If you are opposed to abortion and birth control, you are a complete moron. The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you deny gay people basic rights, you are just evil.

If you honestly think the President Obama is a socialist you are just stupid and you don't know what socialism means.

If you don't think he was born here, well you really are stupid.

If you think Palin is anything other than an idiot, you are a moron as well.

But most disturbing is the whole hypocrisy of hating abortion but loving the death penalty and swearing you love Jesus, who at last reading of his teachings was into forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This of course is coupled with the anti-science stance. It takes a special kind of stupid to hold mutually contradictory notions as fact at the same time. Because the ability to do hateful doublethink like that alows you to think the worst possible nonsense.

Nonsense like wanting to secede from the union. That is called treason.

So I repeat. The GOP: Anti thought, anti reason, stupid, immoral, evil, anti-American.

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:05:48am

re: #59 Bubblehead II

what an astoundingly backwards and hateful ideology social conservatives have

FTFY. You were using a pretty wide brush there

I'm sure the poster had social in mind....

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:06:07am

re: #68 sergeant major

I hate the tit for tat standard but lets asked 2003 Democrats the same questions. I wonder if the answers would swing in the complete opposite direction and then would they be considered bat shit crazy as well.

Why not a 2002 pool, given that it would be on year into Bush and we're now one year into Obama.

Given that Bush was concentrating on attacking the people who attacked us, I doubt you would see anything near this level of vitrol directed towards him, and its not like you can compare the 2000 and 2008 elections....

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:06:17am

re: #81 Guanxi88

Ping-pong tournament, then?

Dodgeball. That way you know who plays dirty and who's a deer caught in the headlights.

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:06:27am

re: #87 ggt

Oh, crazies come with all beliefs.

All beliefs are essentially insane, depending on much they vary with your own beliefs.

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:06:50am

re: #68 sergeant major

I hate the tit for tat standard but lets asked 2003 Democrats the same questions. I wonder if the answers would swing in the complete opposite direction and then would they be considered bat shit crazy as well.

With regard to questions about the president of the time, sure, the results would be similar (I used to have an Impeach Bush bumpersticker on my car, which I put up after he decided to go to war with Iraq based on what I thought at the time to be lies--which we now know was the case). But with regard to a woman's right to choose, same sex marriage, DADT, etc. I'd guess you'd see a bit more balance in the answers. There are plenty of anti-choice homophobes on the Democratic side of the aisle as well, unfortunately.

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:07:09am

re: #76 darthstar

Just trying to be realistic.

I'll raise you this month at 5 to one odds for....

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:07:13am

re: #85 PT Barnum

Amen. I keep hoping that at some point we'll get to the point where our politics would become a calm discussion of what's best for everyone, but I'm not holding my breath, or I'd be passed out on the floor.

imagine the uproar when the GOP does not recover votes the House?....yeeehaaa!

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:07:41am

Actually, I'm a bit surprised with how many "not sure" responses there were. 33 percent aren't sure if the President wants the terrorists to win? Now that's just bizarre.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:07:43am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

Yes, i doubt it. Because until those percentages hit 100%, you can leave me out of your snotty presumptions.

Knocking people instead of positions does nothing to moderate the tone of a debate in any forum.

RadicalModerate Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:08:11am

Things like this are why I don't want anything at all to do with the GOP as it currently stands.

I guess I can put it best this way:

The political left frustrates, irritates, and sometimes even angers me with the idiocy they pull sometimes.

The political right, on the other hand, with the people who they are inviting to be a part of the mainstream, frightens the hell out of me.

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:08:13am

re: #72 simoom

Looking at the details, one observation is that there isn't a huge regional or age disparity in a lot of the results. I guess that could mean the concentration of self identified democratic and independent voters are responsible for a lot of the regional or age group political differentiation seen in previous polls (since this poll only includes self-identified Republicans)?

MEN 1125 56%
WOMEN 878 44%

WHITE 1787 89%
OTHER/REF 216 11%

18-29 178 9%
30-44 418 21%
45-59 664 33%
60+ 743 37%

NE 217 11%
SOUTH 846 42%
MW 437 22%
WEST 503 25%

Lessee, there was more men than women (1125/878) and more whites than "others" (1787/216) but curiously, the largest age group was above 60 and mostly from the southern states.

Maybe NE Repubs would be a little different.

100

Achilles Tang Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:08:27am

I'm called to help make the cabbage rolls, to eat while watching LOST at 8pm EST.

101

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:08:41am

re: #71 jamesfirecat

Hell bare in mind this time both sides have nukes!

snip.

Not so much. Check out National Command Authority

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

102

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:08:44am

re: #95 albusteve

imagine the uproar when the GOP does not recover votes the House?...yeeehaaa!

Um...can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you said there.

103

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:09:19am

re: #79 DaddyG

Heh. Too presumptuous.

I don't see inherent virtue in any political party. In fact I sometimes wonder paradoxically if the ambition and agenda that drives someone to lead a political movement doesn't disqualify them to be a virtuous leader.

As the Daily Show staffs "America, Democracy inaction" book suggested (I paraphrase) "As Richard Nixon's election shows, the race for the president is designed to separate the willing from the able, and then the American public goes with the willing..."

104

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:09:24am

re: #54 EmmmieG

If that 77% thought about the implications of wanting their child's religious education turned over to a person that they have not met, and whose religious beliefs they do not know, they would reverse their decision.

As a member of a religious minority, we figured this out some time ago.

We had friends in (city omitted) that were educating their LDS children in a private Christian school. Everything was peachy until the school demanded they renounce the Book of Mormon as revelation to be able to continue attending. The kids weren't praching anything contrary to their religious instruction and the teachers agreed that they were a good fit with their classmates. The board however didn't like the fact that Mormons were able to attend without renouncing a cornerstone of their faith. It deeply hurt the family and they withdrew the children.

105

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:09:47am

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

The medical journal the Lancet has retracted the 1998 paper that linked autism and immunizations.

106

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:09:52am

re: #60 jamesfirecat

Can you explain to me what is "necessary" about having children within a monogamous relationship exactly?

Not necessary, but better for the child. Children with two-parents --of any flavor--color, sex preference, etc, grow to be happier adults and the household in which they grow tends to be more stable than one-parent households.

107

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:09:54am

re: #82 brookly red

/ gee, I hope they are practicing "safe succession"...

Pull out baby pull out!

108

MrSilverDragon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:10:55am

re: #2 PowerFlip

Do you believe that?

Sorry, but that comment is a -1 from me.

109

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:10:55am

re: #102 PT Barnum

Um...can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you said there.

not really...I think the GOP feels like it is steamrolling into the next cycle and may be surprised if the don't do as well as expected...maybe then the socons will be exposed

110

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:11:14am

re: #106 ggt

Not necessary, but better for the child. Children with two-parents --of any flavor--color, sex preference, etc, grow to be happier adults and the household in which they grow tends to be more stable than one-parent households.

So if you were polled you'd vote unnecessary then? So you'd qualify as crazy per your own arguments?

111

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:11:20am

re: #106 ggt

Not necessary, but better for the child. Children with two-parents --of any flavor--color, sex preference, etc, grow to be happier adults and the household in which they grow tends to be more stable than one-parent households.

I think if kids see adults modeling good relationship skills they tend to develop them themselves.

112

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:11:30am

re: #74 jamesfirecat

If one flavor of crazy is people having kinky sex in the privacy of their own homes and not having kids as a result of it, and the other is succession... I don't think you can really compare those two brands of crazy...

or kinky sex out in public and thinking it's ok for kids to watch. "It's all about love"

113

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:11:36am

re: #70 JeffM70

This is the effect of talk radio and Fox News. What's ironic though is how the this crowd accuses liberals of being to emotional while being ruled by their emotions. There is nothing remotely rational or logical about their thought process.

I agree, I think a lot of these answers (i.e. Obama being on the side of terrorists) falli into the bilge pumped out day by day, hour by hour by the likes of Beck et al. I'd like to see an additional - what do you listen to on the tv & radio & for how long.

Many people listen to only fox, and all day long. It does have an effect.

114

huggy77 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:11:47am

re: #77 trendsurfer
You cant compare The great one (Mark Levin) to Glenn Beck. Mark Levin backs his points up with facts, beck just cries alot.

THATS RIGHT I SAID IT!!!

And Obama is not a socialist, he is a statist! I wont call him a socialist till he suggests a national bank.

115

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:12:06am

re: #109 albusteve

Thanks...I figured you meant something like that, but the sentence didn't make any sense as written. Wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

116

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:12:07am

re: #107 jamesfirecat

Pull out baby pull out!

/ hold on to your dixie cups, the south shall rise again!

117

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:12:33am

re: #107 jamesfirecat

They're too busy interrupting each other's sound bites...

Quotus interruptus

118

Petero1818 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:12:40am

Wow. I am stunned. To me I think the most troubling thing here is this:

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

A full majority of Republicans cannot say they believe their President is on the same side as them in the fight against terrorism. This is different than saying you do not agree with his prosecution or lack thereof of the war on terrorism, it is stating that the President has sided with the terrorists (or for a third of republicans, has maybe sided with them). He "wants them to win". One can only surmise from this therefore that most also believe he is just a radical muslim in christian clothing, since logically the terrorists don't really enjoy much support from outside the muslim faith (perhaps it is the whole caliphate / dhimmi thing).
I am thinking back to the old woman in Florida in the run up to the election who had had the mike at the McCain rally. At the time I thought she was just a senile old woman. Turns out she represents the Republican majority. Remember McCain..."no maam, thats not true". No wonder the party hates McCain.

I am not so surprised about the religious biases that are apparent in the answers on abortion and creationism (though it seems many now are happy to say anyone on the pill is a murderer). But I find much of this bizarre and really scary for the future of the two party system.

119

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:12:54am

re: #117 PT Barnum

They're too busy interrupting each other's sound bites...

Quotus interruptus

Major cause of political neurosis

120

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:13:14am

re: #92 PT Barnum

All beliefs are essentially insane, depending on much they vary with your own beliefs.

ah!

121

MrSilverDragon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:13:20am

re: #117 PT Barnum

They're too busy interrupting each other's sound bites...

Quotus interruptus

Well done! *applaud*

122

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:13:32am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig you are painting with a broad brush. Not all GOP members and not even all of the respondants to this poll agree with all of those positions monolithically. IN fact a minority of them agreed with most of the positions.

I doubt most Democrats or Independents would like being called evil over their positions (even though opponents do so). The point being labeling the other side may make you feel better but it does nothing towards educating and coming towards a more enlightened populace ready for bipartisan action and the preservations of everyones right to believe (or not) according to the dictates of their own conscience.

123

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:13:56am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

Never in my days have I ever put the Democrats into this box. Your hate matches the 'group' you are castigating.

124

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:14:07am

re: #93 darthstar

With regard to questions about the president of the time, sure, the results would be similar (I used to have an Impeach Bush bumpersticker on my car, which I put up after he decided to go to war with Iraq based on what I thought at the time to be lies--which we now know was the case). But with regard to a woman's right to choose, same sex marriage, DADT, etc. I'd guess you'd see a bit more balance in the answers. There are plenty of anti-choice homophobes on the Democratic side of the aisle as well, unfortunately.

" after he decided to go to war with Iraq based on what I thought at the time to be lies"

So did they actually have WMDs? (Sorry what statements you thought were lies that turned out to be the truth are you referring to?)

125

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:14:09am

re: #100 Naso Tang

I'm called to help make the cabbage rolls, to eat while watching LOST at 8pm EST.

I want cabbage rolls --dolmade? With chick peas or lamb?

126

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:14:27am

127

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:14:40am

re: #121 MrSilverDragon

Well done! *applaud*

bows...

128

Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:14:52am

Rush Limbaugh came out today as a creationist, by the way. And he also revealed his reason for refusing to believe in AGW -- because God exists. Yep, really.

129

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:15:12am

re: #104 DaddyG

It deeply hurt the family and they withdrew the children.

They should have put their kids in a local Catholic school and they would have avoided the hurt.

I had to start my own homeschool support group when my son was young (he is 17 now) because all the local ones wanted me to sign a "statement of faith" and I refused to do so because it offended me on so many levels, but mostly because I refused to hang out with people who wanted to make sure the Catholics and secular folks did not join as if we had cooties or something.

130

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:15:26am

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

Yes, i doubt it. Because until those percentages hit 100%, you can leave me out of your snotty presumptions.

Knocking people instead of positions does nothing to moderate the tone of a debate in any forum.

Really? Is that so? If someone believes these things they are stupid, evil and everything I said they were. It's pretty simple. If a majority of GOP believes thes things, well it follows that the majority of them are stupid and evil.

Given the actions of the GOP of late - you know like protecting Haliburton's right to rape it's employees... Remember that... Every GOP senator voting to a man to prevent a bill that would prohibit the US from contracting with companies that would deny raped women their day in court?

Remember that? That's call evil.

And what about all the trutherism and deatherism and all the rest... Spreading evil lies that lead to people thinking of treason? That's called evil.

And while we are at it. What about lying to start a war on false pretenses because uranium centrifuges are big things and you can not hide thousands of them in the desert easily.

Or what about redefining torture, or spying on Americans? They sure hate the constitution and it's messy legalities.

I'm not done. The GOP lies. They tell evil lies.

What about lying about AGW? That will kill billions. They don't care. They have a duty to know better and they are doing the opposite of their duty and leading billions to their deaths for the profits of their corporate masters.

No, the GOP is evil.

Fuck them.

131

Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:15:32am

I'm going to delete any comments that try to start up another round of personal squabbling and feuding.

132

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:15:34am

re: #122 DaddyG

well said

133

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:15:56am

re: #124 jamesfirecat

" after he decided to go to war with Iraq based on what I thought at the time to be lies"

So did they actually have WMDs? (Sorry what statements you thought were lies that turned out to be the truth are you referring to?)

He said "which we now know was the case". Meaning that his belief that there were no WMD turned out to be true. I think you misread his post.

134

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:16:06am

re: #131 Charles

I'm going to delete any comments that try to start up another round of personal squabbling and feuding.

As one guilty of it myself, I think that's a good policy.

135

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:16:32am

re: #101 Decatur Deb

Not so much. Check out National Command Authority

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Well I guess the question is, because I don't know this, where are our nuclear launch sites set up, and how easy would it be for rebelling states to turn those nukes on the loyal ones?

136

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:16:50am

re: #99 marjoriemoon

with those numbers, we have an imbalance of weight to the poll given to older white southeners.....

Like I said, Republicans come in all sorts of flavors and depends on the geography.

137

stevemcg Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:16:59am

I had argued in the past that President Bush gave the terrorists everything they wanted and more. But I would never have argues that he wanted them to win. It was the sheer incompetence that was behind my argument. The republicans don't make this distinction as evidenced by the percentages who either believe or "aren't sure" whether President Obama hates white people, was born in the USA etc.

138

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:18am

re: #130 ludwigvanquixote

i'm not going to reply, beyond this one time, which should be telling enough. someone has to demonstrate the maturity not to follow people down these roads.

139

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:23am

re: #128 Charles

Rush Limbaugh came out today as a creationist, by the way. And he also revealed his reason for refusing to believe in AGW -- because God exists. Yep, really.

So human's control nothing? Lovely.

I've always felt that concepts of "God has a plan and is in control" and "free will" to be contradictory philosophies. I've asked this question to some of my religious friends and never got a decent answer.

140

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:33am

re: #112 ggt

or kinky sex out in public and thinking it's ok for kids to watch. "It's all about love"

/

That'd would be something else as its illegal (indecent exposure) but its still an entirely different flavor of crazy than armed rebellion....

141

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:35am

re: #131 Charles

I'm going to delete any comments that try to start up another round of personal squabbling and feuding.

All your mothers were hamsters and your fathers smelt of elderberries!

(I know, it's old, but I can't think of any other insults off the top of my head.)

142

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:44am

re: #8 avanti

That's why so many social liberals have to make a painful choice. We have to support the religious right, or choose someone that is both socially and fiscally liberal. For me, I'll risk a bigger government that stays out of my private life. I don't like it, but it's the best choice for me.

Oh but bigger government can't help itself except to be more involved in your life.

143

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:53am

re: #130 ludwigvanquixote

Really? Is that so? If someone believes these things they are stupid, evil and everything I said they were. It's pretty simple. If a majority of GOP believes thes things, well it follows that the majority of them are stupid and evil.

Given the actions of the GOP of late - you know like protecting Haliburton's right to rape it's employees... Remember that... Every GOP senator voting to a man to prevent a bill that would prohibit the US from contracting with companies that would deny raped women their day in court?

Remember that? That's call evil.

And what about all the trutherism and deatherism and all the rest... Spreading evil lies that lead to people thinking of treason? That's called evil.

And while we are at it. What about lying to start a war on false pretenses because uranium centrifuges are big things and you can not hide thousands of them in the desert easily.

Or what about redefining torture, or spying on Americans? They sure hate the constitution and it's messy legalities.

I'm not done. The GOP lies. They tell evil lies.

What about lying about AGW? That will kill billions. They don't care. They have a duty to know better and they are doing the opposite of their duty and leading billions to their deaths for the profits of their corporate masters.

No, the GOP is evil.

Fuck them.

Can ya dial it back a notch? This is what aggravates me about so much of the rhetoric nowadays..It's not enough to call your opponent's position wrong, or short sighted, you have to define them personally as evil, wrong, or whatever.

Why can't we talk about positions without getting personal immediately?

144

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:17:58am

re: #131 Charles

I'm going to delete any comments that try to start up another round of personal squabbling and feuding.

I am not attacking anyone personally with those comments. The GOP clearly has slipped not just into lunacy but simple evil. I honestly believe that.

145

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:18:08am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

I'm trying to see how this sort of comment is any different from the ODS, evil crazy socialist comments. Might I suggest you take a step back and read your own comments from an objective standpoint?

146

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:18:09am

re: #110 recusancy

So if you were polled you'd vote unnecessary then? So you'd qualify as crazy per your own arguments?

yes, it would be a problem with polling questions. I would probaly say "yes, it is necessary" because that is my personal belief. I wouldn't, however, think it is part of the goverment's role to dictate such a thing. THAT I would oppose.

Perhaps "unsure" would be the best choice. Perhaps that is why so many did mark it on the poll.

Either way, it's difficult to surmise anything from the poll question. There is a difference in personal beliefs and what one is willing to delegate to government.

147

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:18:23am

re: #140 jamesfirecat

That'd would be something else as its illegal (indecent exposure) but its still an entirely different flavor of crazy than armed rebellion...

Now, if you put the two together, and throw a little money at CGI, well, you've got box-office gold, baby!

148

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:19:02am

re: #128 Charles

Confounding. I believe in God. And yet I've found no guidance from him on AGW, other than a general reference at the beginning of the bible to be a good steward of the Earth.

Oh, wait...i'm trying to make sense of this. That's my problem!

149

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:19:34am

re: #9 researchok

Beaucoup crazy out there. GOP has some serious self correcting to focus on and appealing to the far right/religious right isn't the way to fix things.

And the Republican party at this time is what percentage of the voters?
I think this poll may represent the diehards who are sticking with the party come hell or high water.

150

Kronocide Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:19:43am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

I am sick and astonished at this poll.

So once again, does anyone doubt why I think the GOP is immoral, stupid and evil?

Let's break it down.

If you are opposed to abortion and birth control, you are a complete moron. The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you deny gay people basic rights, you are just evil.

If you honestly think the President Obama is a socialist you are just stupid and you don't know what socialism means.

If you don't think he was born here, well you really are stupid.

If you think Palin is anything other than an idiot, you are a moron as well.

But most disturbing is the whole hypocrisy of hating abortion but loving the death penalty and swearing you love Jesus, who at last reading of his teachings was into forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This of course is coupled with the anti-science stance. It takes a special kind of stupid to hold mutually contradictory notions as fact at the same time. Because the ability to do hateful doublethink like that alows you to think the worst possible nonsense.

Nonsense like wanting to secede from the union. That is called treason.

So I repeat. The GOP: Anti thought, anti reason, stupid, immoral, evil, anti-American.

What's just as depressing as the poll is this rationale for hate. I thought you were smarter than that.

Although I would probably agree with most of your summary outcomes your rationale is scary.

151

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:19:49am

re: #106 ggt

Not necessary, but better for the child. Children with two-parents --of any flavor--color, sex preference, etc, grow to be happier adults and the household in which they grow tends to be more stable than one-parent households.

But the way you phrase the question....

"Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?"

Makes it sound as if a monogamous marriage is incomplete if it doesn't have a child in it, and that barren couples should be encouraged/forced to adopt.

Are you instead trying to ask "Do you think that children are best raised by a monogamous family" rather than casting blame/irritation towards childless couples?

152

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:00am

re: #118 Petero1818

A full majority of Republicans cannot say they believe their President is on the same side as them in the fight against terrorism.

Well, he is black, after all. /? (not sure if that's sarc or not after reading this poll)

Remember McCain..."no maam, thats not true". No wonder the party hates McCain.

McCain's "no ma'am, that's not true" remark was given because he was on the spot in front of the cameras. Had it not been on live TV, I believe he would have responded more generally and been less defensive of Barack Obama. When I watch the tape of that moment, it is obvious that McCain was uncomfortable having to address that level of ignorance among his supporters, as their beliefs implicated him...yet he still wanted their support and votes. How difficult must it be to know you need to have people with such irrational thoughts on your side?

153

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:12am

re: #143 PT Barnum

Can ya dial it back a notch? This is what aggravates me about so much of the rhetoric nowadays..It's not enough to call your opponent's position wrong, or short sighted, you have to define them personally as evil, wrong, or whatever.

Why can't we talk about positions without getting personal immediately?

I'm not sure who said it, but I love this quote about the relationship between the two parties: "I wish we could get back to debating who is right and who is wrong, not who is good and who is evil."

154

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:13am

re: #141 EmmmieG

All your mothers were hamsters and your fathers smelt of elderberries!

(I know, it's old, but I can't think of any other insults off the top of my head.)

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

We're about at that level.

155

schlagerman Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:27am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

Anti thought, anti reason, stupid, immoral, evil, anti-American.

A little harsh, don't you think? Couldn't I say the same thing about you for painting the entire GOP with such a large brush?

156

wrenchwench Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:30am

re: #128 Charles

Rush Limbaugh came out today as a creationist, by the way. And he also revealed his reason for refusing to believe in AGW -- because God exists. Yep, really.

Oooh, thanks for that info. I get to go home and be right!

157

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:53am

re: #148 Aceofwhat?

Confounding. I believe in God. And yet I've found no guidance from him on AGW, other than a general reference at the beginning of the bible to be a good steward of the Earth.

Oh, wait...i'm trying to make sense of this. That's my problem!

Its right there in the bible between rules on killing abortionists and the evidence pointing to the earth being 6,000 years old.

158

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:20:58am

re: #111 PT Barnum

I think if kids see adults modeling good relationship skills they tend to develop them themselves.

Yet, there are so many teenage girls having babies because, well, it's ok. When, in reality, it really isn't. It hurts the kids, the girls and us, as we end up paying for it.

The problem is that no one wants to return to an era where girls are "marked for life" for having a child while underage or out of wedlock or forced to give-up their child. Somehow, we have to get in to their (young women and men) heads that sex is a big deal and that if they are going to engage, they must use birth control.

159

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:21:03am

re: #17 marjoriemoon

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?
YES: 91%
QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?
YES: 76%
Why is this? So killing a potential human is worse than killing a fully functional human.

Here's why they think that way:

Most people who consider abortion to be murder consider a fetus to be a full human at an early stage of development, not a potential human. To them, saying a 12-week fetus is a potential human would be as absurd as saying it about my newborn.

The distinction for those who answer the two questions that way is whether you're killing a harmless, innocent human or a dangerous, guilty one.

(Disclaimer: I am against both abortion and the death penalty; the above is not my view, but a description of views others have described to me.)

160

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:21:38am

re: #135 jamesfirecat

Very, very hard, even if the custodians wanted to. Setting one off is designed to be one of the most difficult things to do.

161

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:21:40am

Sigh. I've been polled a few times over the years, and have come to believe that there should always be four choices:

Agree
Disagree
Unsure
What an unbelievably idiotic question

162

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:22:06am

re: #151 jamesfirecat

Makes it sound as if a monogamous marriage is incomplete if it doesn't have a child in it, and that barren couples should be encouraged/forced to adopt.

That was the way I read the question first and wondered why would anyone care if a couple decided to stay childless? I always think it is a good idea that people who do not want kids or think they would be bad parents or just don't like kids should probably NOT have kids.

163

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:22:13am

re: #153 Soap_Man

I'm not sure who said it, but I love this quote about the relationship between the two parties: "I wish we could get back to debating who is right and who is wrong, not who is good and who is evil."

I regret that I have but one upding to give to that post.

164

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:22:26am

re: #122 DaddyG

re: #143 PT Barnum

Enough with the broad brush comments and all the thin skin. Let's be serious here.

If someone or some group were to advocate or pander to say, pedophilia for real, they would be evil.

OK... Talk of secession from the union is evil. It really is. Lying to start wars on fals pretenses is evil. It is. So is torture or denying basic human rights to those who have done you no harm - as in the case of gay people or women's rights.

There is no notch to be dialed back. This is evil.

Now As to believeing in a 6000 year old universe in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Well that is stupid.

There is no other way to call it.

How about rather than mock offence at calling things what they are, we talk truthfully.

Evil is evil and stupid is stupid.

165

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:22:43am

re: #144 ludwigvanquixote

I am not attacking anyone personally with those comments. The GOP clearly has slipped not just into lunacy but simple evil. I honestly believe that.

Well, the circle is connected then. Let me introduce you to my friend, Alex Jones

166

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:22:53am

re: #128 Charles

Rush Limbaugh came out today as a creationist, by the way. And he also revealed his reason for refusing to believe in AGW -- because God exists. Yep, really.

Rush Limbaugh has never given me much evidence of his good Christian faith. Blatant pandering, once again.

167

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:00am

re: #161 subsailor68

Sigh. I've been polled a few times over the years, and have come to believe that there should always be four choices:

Agree
Disagree
Unsure
What an unbelievably idiotic question

I've never been polled. How do they respond if you say "That's a stupid question and I refuse to answer it?" Do they file that under "not sure"?

168

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:05am

re: #17 marjoriemoon

I find this particularly confusing...

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?
YES: 91%
NO: 4%
NOT SURE: 5%

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?
YES: 76%
NO: 8%
NOT SURE: 16%

Why is this? So killing a potential human is worse than killing a fully functional human. I don't believe in either to tell the truth, but I have no problem with abortion being completely, 100% legal for whatever reason a woman wants it.

The death penalty can be prone to mistakes, for one, and secondly, it costs the state more money because of lengthy appeals. Usual time on death row is 25 years. I'm happy to keep a prisoner in jail with NO chance of parole until their death for the most heinous crimes.

I understand the thinking Marjorie. The unborn are innocents while a murderer is a convicted felon.

169

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:21am

re: #130 ludwigvanquixote

Look at these numbers posted earlier in the thread:

MEN 1125 56%
WOMEN 878 44%

WHITE 1787 89%
OTHER/REF 216 11%

18-29 178 9%
30-44 418 21%
45-59 664 33%
60+ 743 37%

NE 217 11%
SOUTH 846 42%
MW 437 22%
WEST 503 25%

Heavily weighted to show the opinion of older white southern males.

That is NOT a true reflection of the republicans in my family or area, not by a stretch.
And since I've admitted to my bias against Kos, this imo just reinforces my skepticism of the poll methodology.

170

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:34am

re: #154 PT Barnum

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

We're about at that level.

Hold on, I've played too much Monkey Island not to be able to remember some good ones...

Sigh. Nope. Gone.

171

Mad Al-Jaffee Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:41am

re: #154 PT Barnum

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

We're about at that level.

I know you are, but what am I?

172

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:46am

re: #161 subsailor68

Sigh. I've been polled a few times over the years, and have come to believe that there should always be four choices:

Agree
Disagree
Unsure
What an unbelievably idiotic question

I love to rip into pollsters when the question is transparently written to get a certain answer.

173

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:47am

re: #166 Stanley Sea

Rush Limbaugh has never given me much evidence of his good Christian faith. Blatant pandering, once again.

Got to play to your crowd.

174

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:23:49am

re: #140 jamesfirecat

That'd would be something else as its illegal (indecent exposure) but its still an entirely different flavor of crazy than armed rebellion...

It's not illegal everywhere, IIRC. But there are crazies who think such laws are draconian.

Like I said, crazies come in all flavors, many want to make their beliefs national agendas. We need to be aware.

175

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:13am

re: #133 recusancy

He said "which we now know was the case". Meaning that his belief that there were no WMD turned out to be true. I think you misread his post.

Whoops my bad, intalectual blinders on... I guess, stupid lack of an edit button!

176

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:31am

all Republicans, or even a majority, are hateful, evil people...that's just hysterical hyberbole...the GOPs problems are slowly being exposed and they are becoming more serious all the time...but to condemn all voters of either party in that manner is folly....I have more faith in the multitudes than that

177

Vambo Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:33am

re: #159 LotharBot

The distinction for those who answer the two questions that way is whether you're killing a harmless, innocent human or a dangerous, guilty one.

yeah, that's what it seems like. But weren't those killers on death row fetuses at one time?

178

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:41am

re: #157 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its right there in the bible between rules on killing abortionists and the evidence pointing to the earth being 6,000 years old.

/

Sweet. Here all this time i had my books in the wrong order. I guess it's Matthew, Mark, Luke, Crazier than a Fish with Titties, then John.

179

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:48am

re: #106 ggt

Not necessary, but better for the child. Children with two-parents --of any flavor--color, sex preference, etc, grow to be happier adults and the household in which they grow tends to be more stable than one-parent households.

Maybe, but not all of us had that luxury.

I grew up as an only child in a single parent home not because my mother thought marriage or monogamy were inconvenient or whatever, but because my father, sister, and brother died in a car accident when I was an infant. My mom tried remarriage because she believed I needed a stable father figure in my life, but the stepfather ended up being a selfish asshole who couldn't even be a proper dad to his own daughter, much less to me.

I was much better off in the long run when she divorced him and just went back to being my father's widow.

180

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:24:53am

re: #158 ggt

The problem is that no one wants to return to an era where girls are "marked for life" for having a child while underage or out of wedlock or forced to give-up their child. Somehow, we have to get in to their (young women and men) heads that sex is a big deal and that if they are going to engage, they must use birth control.

You know what works?
Comprehensive sex education and easy, free access to birth control.
If only the folks who hate abortions would realize this....

181

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:25:01am

re: #171 Mad Al-Jaffee

I know you are, but what am I?

Up your nose with a rubber hose

182

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:25:04am

re: #151 jamesfirecat

But the way you phrase the question...

"Do you think that having children within a monogamous relationship is unnecessary?"

Makes it sound as if a monogamous marriage is incomplete if it doesn't have a child in it, and that barren couples should be encouraged/forced to adopt.

Are you instead trying to ask "Do you think that children are best raised by a monogamous family" rather than casting blame/irritation towards childless couples?

Such is the problem with polling questions. Everyone has a different take on them.

183

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:25:12am

re: #167 Soap_Man

I've never been polled. How do they respond if you say "That's a stupid question and I refuse to answer it?" Do they file that under "not sure"?

Hi Soap! What a good question. I've actually told pollsters on occasion that I would prefer not to respond to a question, but I've never asked what they do in that case. If I'm ever polled again, I'll be sure to ask about that.

184

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:25:22am

re: #142 Blueheron

Oh but bigger government can't help itself except to be more involved in your life.

So the government might control the place you work, but not care about what style of sex you have at the end of the day....

185

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26:07am

re: #136 Ericus58

with those numbers, we have an imbalance of weight to the poll given to older white southeners...

Like I said, Republicans come in all sorts of flavors and depends on the geography.

Much agreed. It's not that the others weren't represented, just in smaller numbers. I'm generally not a big fan of polling. I use it as a point of interest, not as a bible.

186

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26:24am

re: #169 Ericus58

The results were pretty equal over different geographic areas, as shown above.

187

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26:41am

OK, all you guys down dinging me... Care to defend the GOP rather than getting all in a dander?

What about the raped women from Haliburton and the Franken Bill? Defend the GOP's anti woman, anti-basic decency, evil actions there. That was every GOP senator to a man. Explain please. Defend this.

Then we can talk nuclear physics and why they had to know they were lying.

Then we can talk about AAGW and how that will kill billions and that they are doing their level best to help that happen.

Then we can talk about their war on science, reason, basic human rights and American freedoms in general.

PLease defend rather than ding.

They are evil. I have said it, and I have backed it up. Where is your evidence they are not?

188

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26:47am

re: #164 ludwigvanquixote

positions can be evil. i am not.

come on, this is neither mock offense nor rocket science.

189

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:26:49am

re: #176 albusteve

all Republicans, or even a majority, are hateful, evil people...that's just hysterical hyberbole...the GOPs problems are slowly being exposed and they are becoming more serious all the time...but to condemn all voters of either party in that manner is folly...I have more faith in the multitudes than that

I gave you an upding for that, as the sooner we replace diatribe with dialog the better off we'll be.

190

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:27:41am

re: #160 Decatur Deb

Very, very hard, even if the custodians wanted to. Setting one off is designed to be one of the most difficult things to do.

Well thank heaven for small mercies.

191

The Left Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:28:21am

re: #169 Ericus58

That is NOT a true reflection of the republicans in my family or area, not by a stretch.
And since I've admitted to my bias against Kos, this imo just reinforces my skepticism of the poll methodology.

No, the problem is that those who self-identify as Republicans are now disproportionately older male conservative Christians in the South who attend church at least once a week.

It's not that the poll was weighted toward them, it's that the party identification now is!
Here's Gallup on exactly that back in May.

192

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:28:45am

re: #169 Ericus58

42% southern, so of those 846:
372 female
474 male
175 > 60
155 > white male over 60 (89% of respondents were white)
so only about 8% of the overall population polled were Southern White Males over 60.

Assuming they all voted the same on every question, that still leaves a large number of Republicans from other geographies that agreed with them.

Feel free to check my math...I was, after all, an English major in college.

193

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:28:53am

re: #25 MikeySDCA

It's amusing that these folks don't seem to understand that impeaching Bambi would give us Thumper as POTUS.

Nobody said they were bright :)

194

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:18am

re: #188 Aceofwhat?

positions can be evil. i am not.

come on, this is neither mock offense nor rocket science.

OK fine. I never called you evil. Why do you associate with a party that takes such evil positions?

195

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:22am

re: #180 webevintage

You know what works?
Comprehensive sex education and easy, free access to birth control.
If only the folks who hate abortions would realize this...

I know young girls who planned their pregnancies.

196

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:24am

re: #181 cliffster

Up your nose with a rubber hose

re: #187 ludwigvanquixote

OK, all you guys down dinging me... Care to defend the GOP rather than getting all in a dander?

What about the raped women from Haliburton and the Franken Bill? Defend the GOP's anti woman, anti-basic decency, evil actions there. That was every GOP senator to a man. Explain please. Defend this.

Then we can talk nuclear physics and why they had to know they were lying.

Then we can talk about AAGW and how that will kill billions and that they are doing their level best to help that happen.

Then we can talk about their war on science, reason, basic human rights and American freedoms in general.

PLease defend rather than ding.

They are evil. I have said it, and I have backed it up. Where is your evidence they are not?

Ludwig, I'm down dinging you because I'm trying to get you to calm down long enough to avoid ending up in flamesville. I mostly agree with you, but it seems like your tone is way over the top most of the time.

197

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:28am

One more point on the cross-tabs and it should give you some idea of the regional nature of the Republican party now:

First, note the gap between respondents and age.
18-29 178 9%
30-44 418 21%
45-59 664 33%
60+ 743 37%

Guesstimating the general population, the 60+ crowd makes up about 15% of the total population, which comes out to about 20% of everyone over 18 Years in age (according to the census) When you go down to 45 - 60 comprises another 18 percent of the total population, or 24% of the voting age populaton. Yet, they make up about 70% of the total respondents. So of the remaining population, 24% is under 18, which means that 44% of the population is 18 - 45. which is 60% of the voting age population, but only comprises 30% of the respondents in this poll. So, the General population of people self described as "Republican tend to be older.

NE 217 11%
SOUTH 846 42%
MW 437 22%
WEST 503 25%

The second Cross-tab is interesting because it points out that a strong plurality of respondents are from the south. with a VERY weak showing coming from the north east. Again, election results over the last 6 years have shown the erosion of the Republican party name in the North east, so again, there are no surprises in the ratios. The Republican party is strongest in the south, and weak in the north east.

One thing I'd love to see, is how many people who picked up the phone actually gave a response that was non republican for their political description. Did it take 4000 calls to find 2000 self described Republicans? 6000? 10000? While no conclusions could be drawn from that information alone, it'd be interesting if you could track that trend to see if there was a increase or decline in party identification.

198

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:29am

re: #169 Ericus58

Look at these numbers posted earlier in the thread:

MEN 1125 56%
WOMEN 878 44%

WHITE 1787 89%
OTHER/REF 216 11%

18-29 178 9%
30-44 418 21%
45-59 664 33%
60+ 743 37%

NE 217 11%
SOUTH 846 42%
MW 437 22%
WEST 503 25%

Heavily weighted to show the opinion of older white southern males.

That is NOT a true reflection of the republicans in my family or area, not by a stretch.
And since I've admitted to my bias against Kos, this imo just reinforces my skepticism of the poll methodology.

So you're saying that a perfectly average sample of the republicans might be made up of mainly older white southern males?

Someone fetch me a fainting couch I plum can't believe it!

199

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:29:32am

re: #183 subsailor68

Hi Soap! What a good question. I've actually told pollsters on occasion that I would prefer not to respond to a question, but I've never asked what they do in that case. If I'm ever polled again, I'll be sure to ask about that.

Hey there! I would like to hear what the response is. Some polls have a "no answer" category, which is a good idea IMO. I've always wanted to participate in a poll, but I am a member of the generation that only uses cell phones and does not have a land line....

200

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:30:11am

re: #192 darthstar

42% southern, so of those 846:
372 female
474 male
175 > 60
155 > white male over 60 (89% of respondents were white)
so only about 8% of the overall population polled were Southern White Males over 60.

Assuming they all voted the same on every question, that still leaves a large number of Republicans from other geographies that agreed with them.

Feel free to check my math...I was, after all, an English major in college.

If the pollsters are honest pros, they built the sample to reflect the Republican universe pretty accurately.

201

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:30:23am

re: #174 ggt

It's not illegal everywhere, IIRC. But there are crazies who think such laws are draconian.

Like I said, crazies come in all flavors, many want to make their beliefs national agendas. We need to be aware.

I think we should worry more about the crazies who want to kill people than the ones who want to f*** in front of them.

202

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:30:24am

re: #169 Ericus58

To get self identified Republicans you have to weight it towards white southern males. Do you believe that the Republicans party is not majority white southern male party?

203

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:30:32am

re: #31 marjoriemoon

Well I think if you gave this poll to Democrats you'd see very opposite numbers. Actually, I would love to see (and take part) in it as a comparison.

Yes but you are sane Marjorie which automatically eliminates you.

204

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:30:49am

re: #187 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig, in response to that I would say that there are many positions held by people that are evil positions-- like most peoples' attitudes towards the rights of women, children, and minorities prior to the turn of the century-- without it actually making the people who hold them evil. I don't think that Patton was evil even though he was an enormous racist, incredibly uninghedly conservative, and belligerent to a fault. I don't think calling him 'evil' would make any sense or do much work to help us understand him or work with him.

This poll has shocked and saddened me. But it doesn't make me dismiss everyone who responded this way as evil. It makes me mainly see a sad, crushing cultural weight in relation to race and science that we need to fight against.

Yes, I think the attacks on science are appalling-- you know how often I argue over that issue here. But many people attack science because the best logic they know is to do so; they have come to trust unreliable sources and have never learned how to really do critical thinking. If anything, that's a failure of our school system and our society.

205

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:31:04am

re: #159 LotharBot

Here's why they think that way:

Most people who consider abortion to be murder consider a fetus to be a full human at an early stage of development, not a potential human. To them, saying a 12-week fetus is a potential human would be as absurd as saying it about my newborn.

The distinction for those who answer the two questions that way is whether you're killing a harmless, innocent human or a dangerous, guilty one.

(Disclaimer: I am against both abortion and the death penalty; the above is not my view, but a description of views others have described to me.)

If it were a human it would be called a human. A fetus is not a human. It is, by definition, a potential human.

I'm speaking of the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions are done and considered.

206

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:31:24am

re: #111 PT Barnum

I think if kids see adults modeling good relationship skills they tend to develop them themselves.

I did a literature review on the effect of fatherhood and the biggest trend I saw was that children who were shown affection (not discipline, wealth, education, etc.) when they were little were more likely to adapt the values and parenting attributes of their own parents.

That affection built trust and a desire to perpetuate shared family values no matter what the other variables were. Discipline, financial situation, education and all were factors but none were as powerful as showing love when they were small.

If I had to extrapolate a bit I'd say a stable set of parents (you choose the configuration) showing affection towards each other and their children has a huge impact on the security and identity of a child.

207

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:31:27am

re: #174 ggt

It's not illegal everywhere, IIRC. But there are crazies who think such laws are draconian.

Like I said, crazies come in all flavors, many want to make their beliefs national agendas. We need to be aware.

What frightens me is not the beliefs, but the inability to think through the consequences of some of the statements that were made and agreed to in that poll.

Consequences, people. You pick your choices and live with the consequences. If you have an end result you wish, you work backwards to find the action you should take to get to the end result.

This is what we should be teaching in school. How to see a little farther down the road than Saturday night.

208

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:31:44am

re: #182 ggt

Such is the problem with polling questions. Everyone has a different take on them.

No, such is the problem with the way you wrote that polling question, the one I suggested would have gotten your point across clearly, assuming the entire "children should be raised by two married parents" thing and not "a married couple should see to it that they have a child" thing was your point.

209

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:32:23am

re: #165 cliffster

Well, the circle is connected then. Let me introduce you to my friend, Alex Jones

So I have not called you evil either personally. However, I am curious why you align yourself with a party that is itself so clearly taking evil positions. Why would a good person do that?

210

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:32:24am

re: #202 recusancy

To get self identified Republicans you have to weight it towards white southern males. Do you believe that the Republicans party is not majority white southern male party?

I doubt it...flyover America carries the weight imo...but nobody ever asks them anything

211

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:32:26am

re: #178 Aceofwhat?

Sweet. Here all this time i had my books in the wrong order. I guess it's Matthew, Mark, Luke, Crazier than a Fish with Titties, then John.

It's pronounced "Throatwarbler Mangrove" though...

212

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:32:27am

re: #194 ludwigvanquixote

OK fine. I never called you evil. Why do you associate with a party that takes such evil positions?

Some of those positions I aim to change. Others i believe you overstate.

You called all of the GOP evil. I self-identify as GOP because I am a moderate member of the GOP and i wish to influence GOP primaries. If the GOP is evil, so am I.

So...you kinda called me evil.

213

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:33:13am

re: #195 ggt

I know young girls who planned their pregnancies.

Well its a free country, what do you want, mandatory chastity belts?

214

Only The Lurker Knows Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:33:42am

re: #180 webevintage

They do realize it. But in their view point, such education/information and availability of BC only encourages a behavior (sex outside of marriage) that they object to and therefore should not be allowed.

While at the same time, they scream about Teen pregnancies and abortion.

/Can I get an aspirin over here. I just gave myself a headache.

215

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:10am

re: #210 albusteve

I doubt it...flyover America carries the weight imo...but nobody ever asks them anything

except to foot the bill...

216

baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:24am

I think this survey is why more and more people identify themselves as independents.
I bet if you asked Democrats certain questions you'd get equally unsavory results, like:

Should the US negotiate with terrorist?

Is US policy to blame for terrorism?

Should religion be abolished?

217

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:35am

re: #215 brookly red

except to foot the bill...

heh...good one

218

brucee Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:35am

re: #169 Ericus58

Heavily weighted to show the opinion of older white southern males.

Yeah, they should have given a larger share to the young black female republicans. ///

Those numbers are not heavily weighted in any direction. They are just a representative of reality. Take

WHITE 1787 89%
OTHER/REF 216 11%

for instance. Do you think that's not a representative of the real GOP?

219

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:49am

re: #141 EmmmieG

All your mothers were hamsters and your fathers smelt of elderberries!

(I know, it's old, but I can't think of any other insults off the top of my head.)

There is an idea. All personal jibes must be in the form of a faux shakespearian insults ala Monty Python.

220

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:34:53am

re: #168 Blueheron

I understand the thinking Marjorie. The unborn are innocents while a murderer is a convicted felon.

Well that does make sense, I guess, but I still disagree. I could understand some disparity within the numbers, but not such a wide margin.

221

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:35:08am

re: #215 brookly red

Ahem. Plenty of the coastal states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. So what do you mean, exactly?

222

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:35:10am

Here's a follow-up question I'd like to see asked in a future poll:

If you want abortion outlawed, would you at least support Federal grants for pre/post-natal care for lower-income families?

223

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:35:33am

re: #208 jamesfirecat

No, such is the problem with the way you wrote that polling question, the one I suggested would have gotten your point across clearly, assuming the entire "children should be raised by two married parents" thing and not "a married couple should see to it that they have a child" thing was your point.

My questions were more general, you are right --I also said monogamous, not married. I guess I didn't phrase the children within a relationship question correctly because the -couples must have children-concept never entered my mind.

224

simoom Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:35:44am

re: #99 marjoriemoon

Lessee, there was more men than women (1125/878) and more whites than "others" (1787/216) but curiously, the largest age group was above 60 and mostly from the southern states.

Maybe NE Repubs would be a little different.

I've been poking around to see how well this matches up with any sort of GOP demographic surveys (I haven't found anything yet). Also, while the overall sample is large for a poll, with the NE sample being so small (with a much larger margin of error), maybe my trying to compare how little the regional responses differed isn't too useful.

225

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:05am

re: #209 ludwigvanquixote

So I have not called you evil either personally. However, I am curious why you align yourself with a party that is itself so clearly taking evil positions. Why would a good person do that?

nothing is either all or nothing, especially in politics...these narrow, ridged types of questions are meant for only one thing...tora

226

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:06am

re: #202 recusancy

To get self identified Republicans you have to weight it towards white southern males. Do you believe that the Republicans party is not majority white southern male party?

This brings me to the secede from the union question. I really wonder how many of the folks who responded yes were "the south shall rise again" Confederates who would say yes no matter who is president, as opposed to those who responded yes solely because of Obama.

I think a follow-up question would have been useful in that situation.

227

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:07am

re: #219 DaddyG

There is an idea. All personal jibes must be in the form of a faux shakespearian insults ala Monty Python.

I'll spread you over the walls of a jakes.

228

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:08am

re: #219 DaddyG

Agreed

229

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:09am

re: #210 albusteve

I doubt it...flyover America carries the weight imo...but nobody ever asks them anything

Well... There's whether you "doubt it" and what the facts are. Look at every poll over the last decade. The Republican party has been trending whiter, maler, and more southern since the civil rights era.

230

Kronocide Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:12am

re: #187 ludwigvanquixote

You are no or less evil than the GOP even though you end up being on the right side of many issues that they are not.

What's scary and detestable is that you're merely on the other team but play in the same deplorable sport of all those evil GOP'ers. Justifying your actions and rationale by painting the other side as unjustifiable and evil is a tact I though you were above, but obviously not.

I come here to escape that, not take part in it.

231

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:23am

re: #211 oaktree

It's pronounced "Throatwarbler Mangrove" though...

Todays passage is from "Crazy shit we just made up 4:17" and is entitled, "Those being naughty in the Lord's sight must snuff it."

232

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:23am

re: #209 ludwigvanquixote

So I have not called you evil either personally. However, I am curious why you align yourself with a party that is itself so clearly taking evil positions. Why would a good person do that?

Take it or leave it, your ranting makes you sound like a crazy guy spouting about area 51 on public access cable. Clearly you feel strongly about the GOP. A little subtlety might help.

233

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:23am

re: #219 DaddyG

There is an idea. All personal jibes must be in the form of a faux shakespearian insults ala Monty Python.

My kids earn Shakespearean insult magnets in their Shakespeare class. They love them.

234

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:35am

re: #221 Obdicut

Ahem. Plenty of the coastal states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. So what do you mean, exactly?

I am in NY tell me about taxes...

235

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:36:45am

re: #63 DaddyG

I would be very interested in a similar breakdown by self described Democrats and Independents. I'm guessing a lot of fiscally conservative and personally socially conservative people who would not impose their beliefs on others (marriage questions) or seek to impeach a sitting President without cause would identify themselves as moderates or independents. I know I'm tempted to after a lifetime of calling myself Republican.

Hmmm... perhaps we need a new word for fiscal conservatives like the progressives have to distinguish themselves from hard core liberalism, socialism and atheism?

Well said G.

236

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:30am

re: #229 recusancy

Well... There's whether you "doubt it" and what the facts are. Look at every poll over the last decade. The Republican party has been trending whiter, maler, and more southern since the civil rights era.

could be...I really don't know since I don't identify with political parties or care about polls regarding them...I'll take your word for it

237

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:31am

re: #216 baier

I think this survey is why more and more people identify themselves as independents.
I bet if you asked Democrats certain questions you'd get equally unsavory results, like:

Should the US negotiate with terrorist?

Is US policy to blame for terrorism?

or

Should religion be abolished?

Oh come on, that last question is clearly a straw man!

Don't just find me 10% of the people who call themselves democrats, I'd like to see you find me ten people who don't know each other and call themselves democrats who want to believe that religion should be abolished!

Because those people are idiots.

Because it would mean we have to start putting people in jail for praying in the privacy of their own homes, because it would mean we would have to start burning Bibles, Korans, Sutras.

Also what is so insane about "negotiating with terrorists" exactly? Not saying it should be our only option, or even our go to option, but it should be on the table, sometimes you can get more than you give!

238

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:35am

re: #200 Decatur Deb

If the pollsters are honest pros, they built the sample to reflect the Republican universe pretty accurately.

Exactly. But if only 8% of the respondents were white males over 60 from the South, one can't exactly argue that they made up the majority of the respondents for the most disturbing answers.

239

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:35am

Think of it like this, LVQ. If I did a poll of randomly selected Democrats, and asked the question, "Do you think that the GOP is pure evil?", and 85% responded with "Yes", then that would probably get a lot of people thinking that your average democrat is a bubble or so off.

240

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:41am

re: #231 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Todays passage is from "Crazy shit we just made up 4:17" and is entitled, "Those being naughty in the Lord's sight must snuff it."

Thou shalt take thy Holy Hand Grenade...

241

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:49am

Any phone poll is overwhelmingly weighted towards people who still have a land line and who are free to talk to a stranger over the phone during dinner hours. That right there skews the results towards single white males living in double wides watching pro bowling in their underwear with a sack of cheetoes and a half a Budwesier on their chest.

I'm just sayin. /

242

simoom Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:38:58am

re: #224 simoom

Oh wait, iceweasel addressed what I was looking for a number of posts back:

re: #191 iceweasel

It's not that the poll was weighted toward them, it's that the party identification now is!
Here's Gallup on exactly that back in May.

243

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:39:03am

re: #204 Obdicut

Ludwig, in response to that I would say that there are many positions held by people that are evil positions-- like most peoples' attitudes towards the rights of women, children, and minorities prior to the turn of the century-- without it actually making the people who hold them evil. I don't think that Patton was evil even though he was an enormous racist, incredibly uninghedly conservative, and belligerent to a fault. I don't think calling him 'evil' would make any sense or do much work to help us understand him or work with him.

This poll has shocked and saddened me. But it doesn't make me dismiss everyone who responded this way as evil. It makes me mainly see a sad, crushing cultural weight in relation to race and science that we need to fight against.

Yes, I think the attacks on science are appalling-- you know how often I argue over that issue here. But many people attack science because the best logic they know is to do so; they have come to trust unreliable sources and have never learned how to really do critical thinking. If anything, that's a failure of our school system and our society.

Now that is an interesting point on abstract good and evil. Everyone is a sum of many deeds and thoughts. When it comes to judging individuals as good and evil, in a real sense, we (as in all people) are generally not qualified to do so.

Jefferson was a great man. He owned slaves too. He really can't be forgiven for that. All of those statements are true.

However, positions and actions are clearly definable as evil.

Hating gay people is evil.

Lying to start wars is evil.

Lying to make a profit (in the case of AGW) even though it will kill billions is evil.

Racism is evil.

Being against treating women with basic decency and givng them their basic rights is evil.

Wanting to destroy the union is evil.

These are evil views.

Also very smart people can have mental moments and believe stupid things. However, those things are still stupid.

Being opposed to both abortion and birth control is stupid. Just stupid.

Anti-science biblical literalism is stupid.

All the cool-aid conspiracy nonsense is stupid.

This isn't about trying to be popular with those who are easily offended. This is about the truth. It is high time that rather than playing nice we just spoke the truth.

244

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:39:34am

re: #208 jamesfirecat

No, such is the problem with the way you wrote that polling question, the one I suggested would have gotten your point across clearly, assuming the entire "children should be raised by two married parents" thing and not "a married couple should see to it that they have a child" thing was your point.

I think at this point in my life, I am very concerned about the next generation. Social issues are important to me. I see a lot of young girls with kids they can't afford and have no idea how to raise beyond changing diapers. They seem to have no clue how their choice has limited their children and themselves.

I do think children are better raised in a two-parent committed monogamous household in which each parent wants the children and can afford to raise them without undue stress. I see a whole lot o fpeople who seem to think that is a novel or unworkable idea.

And, as a society, we continue to fund this.

245

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:39:35am

re: #233 EmmmieG

Shakespearean Insult Generator

246

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:39:41am

re: #235 Blueheron

It seems to me we need a term for true conservatives...not willing to do stupid shit like deregulate past the point of effectiveness, or cutting taxes without cutting spending at the same time.

247

baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:40:25am

re: #234 brookly red

I am in NY tell me about taxes...

I live in Manhattan, I just got my W2 and my jaw hit the floor. I can barely afford my home, haven't been able to afford a vacation in 2 years , don't have a car (can't afford one) and the federal government says I'm rich.

248

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:40:28am

re: #223 ggt

My questions were more general, you are right --I also said monogamous, not married. I guess I didn't phrase the children within a relationship question correctly because the -couples must have children-concept never entered my mind.

Fair enough, I'll admit with no edit button its all to easy to "say" things and only realize the implications of them later.

249

Kronocide Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:40:55am

re: #187 ludwigvanquixote

OK, all you guys down dinging me... Care to defend the GOP rather than getting all in a dander?

You're the one in the dander. No matter how much articulation and seemingly complex logic you wrap it up in I find your tact spiteful, dogmatic, even hateful. It's very easy to criticize the GOP nowadays without resorting to turning them into evil villians. But still you must.

250

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:40:56am

re: #241 DaddyG

I'll grant you that. I often get calls in the evening and they ask if I have a few minutes, which prompts a "No" and me hanging up.

251

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:41:13am

re: #222 eclectic infidel

Here's a follow-up question I'd like to see asked in a future poll:

If you want abortion outlawed, would you at least support Federal grants for pre/post-natal care (including comprehensive reproduction education and contraception supplies) for lower-income families?

FTFY

252

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:41:17am

re: #243 ludwigvanquixote

Now that is an interesting point on abstract good and evil. Everyone is a sum of many deeds and thoughts. When it comes to judging individuals as good and evil, in a real sense, we (as in all people) are generally not qualified to do so.

Jefferson was a great man. He owned slaves too. He really can't be forgiven for that. All of those statements are true.

However, positions and actions are clearly definable as evil.

Hating gay people is evil.

Lying to start wars is evil.

Lying to make a profit (in the case of AGW) even though it will kill billions is evil.

Racism is evil.

Being against treating women with basic decency and givng them their basic rights is evil.

Wanting to destroy the union is evil.

These are evil views.

Also very smart people can have mental moments and believe stupid things. However, those things are still stupid.

Being opposed to both abortion and birth control is stupid. Just stupid.

Anti-science biblical literalism is stupid.

All the cool-aid conspiracy nonsense is stupid.

This isn't about trying to be popular with those who are easily offended. This is about the truth. It is high time that rather than playing nice we just spoke the truth.

this is redundant....you have posted the same windy stuff several times...it gets hard to read...jus sayin

253

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:41:20am

re: #238 darthstar

Exactly. But if only 8% of the respondents were white males over 60 from the South, one can't exactly argue that they made up the majority of the respondents for the most disturbing answers.

This might be the region where the GOP breaks out of the age box. Per a fund-watch website, 6 people in my zipcode donated to Obama.

254

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:41:34am

re: #245 oaktree

Shakespearean Insult Generator

had to bookmark that one.

255

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:41:54am

re: #243 ludwigvanquixote

Yes, but a lot of these people are 'stupid'-- in many cases, I'd say 'ignorant' about science because they've never been taught how to evaluate science properly. People aren't born being scientists. That's why we actually had to have the Englightenment. We had to figure this shit out.

These days, we barely teach our kids how to go about being scientific, or evaluating science-- or statistics, probability, and all of the other things necessary to not be bullshitted.

I think that those who are pushing these memes are evil, definitely, or at least taking very evil actions with great regularity and showing precious little signs of good. But I don't think all of those convinced by these memes are evil; I think many of them are defenseless against the memes.

I can't blame 95% of Amish children from staying in the Amish communities after Rumspringa, either.

256

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:42:04am

re: #247 baier

I live in Manhattan, I just got my W2 and my jaw hit the floor. I can barely afford my home, haven't been able to afford a vacation in 2 years , don't have a car (can't afford one) and the federal government says I'm rich.

Maybe you should move to a more affordable area.

257

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:42:17am

re: #247 baier

I live in Manhattan, I just got my W2 and my jaw hit the floor. I can barely afford my home, haven't been able to afford a vacation in 2 years , don't have a car (can't afford one) and the federal government says I'm rich.

move to New Mexico...Land of Enchantment and put all that stuff behind you...life is to short amigo

258

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:42:21am

re: #212 Aceofwhat?

So be an independent.

Look, I understand that not all members of the GOP might follow the GOP party line to the letter. I don't think you are one of the robots who does so. However, let's be real. The GOP leadership and voice in the government is not your moderate one.

The GOP talking points are not your moderate ones.

It hasn't been that way for some time.

The majority of things they say and do are very much in line with everything I have said.

So if it does not apply to you I am glad. Get on to taking back your party from the clutches of evil. I wish you the best of luck. But a good start in doing so would be to admit the evil that is there.

259

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:42:35am

re: #245 oaktree

Thanks, favorited.

260

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:43:01am

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

There is no question that the current path of the GOP is destructive & bad for America.

261

Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:43:12am

Speaking of polls....
The Health Care Information Gap: More Information Needed

. The largest single reason for opposition that Gallup identifies -- 28 percent of those opposed to the bill -- is what they call "government-run healthcare / bureaucracy / socialized medicine / government takeover". Perhaps there are a few people in this group who have legitimate worries about the government's ability to effectively regulate insurers or believe that the imposition of additional rules and regulations may carry unintended or undesirable consequences. But phrases like "socalized medicine" and "government takeover" are talking points that more likely than not are symptomatic of incorrect beliefs about what the health care bill would actually do.
....
Finally, there are quite a few people who don't know why they're opposed -- 9 percent of those opposed can't cite a reason at all, another 6 percent simply say they don't understand the bill, and a further 9 percent say "costs", but don't specify which type of costs they're concerned with.

This is why we need a healthy and informed conservative movement in this country. People opposing Obama's policies are poorly informed and not connected to reality. Remember Obama's talk to the GOP last week? I feel pretty certain that Obama would beat the GOP in open debate every time because the conservative talking points are so easily debunked. Conspiracies and overheated rhetoric are a dead end.

262

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:43:12am

re: #213 jamesfirecat

Well its a free country, what do you want, mandatory chastity belts?

You know, firecat, I get the idea you think I'm some sort of wann-be nun. I'm not.

What would you suggest? Do you think underage pregnancies are a problem?

263

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:43:24am

re: #96 Soap_Man

Actually, I'm a bit surprised with how many "not sure" responses there were. 33 percent aren't sure if the President wants the terrorists to win? Now that's just bizarre.

It means they don't trust his judgment in regards to terrorism I think.

264

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:08am

re: #232 cliffster

Take it or leave it, your ranting makes you sound like a crazy guy spouting about area 51 on public access cable. Clearly you feel strongly about the GOP. A little subtlety might help.

Which insults me and dodges the question. How can you as a good and moral person, conscience being a part of a party whose positions and party planks are so clearly evil?

265

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:17am

re: #263 Blueheron

It means they don't trust his judgment in regards to terrorism I think.

That's different from "wanting the terrorists to win".

266

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:25am

re: #253 Decatur Deb

This might be the region where the GOP breaks out of the age box. Per a fund-watch website, 6 people in my zipcode donated to Obama.

Dang.....

267

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:26am

re: #244 ggt

I think at this point in my life, I am very concerned about the next generation. Social issues are important to me. I see a lot of young girls with kids they can't afford and have no idea how to raise beyond changing diapers. They seem to have no clue how their choice has limited their children and themselves.

I do think children are better raised in a two-parent committed monogamous household in which each parent wants the children and can afford to raise them without undue stress. I see a whole lot o fpeople who seem to think that is a novel or unworkable idea.

And, as a society, we continue to fund this.

The question as you "rephrased it" to be about "are children best raised in a mongamous/married family" I would agree with.

Kids should have two parents, and when the kid is young preferably only one parent should work so the other can look after the kid.

I don't think that its fair for teenage girls to be ruining both their lives, and the lives of their children by having kids before they can possibly afford them..

268

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:26am

who posted the Shakespeare insult generator? That shit's cool!

269

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:36am

re: #247 baier

I live in Manhattan, I just got my W2 and my jaw hit the floor. I can barely afford my home, haven't been able to afford a vacation in 2 years , don't have a car (can't afford one) and the federal government says I'm rich.

but somehow protesting is un-American...

270

baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:37am

re: #237 jamesfirecat

Also what is so insane about "negotiating with terrorists" exactly? Not saying it should be our only option, or even our go to option, but it should be on the table, sometimes you can get more than you give!

I rest my case.

271

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:37am

re: #176 albusteve

all Republicans, or even a majority, are hateful, evil people...that's just hysterical hyberbole...the GOPs problems are slowly being exposed and they are becoming more serious all the time...but to condemn all voters of either party in that manner is folly...I have more faith in the multitudes than that

Ah BS. So you never threw all the liberals in a box and labeled them? Looks like I have some homework to do in regard to your postings.

It just feels really bad when it's said about you, isn't it?

272

American-African Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:44:49am

re: #48 Stanley Sea

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

YES: 24%
NO: 43%
NOT SURE: 33%

More troubling if you see this as 57% either believe the President of the United States either wants the terrorists win, or are not yet sure he wants the terrorists to win..

273

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:45:02am

This further solidifies my belief that I have been correct in moving away from the Republican party. Unfortunately, the "viable" 3rd party right now (tea party movement) is even further down the fundie path. I'd be willing to bet if you were able to ask the same questions of tea party members, the shocking numbers would be even higher.

There seems to be no room for me in any party. It stuns me to say in all honesty the Democratic party has my best interests at heart over any other party.

274

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:45:30am

re: #235 Blueheron

Well said G.

Classical Liberalism

275

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:45:42am

re: #264 ludwigvanquixote

That's a good rule to not be part of the Democratic party too due to evil, because they also do not support equal rights for gay people. I wish they did.

276

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:45:56am

re: #261 Killgore Trout

I wonder what would happen if you presented the actual proposals in the plan without calling it the health care reform plan. Would be much easier to identify whether they actually understand what's being considered.

277

leafsfan82 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:04am

I answered the poll. Am I outta the mainstream?

QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

No. I dont like his policies but theres no basis for him to be impeached.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

QUESTION: Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

I'd say she's about just as unqualified.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

I'm from Canada but were I from the States I'd say no.

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

Yep. What else can ya do? Round 'em up?

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes

QUESTION: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes

QUESTION: Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Dont give a rat's ass.

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yup.

QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

No. Neither should religion.

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

No.

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

QUESTION: Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Im not religious.

278

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:06am

re: #257 albusteve

move to New Mexico...Land of Enchantment and put all that stuff behind you...life is to short amigo

And the MST3K movie "Escape 2000" comes to mind immediately.

279

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:09am

re: #255 Obdicut

I can't blame 95% of Amish children from staying in the Amish communities after Rumspringa, either.

Just to clarify- Amish are not ignorant of science or worldly things and they use technology when necessary. My father had a discussion with a neighbor after noticing a solar panel on his outhouse. The Amish neighbor explained that science and innovations are not seen as inherently evil- but the Amish try to avoid things that would cause a distraction from the more important things in life. It was an interesting revelation to me.

280

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:35am

re: #252 albusteve

Please don't address me. I was serious.

281

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:36am

re: #271 marjoriemoon

Ah BS. So you never threw all the liberals in a box and labeled them? Looks like I have some homework to do in regard to your postings.

It just feels really bad when it's said about you, isn't it?

I'm not a Republican...why do you assume I am?...I don't feel bad about any of this stuff, you have missed by a mile...nice try tho

282

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:50am

re: #275 Obdicut

That's a good rule to not be part of the Democratic party too due to evil, because they also do not support equal rights for gay people. I wish they did.

The majority do. Just the ones in charge are afraid to act on it, because swing voters (for now) and the elderly don't like it.

283

Martinsmithy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:50am

I think we have a bigger problem here than merely the fate of the Republican party.

Our bigger problem, given that the Republican party claims faithfulness from a significant-sized minority of Americans, is that a significant percentage of Americans apparently believe that creationism should be taught in public schools.

284

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:57am

re: #247 baier

I live in Manhattan, I just got my W2 and my jaw hit the floor. I can barely afford my home, haven't been able to afford a vacation in 2 years , don't have a car (can't afford one) and the federal government says I'm rich.

Hi baier! That's because many folks - especially politicians - tend to confuse the terms "income" and "wealth". Easiest way to think of it is that "income" is what is earned in a given year, while "wealth" is a combination of money and other assets accumulated over time.

Let's say you make $100,000 per year in one area of the country, but your necessary expenses add up to $98,000. Therefore, you're only able to save $2,000 a year. Without complicating things by including interest, let's say that over 20 years, you've amassed a "wealth" of $40,000.

I, on the other hand, only make $50,000 per year, but live in an area of the country where my necessary expenses only come to $40,000. I can save $10,000 per year, and amass a wealth of $200,000 over 20 years.

Saying you're rich because you make twice as much money as I do, is not necessarily a relevant factor in determining who is "wealthy" at the end of the day.

285

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:46:59am

re: #195 ggt

I know young girls who planned their pregnancies.

Well of course you do.
Everyone knows people who are stupid or ill informed or desperate or unloved who think a baby would be just what their life needs.
Those are psychological issues...
That does not mean that we should either shame un-married mothers (young or old..not saying you suggested that) OR think that anything but comprehensive sex ed and free, easy to obtain BC is the answer to the issues.

(I guess I should also say that I think having folks be honest about what a pain in the ass being a parent is espically if one is 16 and do not have a support system.
Way to often the media and parents discuss how wonderful that baby is and the love and that baby smell that makes us all go gooy and we forget to mention how hard it is to raise a kid. How babies cry for no good reason and there is nothing you can do to make them stop. How they seem to get ear infections on the weekend so you have to take them to the hospital instead of the Doctor's office. How tired you will be and how you may never have time to get a decent education and how you'll be stuck working as a waitress the rest of your life. How they will turn on you when they are 8 and tell you to not hug them any more or when they are teens they will slam doors and declare that "you suck, I wish I had never been born, I hate you, you just want to ruin my life, aaaarrrghggggggghhhhh".....)

286

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:06am

re: #273 ssn697

This further solidifies my belief that I have been correct in moving away from the Republican party. Unfortunately, the "viable" 3rd party right now (tea party movement) is even further down the fundie path. I'd be willing to bet if you were able to ask the same questions of tea party members, the shocking numbers would be even higher.

There seems to be no room for me in any party. It stuns me to say in all honesty the Democratic party has my best interests at heart over any other party.

Ojoe, FRONT!!!

287

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:08am

re: #268 cliffster

I posted a link in 228 when the original suggestion was made, but didn't identify it as such...

288

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:25am

re: #224 simoom

I've been poking around to see how well this matches up with any sort of GOP demographic surveys (I haven't found anything yet). Also, while the overall sample is large for a poll, with the NE sample being so small (with a much larger margin of error), maybe my trying to compare how little the regional responses differed isn't too useful.

That's why I'm not such a big fan of polling in general! I think it could be either highly accurate or highly inaccurate, but I'm not sure we really know which!

289

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:27am

re: #262 ggt

You know, firecat, I get the idea you think I'm some sort of wann-be nun. I'm not.

What would you suggest? Do you think underage pregnancies are a problem?

I think they're a problem also and think that they should be adressed via better sexual education, and better education to students about the true costs of raising a child.

I think I've also probably wasted a lot of both of our time by reading a intention into your question that was never there to start with, but hey its a lazy Tuesday afternoon and my classes are done with...

290

fizzlogic Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:38am

re: #128 Charles

MediaMatters has the clip:

Media Matters Video

291

Altermite Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:52am

re: #169 Ericus58

Look at these numbers posted earlier in the thread:

MEN 1125 56%
WOMEN 878 44%

WHITE 1787 89%
OTHER/REF 216 11%

18-29 178 9%
30-44 418 21%
45-59 664 33%
60+ 743 37%

NE 217 11%
SOUTH 846 42%
MW 437 22%
WEST 503 25%

Heavily weighted to show the opinion of older white southern males.

That is NOT a true reflection of the republicans in my family or area, not by a stretch.
And since I've admitted to my bias against Kos, this imo just reinforces my skepticism of the poll methodology.

It is, however, a somewhat accurate demographic of people who identify as republicans. Like it or not, the party has more whites than nonwhites, many of its strongholds are southern states, and republicans tend to get more male votes than female.

292

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:47:56am

re: #253 Decatur Deb

This might be the region where the GOP breaks out of the age box. Per a fund-watch website, 6 people in my zipcode donated to Obama.

Even so, if 100% of the 42% Southern Republicans think Obama is a socialist (and no, I don't think the South as a whole is that ignorant), then the other 21% have to come from somewhere else, which means 1 in 5 Republicans NOT from the South also think Obama is a socialist. Still not a very reassuring number.

293

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:48:08am

re: #270 baier

I rest my case.

What was your conclusion?

294

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:48:32am

re: #275 Obdicut

That's a good rule to not be part of the Democratic party too due to evil, because they also do not support equal rights for gay people. I wish they did.

I am an independent. There are many who foolishly think I am a Dem. The Dems do not really support gay rights that is true. But then again, to a person they do *not* try to de-humanize gays or strip their rights the way the GOP does. Quite simply, the GOP fears gay people. The dems do not.

295

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:48:38am

re: #280 ludwigvanquixote

Please don't address me. I was serious.

too bad...your just a bunch of 1s and 0s to me...nothing personal

296

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:48:46am

re: #277 leafsfan82

But you're Canadian, for crap's sake.

297

ryannon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:48:55am

re: #256 recusancy

Maybe you should move to a more affordable area.

Camden, New Jersey.

The affordable alternative!

[Link: jcbourcart.com...]

298

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:04am

re: #277 leafsfan82

But you're Canadian, so you're opinion doesn't matter!

(Joking!!)

299

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:13am

re: #279 DaddyG

I know. My point there was about powerful memes. Being raised Amish means that you're very likely to keep being Amish.

300

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:14am

re: #205 marjoriemoon

If it were a human it would be called a human. A fetus is not a human. It is, by definition, a potential human.

It is a "human fetus". The species is "human", the development stage is "fetus". Similar for "human embryo", "human infant", "human child", "human adult", etc.

There is room for disagreement about what developmental stage makes someone qualify as "fully" human, or as "deserving human rights". To those who hold the position you were so curious about, your comment would be just as absurd as saying my newborn is a "potential human". As in my previous comment, they'd say it's fully human, just at an early stage of development. To you, their position is absurd, as the fetus clearly has a long way to go.

(And, to expand the earlier comment, those who support the death penalty view the criminal as a fully developed human who is both (1) guilty, and (2) dangerous, and who has therefore forfeited his life.)

You asked to understand their position. I've laid it out for you. You're free to disagree, but I hope you'll at least understand where they're coming from.

301

middy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:23am

re: #243 ludwigvanquixote

Now that is an interesting point on abstract good and evil. Everyone is a sum of many deeds and thoughts. When it comes to judging individuals as good and evil, in a real sense, we (as in all people) are generally not qualified to do so.

Jefferson was a great man. He owned slaves too. He really can't be forgiven for that. All of those statements are true.

However, positions and actions are clearly definable as evil.

Hating gay people is evil.

Lying to start wars is evil.

Lying to make a profit (in the case of AGW) even though it will kill billions is evil.

Racism is evil.

Being against treating women with basic decency and givng them their basic rights is evil.

Wanting to destroy the union is evil.

These are evil views.

Also very smart people can have mental moments and believe stupid things. However, those things are still stupid.

Being opposed to both abortion and birth control is stupid. Just stupid.

Anti-science biblical literalism is stupid.

All the cool-aid conspiracy nonsense is stupid.

This isn't about trying to be popular with those who are easily offended. This is about the truth. It is high time that rather than playing nice we just spoke the truth.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

302

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:44am

re: #278 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And the MST3K movie "Escape 2000" comes to mind immediately.

didn't see it...was it favorable to NM?...or did they make fun of us taco heads?

303

Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:47am

re: #290 trendsurfer

MediaMatters has the clip: [Link: mediamatters.org...]

Thanks for posting that.

304

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:53am

re: #296 Decatur Deb

But you're Canadian, for crap's sake.

Damn, beat me to the easy Canada joke by a few seconds. :)

305

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:49:59am

re: #273 ssn697

This further solidifies my belief that I have been correct in moving away from the Republican party. Unfortunately, the "viable" 3rd party right now (tea party movement) is even further down the fundie path. I'd be willing to bet if you were able to ask the same questions of tea party members, the shocking numbers would be even higher.

There seems to be no room for me in any party. It stuns me to say in all honesty the Democratic party has my best interests at heart over any other party.

The Democratic party tends to nearly always "mean well", we often end up meaning well in the same way that a bear having a breakdancing party with an ant does, but at well meaning baffoonery offers a lot more room for improvement then mean spirited craziness in my opinion.

306

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:50:05am

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

No wonder I'm a party refugee. I can vote to have creationism in the local elementary school, the sex police in my bedroom...yuck.

Or I can have a PC twisted curriculum and the government in my garage and kitchen.

Lucky us, eh? Well, just as we go to war with the military we have, we go to the polls with the electorate we have.

Democracy would be so much easier if it weren't for the pesky public getting involved.
/

307

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:50:09am

I don't know why this comes as a surprise.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of liberal dems were polled either and answered that they thought 09/11 was an inside job..and the like.

The far right is scary. The far left is scary. Luckily, the majority of the country is in the center.

308

cliffster Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:50:26am

re: #264 ludwigvanquixote

Which insults me and dodges the question. How can you as a good and moral person, conscience being a part of a party whose positions and party planks are so clearly evil?

When I hear things like EVIL and DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, I have the good sense to tune out the rest of it.

309

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:50:45am

re: #225 albusteve

nothing is either all or nothing, especially in politics...these narrow, ridged types of questions are meant for only one thing...tora

You mean Torah...

Which part of do not address me did you miss?

310

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:51:11am

re: #307 CarryOn

I don't know why this comes as a surprise.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of liberal dems were polled either and answered that they thought 09/11 was an inside job..and the like.

The far right is scary. The far left is scary. Luckily, the majority of the country is in the center.

Perhaps, but the response rate to some of these questions is far too high to be easily dismissed as "the fringe."

311

Mr. Crankypants Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:51:25am

re: #309 ludwigvanquixote

You mean Torah...

Which part of do not address me did you miss?

LVQ, you might try ignoring him...

312

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:51:29am

re: #242 simoom

Oh wait, iceweasel addressed what I was looking for a number of posts back:

Wow. What's weird is that the +60 age bracket was changing or leaving the Repubs. The South, not so much.

313

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:51:30am

re: #277 leafsfan82

I answered the poll. Am I outta the mainstream?

QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

No. I dont like his policies but theres no basis for him to be impeached.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

No

QUESTION: Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

I'd say she's about just as unqualified.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

No

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

I'm from Canada but were I from the States I'd say no.

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

Yep. What else can ya do? Round 'em up?

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes

QUESTION: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes

QUESTION: Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Dont give a rat's ass.

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yup.

QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

No. Neither should religion.

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

No.

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

No

QUESTION: Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

NO

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?

No

QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Im not religious.

If sex education isn't taught in schools where do you want kids to learn it from?

314

baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:51:34am

re: #293 jamesfirecat

What was your conclusion?

That there are many idiots that think negotiating with terrorist is a good idea.

315

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:12am

I guess the fact the poll is weigh to old dudes might answer the BC questions.
Most of them would never had used a condom and really DO think God planned their family size never noticing that pill their wife took every day to make sure they there was 2 years between each kid and stopped it at 3 or 4 kids.

316

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:43am

re: #294 ludwigvanquixote

I know, but I feel a lot of the GOP people who 'hate' gay people simply have no connection with or association with gay people. I think this is clearly shown among young Evangelicals (who are even worse on the abortion question than their parents) who nonetheless support most gay rights. The younger generation knows more gay people, and is more tolerant of gay people.

317

Killgore Trout Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:45am

Rush was on a roll today....
Limbaugh: "I am so sick and tired of hearing we've got to invest in education"

318

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:51am

re: #289 jamesfirecat

I think they're a problem also and think that they should be adressed via better sexual education, and better education to students about the true costs of raising a child.

I think I've also probably wasted a lot of both of our time by reading a intention into your question that was never there to start with, but hey its a lazy Tuesday afternoon and my classes are done with...

fair enough. It is a lazy Tuesday afternoon.

Perpahs it is time for puns?

319

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:51am

re: #314 baier

That there are many idiots that think negotiating with terrorist is a good idea.

as if it was even possible...

320

Kragar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:52:57am

re: #302 albusteve

didn't see it...was it favorable to NM?...or did they make fun of us taco heads?

An evil corporation had bought the Bronx and was offering to relocate the populace to New Mexico.

Youtube Video

321

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:53:13am

re: #124 jamesfirecat

" after he decided to go to war with Iraq based on what I thought at the time to be lies"

So did they actually have WMDs? (Sorry what statements you thought were lies that turned out to be the truth are you referring to?)

No. They didn't. And some of Saddam's generals said he wanted the world to believe he had WMDs because he didn't want to look weak to his neighbors. But after 12 years of surveillance, aerial bombings and no-fly zone enforcement, we knew damn well he didn't have an army that could defend him against an invasion. (I remember reading that the longest Iraq went without a US assault on a military target between 1991 and 2003 was six days) We didn't think about the following insurgency, but noone ever accused President Bush of having foresight.

322

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:53:17am

re: #285 webevintage

Well of course you do.
Everyone knows people who are stupid or ill informed or desperate or unloved who think a baby would be just what their life needs.
Those are psychological issues...
That does not mean that we should either shame un-married mothers (young or old..not saying you suggested that) OR think that anything but comprehensive sex ed and free, easy to obtain BC is the answer to the issues.

(I guess I should also say that I think having folks be honest about what a pain in the ass being a parent is espically if one is 16 and do not have a support system.
Way to often the media and parents discuss how wonderful that baby is and the love and that baby smell that makes us all go gooy and we forget to mention how hard it is to raise a kid. How babies cry for no good reason and there is nothing you can do to make them stop. How they seem to get ear infections on the weekend so you have to take them to the hospital instead of the Doctor's office. How tired you will be and how you may never have time to get a decent education and how you'll be stuck working as a waitress the rest of your life. How they will turn on you when they are 8 and tell you to not hug them any more or when they are teens they will slam doors and declare that "you suck, I wish I had never been born, I hate you, you just want to ruin my life, aaarrrghggghhh"...)

hehe Don't they have "baby boot camp" for young girls who are desperate to have babies? I think I saw that while I was home sick watching Oprah or Montel or something.

323

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:53:44am

re: #294 ludwigvanquixote

I am an independent. There are many who foolishly think I am a Dem. The Dems do not really support gay rights that is true. But then again, to a person they do *not* try to de-humanize gays or strip their rights the way the GOP does. Quite simply, the GOP fears gay people. The dems do not.

I know how you feel...a lot of people foolishly think I am a Republican...but beyond that I am not even an Independent!

324

leafsfan82 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:03am

re: #313 jamesfirecat

Im 27 and never had a sex ed class in high school. I managed to do just fine anyways ;-)

325

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:27am

re: #316 Obdicut

I know, but I feel a lot of the GOP people who 'hate' gay people simply have no connection with or association with gay people. I think this is clearly shown among young Evangelicals (who are even worse on the abortion question than their parents) who nonetheless support most gay rights. The younger generation knows more gay people, and is more tolerant of gay people.

See Dick Cheney. He was always against the wedge issues concerning gay people because his daughter's gay. It's always "different" when it effects them personally.

326

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:29am

re: #292 darthstar

Even so, if 100% of the 42% Southern Republicans think Obama is a socialist (and no, I don't think the South as a whole is that ignorant), then the other 21% have to come from somewhere else, which means 1 in 5 Republicans NOT from the South also think Obama is a socialist. Still not a very reassuring number.

I do think Obama is more socialist than capitalist. Is that a bad thing? If I had a crystal ball I could tell you. At this point I'm not sure what we can afford.

327

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:39am

re: #307 CarryOn

I don't know why this comes as a surprise.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of liberal dems were polled either and answered that they thought 09/11 was an inside job..and the like.

The far right is scary. The far left is scary. Luckily, the majority of the country is in the center.

Yes but these types of polls offer us an unprecedented opportunity to take complex issues, boil them down to near meaningless generic positions then using the easily generalizable answers to demonize the sampled population as evil monolithic mouth breathing ignorant dangerous neanderthols.

328

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:50am

re: #192 darthstar

Looking at the numbers cited in this thread, look at it this way:

56% male
Vast majority white
70% 45+ years old, 9% at 29 and lower
largest geographical group from the south, least from the NE

using the data posted, you can't math it out to the numbers you posted unless the poll data actually broke it out that of the 42% polled in the south - 56% were male, 89% white, .....

Make sense?

329

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:52am

re: #317 Killgore Trout

Just look at the millions of dollars invested to date. Not much to show for it, huh? If we're going to keep investing, we should do it in a better way. Same goes for Most government programs.

330

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:54:53am

re: #309 ludwigvanquixote

You mean Torah...

Which part of do not address me did you miss?

no, tora...and I like it when we talk, what's wrong with that?

331

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:55:20am

re: #316 Obdicut

The younger generation knows more gay people, and is more tolerant of gay people.

Which is a great thing. Gay people in my generation (and the generation that will follow) seems so much more comfortable with coming out, which means that more straight people are exposed to homosexuals face-to-face, which only leads to a higher comfort level. This will lead to public opinion shifting in favor of gay rights. It's a wonderful thing.

332

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:55:24am

re: #307 CarryOn

I don't know why this comes as a surprise.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of liberal dems were polled either and answered that they thought 09/11 was an inside job..and the like.

The far right is scary. The far left is scary. Luckily, the majority of the country is in the center.

According to this pole there's barely any "regular right" left in the GOP party, in essence the "far right" is now the "center right" and when the Republican Brand name makes people vote for those people or because they don't like democrats, bad things happen.....

333

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:55:46am

re: #264 ludwigvanquixote

Which insults me and dodges the question. How can you as a good and moral person, conscience being a part of a party whose positions and party planks are so clearly evil?

So that insults you, but you're not insulting anyone.

riiight.

come on.

334

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:55:48am

re: #322 marjoriemoon

hehe Don't they have "baby boot camp" for young girls who are desperate to have babies? I think I saw that while I was home sick watching Oprah or Montel or something.

Yeah, but babies just get such damn good press...they are evil that way.

335

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:55:59am

re: #309 ludwigvanquixote

You mean Torah...

Which part of do not address me did you miss?

You may want to take a break. Seriously. It is a public forum and you are going to have to expect people will respond. It looks like someones got your goat and is continuing to pull its tail to have some fun.

336

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:56:07am

re: #305 jamesfirecat

The Democratic party tends to nearly always "mean well", we often end up meaning well in the same way that a bear having a breakdancing party with an ant does, but at well meaning baffoonery offers a lot more room for improvement then mean spirited craziness in my opinion.

I have to agree. The vitriolic narrowness of the Republican party these days reeks of the religious woman in The Mist. There is just no room for debate. I'm expecting Scott Brown to come out and say he was misquoted regarding abortion rights any day now.

337

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:56:07am

re: #314 baier

That there are many idiots that think negotiating with terrorist is a good idea.

I'm not an idiot I'm ignorant, explain to me why negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea.

338

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:56:14am

re: #326 ggt

Being more socialist should mean that he wants the US government to take over more than half of the US economy, right?

Or what definition of 'more socialist than capitalist' are you using?

339

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:56:18am

re: #316 Obdicut

I know, but I feel a lot of the GOP people who 'hate' gay people simply have no connection with or association with gay people. I think this is clearly shown among young Evangelicals (who are even worse on the abortion question than their parents) who nonetheless support most gay rights. The younger generation knows more gay people, and is more tolerant of gay people.

thank you

340

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:56:34am

re: #323 albusteve

I know how you feel...a lot of people foolishly think I am a Republican...but beyond that I am not even an Independent!

re: #323 albusteve

I know how you feel...a lot of people foolishly think I am a Republican...but beyond that I am not even an Independent!

You're a nihilist.

341

DaddyG Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:00am

re: #324 leafsfan82

Im 27 and never had a sex ed class in high school. I managed to do just fine anyways ;-)

That's not what she said. /

342

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:09am

re: #256 recusancy

Maybe you should move to a more affordable area.

But, but, New York City has rent control! Thanks to this statist intevention in the housing market, everyone can afford to live in Manhattan!
/

343

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:15am

re: #328 Ericus58

Works on my block. Urban/Rural might add another dimension.

344

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:24am

re: #337 jamesfirecat

I'm not an idiot I'm ignorant, explain to me why negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea.

well where would you start? what would be your first concession?

345

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:38am

re: #340 recusancy

You're a nihilist.

no, just a voter...nihilism does not appeal to me

346

leafsfan82 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:44am

re: #341 DaddyG

LMAO! Damn!

347

ryannon Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:57am

re: #340 recusancy

You're a nihilist.

A stranger in a strange land.

348

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:58am

re: #167 Soap_Man

I've never been polled. How do they respond if you say "That's a stupid question and I refuse to answer it?" Do they file that under "not sure"?

I have been polled and yes I believe that is exactly what they do.

349

Randall Gross Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:10am

While the survey might be slightly weighted towards demographic South and it might not represent the base in other regions as well as it could, nobody can deny that the bulk of the leadership in the Republican party right now is from the demographic south, and that's the flint heart of the base at present.

So the discussion of how valid the survey is really doesn't matter if the leadership and braintrust is represented by the "base" shown in the survey. It's an accurate sampling of the leadership weather of the moment, what it portends for the longer term Republican "climate" remains to be seen, since much of that demographic sampled is dying off over the next 15 yrs or so.

I will likely end up as an I for the next decade or so after the 2010 cycle until the Republicans change again for the better of the whole country and not just the limited luddite views of the paleos.

I don't foresee anything that's going to change that for the next few years.

350

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:17am

I don't think abortion or gay rights should have anything to do with any election. These are social issues that the federal government should just stay out of, which they largely do.
Roe v wade isn't going away.
And anything to do with gays marrying each other should be left up to the states.
IMHO
Actually, I think the gov't needs to get out of even Hetero marriages. Unless there are children that need to be considered through a divorce or such. Otherwise, why should the gov't be involved in ANYBODY's marriage?

351

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:21am

re: #334 webevintage

Yeah, but babies just get such damn good press...they are evil that way.

"Round the little guttersnipes up."

352

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:40am

re: #324 leafsfan82

Im 27 and never had a sex ed class in high school. I managed to do just fine anyways ;-)

Well then you might be the exception, if you're not religious why exactly do you object to the idea of a sex ed class? If I hadn't had one, I probably wouldn't have realized that women don't have pensises either till I'd discovered porn, and maybe not even then if it had been the "right" kind of porn.

Seriously my fifth grade brain just couldn't get the idea of how anyone, let alone 50% of the people born could get by without something so handy for going to the bathroom with....

353

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:45am

re: #337 jamesfirecat

I'm not an idiot I'm ignorant, explain to me why negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea.

If you think you even can negotiate with terrorist, than yes you are ignorant. And if you try, than yes, you are an idiot.

354

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:59am

re: #197 bloodstar

very good breakdown.
If the poll gave the same weight to younger NE republicans, I think the answers would have been quite different.

355

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:04am

re: #322 marjoriemoon

hehe Don't they have "baby boot camp" for young girls who are desperate to have babies? I think I saw that while I was home sick watching Oprah or Montel or something.

I went through one of those. It was called "Mom has a baby when her oldest two daughters are sixteen and seventeen."

Believe me, I was under no illusions about babies. I had lived with one.

356

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:13am

re: #333 Aceofwhat?

So that insults you, but you're not insulting anyone.

riiight.

come on.

The difference is between the personal and the general in the language. Come on yourself. If you are honestly in line with the views that I am castigating, then how do you defend them? If you are not, then we do not have a beef, and nothing I said was pointed at you personally.

357

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:19am

re: #317 Killgore Trout

Rush was on a roll today...
Limbaugh: "I am so sick and tired of hearing we've got to invest in education"

Indoctrinated, mind numb robots indeed. Just look at the polling numbers in the article above. Our education system at work?

358

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:21am

re: #338 Obdicut

Being more socialist should mean that he wants the US government to take over more than half of the US economy, right?

Or what definition of 'more socialist than capitalist' are you using?

The "chicken in every pot" and it's government's role to make sure it happens. Not, "opportunity for a chicken in every pot" the individual is free to make it happen within the law.

I'm not sure he thinks beyond that. I don't think he has had any real experience or education with economics.

359

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:26am

re: #350 CarryOn

Actually, I think the gov't needs to get out of even Hetero marriages. Unless there are children that need to be considered through a divorce or such. Otherwise, why should the gov't be involved in ANYBODY's marriage?

Because it's a legal contract.

360

Soap_Man Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:31am

re: #340 recusancy

You're a nihilist.

From the Big Lebowski, when Bunny and The Dude see the guy passes out in an innertube:

Bunny: Don't mind him, he's a nihilist.
The Dude: That must be exhausting.

361

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:33am

re: #328 Ericus58

Looking at the numbers cited in this thread, look at it this way:

56% male
Vast majority white
70% 45+ years old, 9% at 29 and lower
largest geographical group from the south, least from the NE

using the data posted, you can't math it out to the numbers you posted unless the poll data actually broke it out that of the 42% polled in the south - 56% were male, 89% white, ...

Make sense?

Yep, it does make sense, but you still can't just blame the South for these results. It's not as if R2K went to Cletus' Pentacostal Garage, Bar-b-Cue & Strip Club and found all their respondents there.

362

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:59:43am

re: #322 marjoriemoon

hehe Don't they have "baby boot camp" for young girls who are desperate to have babies? I think I saw that while I was home sick watching Oprah or Montel or something.

Hi marjoriemoon! Our high school here in our little town went to the community to get help funding a child development center on the school grounds. Their concept was to provide a place for teen mothers to take their children while they went to class. It wasn't a cake-walk though...when the young women weren't in class, they were at the center, helping to take care of their children and learning basic parenting skills.

Ironically - or not - birth rates started to drop a bit, apparently as other young women noticed the moms weren't having the time for activities, etc.

But the young moms had the opportunity to finish their education.

The community here coughed up the money needed to fund the center, and most folks around here are glad we did.

363

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:03pm

re: #353 Baier

If you think you even can negotiate with terrorist, than yes you are ignorant. And if you try, than yes, you are an idiot.

It worked for my people in Ireland, but it did take 500 years.

364

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:18pm

re: #358 ggt

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually said anything that connects to Obama. You're making a very vague accusation that he thinks its the government's role to put a 'chicken in every pot.' I have no real idea what you mean by that.

365

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:32pm

re: #331 Soap_Man

Which is a great thing. Gay people in my generation (and the generation that will follow) seems so much more comfortable with coming out, which means that more straight people are exposed to homosexuals face-to-face, which only leads to a higher comfort level. This will lead to public opinion shifting in favor of gay rights. It's a wonderful thing.

You might even say its a FAB-ULIOUS thing.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself I'm a gay marriage supporter but sometimes you just got to grab the low hanging fruit.

And there I go again!

366

Gretchen G.Tiger Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:35pm

I gotta go,

Have a great afternoon all!

367

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:37pm

re: #359 Obdicut

I understand it's a legal contract. I'm saying there is no need for it. Gov't has no business in people's marriages, again, unless there is a child or abuse to deal with...or anything else for that matter. Even today, when a divorce happens..people have to go to court to sort out finances, etc.
Gov't shouldn't be in the "business" of marriage.

368

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:55pm

re: #356 ludwigvanquixote

The difference is between the personal and the general in the language. Come on yourself. If you are honestly in line with the views that I am castigating, then how do you defend them? If you are not, then we do not have a beef, and nothing I said was pointed at you personally.

If that were the case, you would say that a majority of the GOP has evil positions in your opinion. That is general, not personal.

When you say the GOP is evil, you are saying that I am evil, and it's personal.

369

Randall Gross Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:59pm

re: #328 Ericus58

Looking at the numbers cited in this thread, look at it this way:

56% male
Vast majority white
70% 45+ years old, 9% at 29 and lower
largest geographical group from the south, least from the NE

using the data posted, you can't math it out to the numbers you posted unless the poll data actually broke it out that of the 42% polled in the south - 56% were male, 89% white, ...

Make sense?

That sampling is driven by measures of the demographics within the party in all likelihood. It matches somewhat with the Gallup poll from pre-election as far as party identification by age groups. There just aren't many "young Republicans" anymore compared to Dems, because for years people throughout the party have pissed on youth vote and recruiting efforts that weren't tied to religion.

370

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:02:05pm

re: #355 EmmmieG

I went through one of those. It was called "Mom has a baby when her oldest two daughters are sixteen and seventeen."

Believe me, I was under no illusions about babies. I had lived with one.

Yeah I heard that works pretty good. None of the girls I knew in highschool who were from a large family or had a much younger sibling ended up pregnant.

371

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:02:14pm

re: #367 CarryOn

Even today, when a divorce happens..people have to go to court to sort out finances, etc.

So in your perfect world, what would happen in a divorce without the courts to oversee it?

372

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:02:23pm

re: #358 ggt

The "chicken in every pot" and it's government's role to make sure it happens. Not, "opportunity for a chicken in every pot" the individual is free to make it happen within the law.

I'm not sure he thinks beyond that. I don't think he has had any real experience or education with economics.

My problem with this simplistic approach is that Capitalism requires a population of producers be available for the "opportunist". The idea that Capitalism will create wealth and success for anyone who wants it is inherently false. For it to work that way, it becomes communism.

373

middy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:02pm

After seeing this poll, I can only conclude that it would be easier for me to try to bring a measure of fiscal responsibility to the Democratic party than to try and restore sanity to the GOP... if I had any interest in joining a political party.

374

recusancy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:36pm

re: #367 CarryOn

I understand it's a legal contract. I'm saying there is no need for it. Gov't has no business in people's marriages, again, unless there is a child or abuse to deal with...or anything else for that matter. Even today, when a divorce happens..people have to go to court to sort out finances, etc.
Gov't shouldn't be in the "business" of marriage.

Then how should finances and custody and everything else be sorted out? You seem to have a very naive and idealist view of this.

375

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:53pm

re: #371 Obdicut

If people don't need the court, they take care of their own business and split up.
If someone needs the courts, they take it to courts.

376

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:08pm

re: #344 brookly red

well where would you start? what would be your first concession?

What we negotiate with them on a case by case basis.

What do they want and what are they willing to give us?

If there demands are unreasonable then we deal with them through other methods.

Are they so evil that we can't even make an attempt every now and again to figure out a way to live and let live with them?

377

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:37pm

re: #353 Baier

If you think you even can negotiate with terrorist, than yes you are ignorant. And if you try, than yes, you are an idiot.

You tell me these things, but you don't provide any proof....

378

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:48pm

re: #347 ryannon

A stranger in a strange land.

whoa...thanks!

379

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:56pm

re: #359 Obdicut

Because it's a legal contract.

One change I'd like to see is for the government to move from the "marriage" contract to a "civil union" contract. Let any couple (regardless of gender, age, degree of relatedness to each other, etc.) enter one, as long as neither member is currently in another, and tie it to the same set of rights as we currently list for "marriage". Or, even, let people enter into "limited" unions where they leave out parts they don't want.

Leave the question of what qualifies as "marriage" to society; let people call it whatever they want. The government should worry about the contract, not the name.

380

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:07pm

re: #354 Ericus58

very good breakdown.
If the poll gave the same weight to younger NE republicans, I think the answers would have been quite different.

Full Cross-tabs say otherwise:

Do you think Obama wants the terrorists to win?
age&region, Yes, No, Not sure
18-29 - 23 - 44 - 33
30-44 - 24 - 43 - 33
45-59 - 24 - 43 - 33
60+ 24 - 42 - 34
NE - 19 - 49 - 32
South - 28 - 39 - 33

381

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:37pm

re: #356 ludwigvanquixote

The difference is between the personal and the general in the language. Come on yourself. If you are honestly in line with the views that I am castigating, then how do you defend them? If you are not, then we do not have a beef, and nothing I said was pointed at you personally.

Let's start with this one.

"Lying to start wars is evil."

I think that the intelligence, on a global scale, overestimated the existing WMD capabilities and underestimated the future WMD plans and expectations held by Saddam Hussein.

I generally agree with Tony Blair's position on the beginning of the thing.

Am I evil?

382

brookly red Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:44pm

re: #376 jamesfirecat

What we negotiate with them on a case by case basis.

What do they want and what are they willing to give us?

If there demands are unreasonable then we deal with them through other methods.

Are they so evil that we can't even make an attempt every now and again to figure out a way to live and let live with them?

that is my position, yes.

383

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:52pm

re: #353 Baier

If you think you even can negotiate with terrorist, than yes you are ignorant. And if you try, than yes, you are an idiot.

But isn't that what the British have done with the IRA?

384

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:59pm

re: #320 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

An evil corporation had bought the Bronx and was offering to relocate the populace to New Mexico.

[Video]

not far from reality....NYs have flocked out here recently...they know their pizza

385

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:06:22pm

re: #367 CarryOn

I understand it's a legal contract. I'm saying there is no need for it. Gov't has no business in people's marriages, again, unless there is a child or abuse to deal with...or anything else for that matter. Even today, when a divorce happens..people have to go to court to sort out finances, etc.
Gov't shouldn't be in the "business" of marriage.

And then we can start unchecking the married/single box on our 1040's.

386

albusteve Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:07:43pm

re: #357 ssn697

Indoctrinated, mind numb robots indeed. Just look at the polling numbers in the article above. Our education system at work?

thank you NEA...you da bomb!

387

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:07:54pm

re: #384 albusteve

not far from reality...NYs have flocked out here recently...they know their pizza

Lots of emigration to Florida, too. No state income tax = big selling point. The weather's not too bad, either.

388

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:08:11pm

re: #350 CarryOn

I don't think abortion or gay rights should have anything to do with any election. These are social issues that the federal government should just stay out of, which they largely do.
Roe v wade isn't going away.
And anything to do with gays marrying each other should be left up to the states.
IMHO
Actually, I think the gov't needs to get out of even Hetero marriages. Unless there are children that need to be considered through a divorce or such. Otherwise, why should the gov't be involved in ANYBODY's marriage?

Here's a question, what about the part in I believe it was the constitution where it says that Licenses issued in one state shall be valid in another, like drivers licenses for example?

Does that mean if a state votes "No" on gay marriage then you can't get gay married in it, but you the state has to recognize the marriages of those who got gay married in another state?

389

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:08:22pm

re: #375 CarryOn

If people don't need the court, they take care of their own business and split up.
If someone needs the courts, they take it to courts.

That makes no sense.

390

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:08:28pm

re: #377 jamesfirecat

You tell me these things, but you don't provide any proof...

Why don't you provide me with proof that it works? I'll tell you what, I'll give you 60 years of Israeli history against any proof you can offer that negotiating with terrorists is a good idea.

391

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:08pm

re: #379 LotharBot

I agree with that. I didn't used to, but I do now.

392

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:47pm

re: #300 LotharBot

It is a "human fetus". The species is "human", the development stage is "fetus". Similar for "human embryo", "human infant", "human child", "human adult", etc.

There is room for disagreement about what developmental stage makes someone qualify as "fully" human, or as "deserving human rights". To those who hold the position you were so curious about, your comment would be just as absurd as saying my newborn is a "potential human". As in my previous comment, they'd say it's fully human, just at an early stage of development. To you, their position is absurd, as the fetus clearly has a long way to go.

(And, to expand the earlier comment, those who support the death penalty view the criminal as a fully developed human who is both (1) guilty, and (2) dangerous, and who has therefore forfeited his life.)

You asked to understand their position. I've laid it out for you. You're free to disagree, but I hope you'll at least understand where they're coming from.

I do disagree and I don't understand their position!

A newborn is a 100% fully born human with as many human rights as any other. Of course, there are rights that are limited as to age, but not as to species.

A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot. That doesn't mean it's just a mass of tissue and has no meaning. It is human potentially after all.

I just find it completely bizarre that the same people who are so outspoken against abortion when the life is yet to be born can so completely agree (by 91%!) to kill another human being, even a felon. In 2004, there were 71 teens on death row. I'm not sure all of them deserve to be. I think there's a section of our society that's extremely vigilante and kind of gets off on the thought of the death penalty.

393

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:50pm

Here's a good, brief 'comment' on this. Specifically the first comment posted on this 'blog'? site, I have no idea what this is. LOL
[Link: plainview.wordpress.com...]

394

Page 3 in the Binder of Women Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:05pm

re: #385 Stanley Sea

And then we can start unchecking the married/single box on our 1040's.

My point is marriage does have an impact, and gays should be allowed.

395

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:41pm

re: #317 Killgore Trout

Rush was on a roll today...
Limbaugh: "I am so sick and tired of hearing we've got to invest in education"

"I am so sick and tired of Rush Limbaugh."
-Marj

396

MKELLY Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:46pm

re: #243 ludwigvanquixote

Please identify who in the GOP lied to start a war.
Please identify who in the GOP likes racism.
The union exists because the states approved its existance. The states have the power to dissolve it. Lincoln did what you would have done and kept the union and he was a GOP man.

397

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:46pm

re: #388 jamesfirecat

Yes, I thought of that...which is why my comment went on to say that I think gov't should totally get out of the business of marriage.

398

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:47pm

re: #205 marjoriemoon

If it were a human it would be called a human. A fetus is not a human. It is, by definition, a potential human.

I'm speaking of the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions are done and considered.

That is you. We were talking about Republican responders.
Myself I don't agree with abortion but I will stay out of your way if you want one. End of.

399

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:06pm

re: #337 jamesfirecat

I'm not an idiot I'm ignorant, explain to me why negotiating with terrorists is a bad idea.

This was directed at Israel some time back, but it applies to us as well:
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

We can no more bargain with most of these jihadists than we can bargain with a scorpion under our beds.

400

captdiggs Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:33pm

The poll is purely unbelievable.
It's an advocacy poll done for KOS and using phone results which are notoriously unreliable. Research2000 is used by democratic advocacy groups like Blue Mass and KOS because they give the results that those groups like.
It gave Coakley the lead in Mass until the day before the election and then said the election was tied at 48% each. It was the least accurate of all the polling organizations. In the 2008 election Research 2000 came in 7th in accuracy ( Rassmussen was #1) [Link: docs.google.com...]

If it gives comfort to those here who think all republicans are completely off their rockers, well, that was the purpose of KOS sponsoring this poll.

401

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:46pm

re: #382 brookly red

that is my position, yes.

Well I disagree with you, and so there!

Besides ever thinking that our enemies are as evil as evil can be, makes working with anyone who disagrees with them seem like a good idea.

The US funded a lot of unsavory people from the 50's onwards so long as they promised to oppose the Communists like....

Do I need to name names?

402

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:13:07pm

re: #392 marjoriemoon

I do disagree and I don't understand their position!

A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot. That doesn't mean it's just a mass of tissue and has no meaning. It is human potentially after all.

That's an unsustainable definition, though. Some newborns can't survive outside of the womb without medical assistance. It used to be that a premature baby couldn't survive outside of the womb. Now we can usually save them.

How will you define a human when we have the technology to sustain life from the moment of conception onward outside of the womb?

403

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:13:33pm

re: #394 Stanley Sea

My point is marriage does have an impact, and gays should be allowed.

Can one disagree on principle without being evil?

404

CarryOn Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:14:11pm

re: #402 Aceofwhat?

And a newborn baby cannot survive on its own. Heck a toddler can't survive on its own.

405

webevintage Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:15:19pm

There has to be a federal law that requires each state to recognize the marriages or civil unions in other states or you have the problem of folks going to FL ending up in the hospital and dying (even with legal documents) without their partner being allowed to visit or make medical decisions.

In the end I think that this is one of those things you can't leave up to the states...any more then inter racial marriage or civil rights or women's rights could be.
In some places people have no problem treating others as second class citizens who do not have the same rights as them and they are more then happy to vote to deny their fellow citizens the same right they themselves enjoy.
People really can be assholes, ya know?

406

donna quixote Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:15:37pm

Other than Independent, there is no place for the moderate who wants religion-free smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and individual decisions regarding gays/marriage, gays/military and an end to political correctness. We are victims of the two parties who nominate the candidates unless we decide to vote for another who has absolutely no chance of winning the election.

407

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:16:00pm

re: #399 The Sanity Inspector

This was directed at Israel some time back, but it applies to us as well:
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

We can no more bargain with most of these jihadists than we can bargain with a scorpion under our beds.

I'm not saying that negotiating is going to solve every problem, but to me it seems foolish to think that there are no problems involving anyone who is a terrorist that can't be solved by negotiation by pure random chance alone.

I just don't see why we should take a potential tool (however ineffective it is most of the time) off the table. To me it'd be like throwing away your screw driver because it really sucks at pounding those nails into a 2 by 4....

408

Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:48pm

re: #400 captdiggs

The poll is purely unbelievable.
It's an advocacy poll done for KOS and using phone results which are notoriously unreliable. Research2000 is used by democratic advocacy groups like Blue Mass and KOS because they give the results that those groups like.
It gave Coakley the lead in Mass until the day before the election and then said the election was tied at 48% each. It was the least accurate of all the polling organizations. In the 2008 election Research 2000 came in 7th in accuracy ( Rassmussen was #1) [Link: docs.google.com...]

If it gives comfort to those here who think all republicans are completely off their rockers, well, that was the purpose of KOS sponsoring this poll.

Right -- Research 2000 came in seventh in that assessment of poll accuracy.

But you forgot to mention that there were 23 polling firms listed.

Another way to portray their standing would be to say, "they're in the top third of all polling organizations when it comes to accuracy."

409

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:18:10pm

410

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:19:41pm

re: #349 Thanos

While the survey might be slightly weighted towards demographic South and it might not represent the base in other regions as well as it could, nobody can deny that the bulk of the leadership in the Republican party right now is from the demographic south, and that's the flint heart of the base at present.

So the discussion of how valid the survey is really doesn't matter if the leadership and braintrust is represented by the "base" shown in the survey. It's an accurate sampling of the leadership weather of the moment, what it portends for the longer term Republican "climate" remains to be seen, since much of that demographic sampled is dying off over the next 15 yrs or so.

I will likely end up as an I for the next decade or so after the 2010 cycle until the Republicans change again for the better of the whole country and not just the limited luddite views of the paleos.

I don't foresee anything that's going to change that for the next few years.

I don't see it changing either. Maybe even get more polarized.

The poll that Simoom's copied (from Ice) here [Link: www.gallup.com...] seems to show that young people are leaving the Republicans, that the middle agers are growing and the seniors are shrinking.

I don't think it's slightly weighted to the south. I think that's just about all who is left.

411

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:20:33pm

re: #390 Baier

Why don't you provide me with proof that it works? I'll tell you what, I'll give you 60 years of Israeli history against any proof you can offer that negotiating with terrorists is a good idea.

So proof that negotiating with one group of terrorists over one issue is proof that negotiating with every group of terrorists over every issue is hopeless?

412

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:21:31pm

re: #408 Charles

Right -- Research 2000 came in seventh in that assessment of poll accuracy.

But you forgot to mention that there were 23 polling firms listed.

Another way to portray their standing would be to say, "they're in the top third of all polling organizations when it comes to accuracy."

Hi Charles! Heh, reminds me of the old story (paraphrasing here) about how Pravda reported the results of an automobile race.

The auto of the glorious people of the Soviet Union finished second in this race, while the auto of the capitalist American dogs finished second to last!

The problem? There were only two cars in the race.

;-)

413

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:21:55pm

re: #407 jamesfirecat

I'm not saying that negotiating is going to solve every problem, but to me it seems foolish to think that there are no problems involving anyone who is a terrorist that can't be solved by negotiation by pure random chance alone.

I just don't see why we should take a potential tool (however ineffective it is most of the time) off the table. To me it'd be like throwing away your screw driver because it really sucks at pounding those nails into a 2 by 4...

We have in fact been doing both for some time now: Putting terrorists out of commission and trying to split waverers out of their ranks. The hardcore jihadists won't be schmoozed, though--it's a useless gesture.

414

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:22:17pm

re: #361 darthstar

I'm not blaming anyone, rather I'm pointing out the resoults were obtained to show the views of those I would describe as being idiots and not that of republicans I know.... like my son and his friends; under 30, mixed race, attend college, living on the west coast.

Flip those numbers and give the same ratio to NE or west coast peeps that identify as being republican. Take those results. And if we come to the same answer percentages.....

I'll have to really load up on the Jameson....

415

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:22:58pm

re: #411 jamesfirecat

So proof that negotiating with one group of terrorists over one issue is proof that negotiating with every group of terrorists over every issue is hopeless?

That's not what I said. You obscure what people say in order to avoid directly responding, cahnge the subject, or you answer direct questions with questions. It's not worth it.

{Stamp}

TROLL

416

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:23:15pm

re: #413 The Sanity Inspector

We have in fact been doing both for some time now: Putting terrorists out of commission and trying to split waverers out of their ranks. The hardcore jihadists won't be schmoozed, though--it's a useless gesture.

Then let's not negotiate with the hardcore bastards.

Lets play nice with the ones who will play nice and kill the ones who don't.

So just to be clear I think we're sort of agreeing, we both think that we should sometimes negotiate with terrorists, and sometimes blow them to bits.

I have that right?

417

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:23:23pm

re: #412 subsailor68

So true. Reporting a percentage or rank without revealing the population is never helpful.

418

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:24:51pm

re: #381 Aceofwhat?

Let's start with this one.

"Lying to start wars is evil."

I think that the intelligence, on a global scale, overestimated the existing WMD capabilities and underestimated the future WMD plans and expectations held by Saddam Hussein.

I generally agree with Tony Blair's position on the beginning of the thing.

Am I evil?

No you just don't know basic nuclear physics, or have physicists for advisors.

The president and his administration and the CIA all did have such advisors.

The fact is that to get U235 you need many thousands of centrifuges.
These devices and the things that power them and feed them and fill them and empty then are very large. The facilities involved cover acres. Just like they do in Iran, or at Oak Ridge in the US.

One centrifuge is about the size of a refrigerator.

All of the things that go into maintaining, running and operating 30,000 of them are not something that Iraq could produce on it's own, and not something that could be easily hidden in the desert, particularly under constant aerial patrols and embargo from the US.

There was no such program.

There never was.

Anyone who knows the physics could have told you that.

They lied and knew they lied.

419

Decatur Deb Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:26:53pm

Dog crisis. BBL

420

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:41pm

re: #400 captdiggs

The poll is purely unbelievable.
It's an advocacy poll done for KOS and using phone results which are notoriously unreliable. Research2000 is used by democratic advocacy groups like Blue Mass and KOS because they give the results that those groups like.
It gave Coakley the lead in Mass until the day before the election and then said the election was tied at 48% each. It was the least accurate of all the polling organizations. In the 2008 election Research 2000 came in 7th in accuracy ( Rassmussen was #1) [Link: docs.google.com...]

If it gives comfort to those here who think all republicans are completely off their rockers, well, that was the purpose of KOS sponsoring this poll.

I see your single instance and raise you 5 times:

"Research 2000 had the most accurate “final” state and congressional polls of any firm in the nation in the 2005, 2004, 2002 and 2000 elections in Iowa, KCCI-Television in Des Moines, Michigan, WSBT-Television in South Bend), Indiana, The South Bend Tribune, North Carolina, Raleigh News and Observer, Vermont, The Rutland Herald, New Jersey, The Bergen Record, Illinois and Missouri, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV-Television, California, KCRA-Television/San Francisco Examiner. Wisconsin, WISC-Television, Oregon The Portland Tribune, New Hampshire The Concord Monitor, Connecticut The Manchester Journal Inquirer, and City of Spokane, The Spokesman-Review."

421

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:41pm

re: #273 ssn697

This further solidifies my belief that I have been correct in moving away from the Republican party. Unfortunately, the "viable" 3rd party right now (tea party movement) is even further down the fundie path. I'd be willing to bet if you were able to ask the same questions of tea party members, the shocking numbers would be even higher.

There seems to be no room for me in any party. It stuns me to say in all honesty the Democratic party has my best interests at heart over any other party.

I can't agree with you at all.
No one has my best interests at heart.

422

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:28:16pm

re: #402 Aceofwhat?

That's an unsustainable definition, though. Some newborns can't survive outside of the womb without medical assistance. It used to be that a premature baby couldn't survive outside of the womb. Now we can usually save them.

How will you define a human when we have the technology to sustain life from the moment of conception onward outside of the womb?

Maybe we should just kill all disabled people then, Hmmm?? If we need help just to eat, walk or poop, than why should we bother to let them live at all?

You're twisting my words into something I simply did not say.

I agree with my religion mostly (not all of it) regarding abortion, but I absolutely agree with my religion on what is the meaning of a child in gestation and child born.

[Link: www.aish.com...]

The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being -- but not quite.2 In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus. But while it would seem obvious that Judaism holds accountable one who purposefully causes a woman to miscarry, sanctions are even placed upon one who strikes a pregnant woman causing an unintentional miscarriage.3 That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.

423

ssn697 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:28:33pm

re: #421 Blueheron

I can't agree with you at all.
No one has my best interests at heart.

LOL. I stand corrected.

424

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:28:40pm

re: #416 jamesfirecat

Then let's not negotiate with the hardcore bastards.

Lets play nice with the ones who will play nice and kill the ones who don't.

So just to be clear I think we're sort of agreeing, we both think that we should sometimes negotiate with terrorists, and ~~sometimes~~ most of the time blow them to bits.

I have that right?

Now you do. You should know that, even after all this time, my personal attitude is still straight out of Shakespeare:

QUEEN ELIZABETH: O thou well skill'd in curses, stay awhile,
And teach me how to curse mine enemies!

QUEEN MARGARET: Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days;
Compare dead happiness with living woe;
Think that thy babes were fairer than they were,
And he that slew them fouler than he is:
Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse:
Revolving this will teach thee how to curse.
QUEEN ELIZABETH: My words are dull; O, quicken them with thine!
QUEEN MARGARET: Thy woes will make them sharp, and pierce like mine.
-- Richard III

So, I'm not the most dispassionate person on here you could be discussing this with.

425

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:29:29pm

re: #418 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh. So then why didn't Saddam just comply with the resolution that told him to comply or else?

426

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:29:33pm

re: #415 Baier

That's not what I said. You obscure what people say in order to avoid directly responding, cahnge the subject, or you answer direct questions with questions. It's not worth it.

{Stamp}

TROLL

"Why don't you provide me with proof that it works? I'll tell you what, I'll give you 60 years of Israeli history against any proof you can offer that negotiating with terrorists is a good idea."

Okay allow me to respond to the issue of Israel's history with negotiations directly then.

The Camp David Accords.

427

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:29:58pm

re: #426 jamesfirecat

"Why don't you provide me with proof that it works? I'll tell you what, I'll give you 60 years of Israeli history against any proof you can offer that negotiating with terrorists is a good idea."

Okay allow me to respond to the issue of Israel's history with negotiations directly then.

The Camp David Accords.

Egypt was a terrorist organization?

428

darthstar Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:30:23pm

re: #414 Ericus58

I'm not blaming anyone, rather I'm pointing out the resoults were obtained to show the views of those I would describe as being idiots and not that of republicans I know... like my son and his friends; under 30, mixed race, attend college, living on the west coast.

Flip those numbers and give the same ratio to NE or west coast peeps that identify as being republican. Take those results. And if we come to the same answer percentages...

I'll have to really load up on the Jameson...

Well, of course...nobody we know personally would be that stupid. :) (excepting my Californian family)

I don't think R2K's intent was to show the views of stupid people. I do however believe it reflects the division in this country, where people echo party bullshit whether or not they believe it themselves. My guess is, if you spoke to these respondents personally, they'd say something different from what they said on the phone.

The last time they had a poll like this, there was all sorts of dismissal by the major news outlets. Then NBC/WSJ/CNN/whomever did their own poll to help refute the dKos/R2K results, and found...the same.

429

captdiggs Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:31:26pm

re: #408 Charles

It's a KOS sponsored advocacy poll.
I know many registered republicans and not one has said Obama should be impeached nor has voiced many of the "opinions" this "poll" says are common among Republicans.
This is purely hyperpartisan KOS nonsense. IMO

430

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:21pm

re: #422 marjoriemoon

I apologize, i did not mean to twist your words. You said "A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot."

So I thought that to be the foundation upon which the rest of your point rested. Forgive me.

The excerpt you posted was very helpful, thank you! Although now i'm interested in the question that you asked, forgive me...what do you think the general rabbinical position will be on the subject of an infant that (in the future) can be grown entirely outside the womb? and what would your position be?

431

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:22pm

re: #427 Guanxi88

Egypt was a terrorist organization?

You know what, you're right that was a bad example.

Sorry it's just I'll admit I'm taking an "easy" position to defend here which is that in theory there exists a situation in which negotiating with terrorists is a good idea, and it seems strange to think that there are people who would categorically deny the idea.

What if the offer was "Give us 100 crates of your precious levi's blue jeans and we will cease to rebel against the government!" Once again not exactly a likely situation to come about, but not impossible.

It seems foolish to declare a campaign of "unconditional surrender" on terrorists when they don't have the kind of centralized command structure that Germany or Japan did.....

432

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:26pm

re: #426 jamesfirecat

The Camp David Accords.

You're saying the Camp David Accords worked? Please provide proof of how you think the Camp David Accords were a success.

433

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:31pm

re: #387 Aceofwhat?

Lots of emigration to Florida, too. No state income tax = big selling point. The weather's not too bad, either.

AGW is an evil government plot to drown them all and save billions in SS and Medicare costs!!!1!!!

Booga Booga!

//// (massive)

434

subsailor68 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:49pm

Well all, must go. It's been great posting with ya all, and I hope everyone has a wonderful evening.

435

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:04pm

re: #432 Baier

You're saying the Camp David Accords worked? Please provide proof of how you think the Camp David Accords were a success.

Has Egypt attacked Israel since they were signed?

436

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:04pm

re: #435 jamesfirecat

Has Egypt attacked Israel since they were signed?

Peace Through Superior Firepower, baby!

437

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:25pm

re: #431 jamesfirecat

You know what, you're right that was a bad example.

Sorry it's just I'll admit I'm taking an "easy" position to defend here which is that in theory there exists a situation in which negotiating with terrorists is a good idea, and it seems strange to think that there are people who would categorically deny the idea.

What if the offer was "Give us 100 crates of your precious levi's blue jeans and we will cease to rebel against the government!" Once again not exactly a likely situation to come about, but not impossible.

It seems foolish to declare a campaign of "unconditional surrender" on terrorists when they don't have the kind of centralized command structure that Germany or Japan did...

I'll agree with you on the unconditional surrender from the terrorists part - it's not even possible.

And, with only a very few exceptions, one can in general come to some sort of terms with folk who aren't committed to one's destruction.

438

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:51pm

re: #435 jamesfirecat

Has Egypt attacked Israel since they were signed?

That is your only measure of success? Please explain why.

439

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:36:25pm

re: #362 subsailor68

Hi marjoriemoon! Our high school here in our little town went to the community to get help funding a child development center on the school grounds. Their concept was to provide a place for teen mothers to take their children while they went to class. It wasn't a cake-walk though...when the young women weren't in class, they were at the center, helping to take care of their children and learning basic parenting skills.

Ironically - or not - birth rates started to drop a bit, apparently as other young women noticed the moms weren't having the time for activities, etc.

But the young moms had the opportunity to finish their education.

The community here coughed up the money needed to fund the center, and most folks around here are glad we did.

I think that's terrific. Insightful and a real service to your community. Bravo!

440

Blueheron Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:36:30pm

re: #265 recusancy

That's different from "wanting the terrorists to win".

Bubba sees Holder going after CIA agents along with prosecuting Navy Seals for punching an admitted terrorist in the mouth while at the same time Mirandizing the pantie bomber. They see it as favoring the terrorists over our interests.
Do ya think if someone called you on the phone and you were in Bubba land your knee jerk response to that question would be hell yes?

441

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:37:21pm

re: #392 marjoriemoon

A newborn is a 100% fully born human with as many human rights as any other.... A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot.

As I've said before, there's room for disagreement regarding what it means to be "fully human". But IMO "can survive outside the womb" is one of the weakest possible definitions, because it depends on medical technology. A good friend of mine had a 25-week preemie a while back; twenty years ago the kid wouldn't have had a chance, and in a third-world country he wouldn't have had a chance. What if technology advances to the point where you can stick a fertilized egg in a test tube and bring it all the way to maturity? By your definition, at that point, fertilization would make it fully human. So I find your definition to be really, really weak.

But then, I can't really say I have a "good" definition. Some will argue that since we can't know, "conception" is the safest choice. Others will argue for having a heartbeat or brain activity. I've heard some people argue that "consciousness" starts to arise in the middle of the 2nd trimester, and that would be a good cutoff. And, of course, I've heard parents joke that their kids don't count until they get a job ;)

Anyway, the point is, those in the poll for the most part are going with one of the early definitions for "fully human", and therefore, they view even early abortions as murder. You might disagree with them, but that's due to legitimate disagreement on definition, not due to malice, evil, or stupidity on anyone's part.

I just find it completely bizarre that the same people who are so outspoken against abortion when the life is yet to be born can so completely agree (by 91%!) to kill another human being

Right -- because you're still thinking in terms of "fully human" vs "not human", while they're thinking in terms of "innocent and harmless" vs "guilty and dangerous". If you start from the assumption that a fertilized egg counts as "fully human" and that you should only kill humans in response to certain capital crimes, their position makes perfect sense. If you start from the assumption that viability is required for "full humanity" and that you should never kill a human if you can help it, your position makes perfect sense.

442

Ericus58 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:38:07pm

re: #440 Blueheron

upding for the "bubba land" - hilarious!

443

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:39:22pm

re: #425 Aceofwhat?

Oh. So then why didn't Saddam just comply with the resolution that told him to comply or else?

There are any number of political reasons... Hell he might have even been crazy. Whatever his mental state or reasons, they do not supersede basic physics. Right?

There is no way to do the program without an multi acre scale uranium facility. That is a reality that will not go away.

So it really doesn't matter what he said or did politically, if he did not have such a facility.

444

doubter4444 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:40:19pm

re: #143 PT Barnum

Can ya dial it back a notch? This is what aggravates me about so much of the rhetoric nowadays..It's not enough to call your opponent's position wrong, or short sighted, you have to define them personally as evil, wrong, or whatever.

Why can't we talk about positions without getting personal immediately?

Thanks for saying this.
Ludwig, I agree with you on AGW and lots of other things, but I've been reading posts and (I'll give you that you've been baited a bit), and the animosity level is really high.
I don't know you, so you can tell me to piss off, but FWIW.

445

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:40:34pm

re: #362 subsailor68

Hi marjoriemoon! Our high school here in our little town went to the community to get help funding a child development center on the school grounds. Their concept was to provide a place for teen mothers to take their children while they went to class. It wasn't a cake-walk though...when the young women weren't in class, they were at the center, helping to take care of their children and learning basic parenting skills.

Ironically - or not - birth rates started to drop a bit, apparently as other young women noticed the moms weren't having the time for activities, etc.

But the young moms had the opportunity to finish their education.

The community here coughed up the money needed to fund the center, and most folks around here are glad we did.

Good for you! That is wonderful.

446

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:40:50pm

re: #438 Baier

That is your only measure of success? Please explain why.

Well wasn't the point of the Camp David accords to arrange peace between Israel and Egypt, which had previously gotten into a string of about four different wars with each other last of which Yom Kippur War, was doubtlessly a case of Egypt attacking first.

So Carter calls up these two guys who represents there countries and gets them to agree that Israel and Egypt will have peace with each other.

What other measurements of success could you have for a peace accord between two countries than if they've remained at peace?

447

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:40:56pm

re: #443 LudwigVanQuixote

There are any number of political reasons... Hell he might have even been crazy. Whatever his mental state or reasons, they do not supersede basic physics. Right?

There is no way to do the program without an multi acre scale uranium facility. That is a reality that will not go away.

So it really doesn't matter what he said or did politically, if he did not have such a facility.

As far as nukes go, you're dead-on.

Chem weapons, though, and biological agents, were strongly suspected. the mass-distribution of NBC gear among the Iraqi forces certainly suggested (as perhaps it was meant to) that these agents might make their way onto the battlefield.

448

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:42:56pm

re: #430 Aceofwhat?

I apologize, i did not mean to twist your words. You said "A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot."

So I thought that to be the foundation upon which the rest of your point rested. Forgive me.

The excerpt you posted was very helpful, thank you! Although now i'm interested in the question that you asked, forgive me...what do you think the general rabbinical position will be on the subject of an infant that (in the future) can be grown entirely outside the womb? and what would your position be?

This is a difficult subject #1 and #2, I don't like talking about it because I'm never able to express what I truly feel particularly in writing.

A child can exist out of the womb after the 2nd trimester? At that point I would have more concerns about abortion, unless the fetus was in danger or was endangering the health of the mother.

I have no idea how to respond to your question since it is something that has not yet come to pass.

449

Baier Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:45:05pm

re: #446 jamesfirecat

That is a very simplistic and naive view of the results of that agreement.

450

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:22pm

re: #447 Guanxi88

As far as nukes go, you're dead-on.

Chem weapons, though, and biological agents, were strongly suspected. the mass-distribution of NBC gear among the Iraqi forces certainly suggested (as perhaps it was meant to) that these agents might make their way onto the battlefield.

Yes I hear that.

However, the stated reason to go in, and why we went in, was a non-existent atomic program. That is what we sent Powell to the UN to lie about and the shame of it, I believe is why he resigned.

As to debating, did Saddam deserve to be taken out? Of course. However, understand that by doing so, we crashed our economy, weakened our military, gave room for Iran, a much bigger threat to make a real atomic program and destroyed our standing in the world. Saddam was contained.

Further, once in Iraq, it was utterly stupid to assume that people without any context of democracy or enlightenment ideas could suddenly form a responsible modern republic. We are stuck there for some time.

It was a bad trade based on a lie.

451

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:47:18pm

re: #443 LudwigVanQuixote

There are any number of political reasons... Hell he might have even been crazy. Whatever his mental state or reasons, they do not supersede basic physics. Right?

There is no way to do the program without an multi acre scale uranium facility. That is a reality that will not go away.

So it really doesn't matter what he said or did politically, if he did not have such a facility.

Oh, silly me. I thought we'd found enormous amounts of yellowcake.

452

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:18pm

re: #448 marjoriemoon

Fair enough. Again, i am sorry to have accidentally misrepresented your position. Mea culpa-

453

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:48pm

re: #449 Baier

That is a very simplistic and naive view of the results of that agreement.

Then explain to me how its incorrect rather than just clicking your tongue.

454

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:49:25pm

re: #130 ludwigvanquixote

Given the actions of the GOP of late - you know like protecting Haliburton's right to rape it's employees... Remember that... Every GOP senator voting to a man to prevent a bill that would prohibit the US from contracting with companies that would deny raped women their day in court?

I have a few questions about this.

How does a corporation rape someone?

Who granted Halliburton employees immunity from rape laws?

Wasn't the vote on Franken's bill 68-30? Why do you say every GOP Senator "to a man"
voted against it?

Has the actual employment contract language made it to public light?

I haven't seen any Haliburton employment contracts, but since I'm a rational person, I'll go out on a limb and believe that it has no clause which would prevent an employee from pursuing a rape charge against a fellow employee. Such a clause would be unenforceable anyway.

There is an issue here which you can use to criticize GOP politicians, but you can't quite seem to get past nutty hyperbole.

455

Guanxi88 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:49:29pm

re: #450 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes I hear that.

However, the stated reason to go in, and why we went in, was a non-existent atomic program. That is what we sent Powell to the UN to lie about and the shame of it, I believe is why he resigned.

As to debating, did Saddam deserve to be taken out? Of course. However, understand that by doing so, we crashed our economy, weakened our military, gave room for Iran, a much bigger threat to make a real atomic program and destroyed our standing in the world. Saddam was contained.

Further, once in Iraq, it was utterly stupid to assume that people without any context of democracy or enlightenment ideas could suddenly form a responsible modern republic. We are stuck there for some time.

It was a bad trade based on a lie.

I could agree with everything there right up to the last sentence. There's no way to impute "lying" to a mistaken interpretation of conflicting data. Yeah, the war was a mess, the peace not much better, and we'll be there for a while yet.

456

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:53:04pm

re: #451 Aceofwhat?

Oh, silly me. I thought we'd found enormous amounts of yellowcake.

Ummm... Why are you missing the the point about the centrifuges? Why are you being so willfully blind. This isn't a debate. That is check mate. It's like saying that Saddam had a bunch of shell casings but no cordite to fill them. It's like saying he had a bunch of eggs but no flour and therefore could not bake a cake. Why can't you process that?

There was no centrifuge facility. Without that there is no program. You can not make a bomb out of yellow cake. You really have no idea what goes into this and I am a physicist and I am telling you.

Look. Either there was a giant uranium facility or there wasn't. There wasn't.

What is your cognitive dissonance here?

457

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:55:01pm

re: #281 albusteve

I'm not a Republican...why do you assume I am?...I don't feel bad about any of this stuff, you have missed by a mile...nice try tho

You said,

all Republicans, or even a majority, are hateful, evil people...that's just hysterical hyberbole...the GOPs problems are slowly being exposed and they are becoming more serious all the time...but to condemn all voters of either party in that manner is folly...I have more faith in the multitudes than that

"All Republicans". You are defending Republicans and the GOP. I don't care if you're not one of them. ONE TIME, JUST ONE TIME, I'd like to hear something like this come out of the mouth's of the Right and whatever-you-are in defense of liberals.

I'll wait.

"But to condemn all voters of either party...." Oh yea, you forgot to say "unless they're Democrats" than all bets are off??

I call bullshit.

458

elizajane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:59:18pm

There is definitely something fishy here. Over on Andrew Sullivan's blog, he currently has posted the results of a Gallup poll about gays serving in the military. There, 58% of republicans said they should be allowed to serve, nearly twice the number on this survey. So it's not just an issue of who is self-identifying as Republican--there is something really off about this whole survey. I really hope that's true, because it would be a huge relief!

459

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:00:18pm

re: #454 gamark

I have a few questions about this.

How does a corporation rape someone?

Who granted Halliburton employees immunity from rape laws?

Wasn't the vote on Franken's bill 68-30? Why do you say every GOP Senator "to a man"
voted against it?

Has the actual employment contract language made it to public light?

I haven't seen any Haliburton employment contracts, but since I'm a rational person, I'll go out on a limb and believe that it has no clause which would prevent an employee from pursuing a rape charge against a fellow employee. Such a clause would be unenforceable anyway.

There is an issue here which you can use to criticize GOP politicians, but you can't quite seem to get past nutty hyperbole.

Well what they did, was put in their contracts a clause that all disputes with them would be sent to an arbitrator of their choosing. It's the same way the credit card companies try to get you to sign away your rights.

The bill was to prevent the US government from giving contracts to corporations with such clauses.

The case that brought this up was a woman who went to Iraq and was gang raped by Haliburton employees after she had filed numerous complaints with Haliburton about harassment and fear for her own safety.

After she was gang raped, she was locked up by Haliburton in a cargo crate, while they were trying to figure out what to do with her.

Her sympathetic guard lent her a cell phone. Hwer father got the US consulate to get her out of the crate - which is where she was when they retrieved her.

She then found that she could not sue, and the then GOP controled government refused to do press criminal to Haliburton for things they did overseas.

I thought it was more than 30 GOP senators, but ok let's say it was only 30 out of 40 with two not present who voted against the bill. That doesn't really help your case at all.

460

Opal Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:01:10pm

Gasp! ....just gasp! Please tell me that there is something wrong with the way this survey was conducted. Please tell me that the pollster faked this up. Gasp! If this is real, we are really in trouble as a country.

461

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:03:46pm

re: #456 LudwigVanQuixote

Ummm... Why are you missing the the point about the centrifuges? Why are you being so willfully blind. This isn't a debate. That is check mate. It's like saying that Saddam had a bunch of shell casings but no cordite to fill them. It's like saying he had a bunch of eggs but no flour and therefore could not bake a cake. Why can't you process that?

There was no centrifuge facility. Without that there is no program. You can not make a bomb out of yellow cake. You really have no idea what goes into this and I am a physicist and I am telling you.

Look. Either there was a giant uranium facility or there wasn't. There wasn't.

What is your cognitive dissonance here?

They never said there was. The worst thing i can recall is Colin's presentation about the aluminum tubes. They said that Saddam was attempting to build refining capability.

Where did I miss the press release that Saddam had already built the giant facility?

462

RadicalModerate Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:04:06pm

Dang. The only two questions that the nutcases didn't have significant numbers on were about whether women should be able to work outside the home and if men were supreme rulers in marriage.

Based on the ACORN response and the fact that half the respondents thought that Obama is a racist, I'd like to see how far that particular craziness goes. Some sample questions I'd throw out for the "Obama=racist" crowd:

1. Should the US observe Martin Luther King's birthday?
2. Should the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 and 1968 be repealed?
3. Do you agree with the concept that "All men are created equal", or do you think that some groups are inherently superior to others?

463

torrentprime Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:04:17pm

re: #331 Soap_Man

Which is a great thing. Gay people in my generation (and the generation that will follow) seems so much more comfortable with coming out, which means that more straight people are exposed to homosexuals face-to-face, which only leads to a higher comfort level. This will lead to public opinion shifting in favor of gay rights. It's a wonderful thing.

That's the awesome thing as being honest.

Since I grew up Republican and was in the closet until I was 30, I had a non-trivial number of conservative friends with... let's just say "non-progressive" views on gay rights, from employment to the military. More than one has told me recently that it was my "making the issue real in their lives" that changed their views on, at the very least, whether the government should be treating its citizens differently based on something as trivial as orientation.

464

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:05:31pm

re: #459 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, you said "What about the raped women from Haliburton and the Franken Bill? Defend the GOP's anti woman, anti-basic decency, evil actions there. That was every GOP senator to a man. Explain please. Defend this."

That's the thing about evil. Either it's "to a man" and evil, or it's not and it's not.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.

If i made the same mistake about an AGW case, you'd lose it. Wish you had the same standards for yourself.

465

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:05:55pm

re: #458 elizajane

I really hope that's true, because it would be a huge relief!

And therein lies the rub. People don't want this survey to be true, but the fact of the matter is, there really *are* people out there who think this way, and they self-identify as Republican. That's just the way it is.

466

torrentprime Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:06:08pm

re: #463 torrentprime

That's the awesome thing as being honest.

PIMF: That's the awesome thing about being honest.

467

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:06:19pm

re: #463 torrentprime

That's the awesome thing as being honest.

Since I grew up Republican and was in the closet until I was 30, I had a non-trivial number of conservative friends with... let's just say "non-progressive" views on gay rights, from employment to the military. More than one has told me recently that it was my "making the issue real in their lives" that changed their views on, at the very least, whether the government should be treating its citizens differently based on something as trivial as orientation.

wait...you have republican friends who aren't evil?

468

torrentprime Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:08:11pm

re: #467 Aceofwhat?

wait...you have republican friends who aren't evil?

:)
Not to pile on, but... they aren't Republican anymore. Some of them, from back east especially, have said they can't stand the current state of the crazy and have either gone independent or went all the way Blue.

469

dr. luba Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:08:53pm

re: #10 ggt

Studies have shown that blue states tend to have lower divorce, teen pregnancy and illegitimacy rates. But we don't go to church as much. Coincidence?

470

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:29pm

re: #468 torrentprime

:)
Not to pile on, but... they aren't Republican anymore. Some of them, from back east especially, have said they can't stand the current state of the crazy and have either gone independent or went all the way Blue.

ha! that's funny...that's what i get for piling on myself;)

471

captdiggs Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:10:33pm

Lest we forget. KOS, the sponsor of this poll, is also the same blog that used to celebrate the deaths of Americans in Iraq.

Daily Kos Gloats Over Fallujah
Thu, Apr 1, 2004 at 8:45:19 pm PST
Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, also known as “Daily Kos,” couldn’t restrain his joy over the gruesome deaths of four of his fellow citizens yesterday, and expressed one of the ugliest sentiments I’ve seen yet on the lefty blogs

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

472

Charles Johnson Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:13:24pm

re: #471 captdiggs

Lest we forget. KOS, the sponsor of this poll, is also the same blog that used to celebrate the deaths of Americans in Iraq.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I haven't forgotten, and I still think that was an incredibly crappy thing for Moulitsas to say, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

473

captdiggs Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:14:27pm

re: #472 Charles

I think it is wise to have a healthy skepticism of anything that KOS puts out.

474

Lidane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:14:30pm

re: #472 Charles

I haven't forgotten, and I still think that was an incredibly crappy thing for Moulitsas to say, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

Everything. Clearly, it invalidates the poll results.

////

475

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:15:14pm

re: #474 Lidane

Everything. Clearly, it invalidates the poll results.

///

Doubly so given given that Kos contracted someone 'impartial' to do the polling...
///

476

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:15:57pm

re: #471 captdiggs

Refusing to acknowledge what appears to be a data-driven analysis based on its source is unhelpful, imho, whether the source is this one or the Cato institute. If the study is flawed, we should be able to point out why by analyzing the methodology. If the methodology is sound, the source seems irrelevant, right?

477

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:17:13pm

re: #441 LotharBot

Fully human isn't a good term. Potentially a person is a better term.

In Judaism, abortion is considered murder. A person is held accountable for abortion by way of sanctions, monetary compensation, not jail time. Why? Because the fetus is only potentially a person. We don't prosecute all murders the same anyway. 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, self-defense, vehicular homicide etc. Abortion, too, is different.

Disabled people cannot survive without help from others. Should we let them die too? Of course not. So I think you and Ace are nit picking me to death and stretching the intent of my comments out of proportion.

I refer again to this article.
[Link: www.aish.com...]

478

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:18:01pm

To: Jamesfirecat,

RE: Baier #446

All I'm getting is the sound of crickets. You?

479

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:20:18pm

re: #478 eclectic infidel

To: Jamesfirecat,

RE: Baier #446

All I'm getting is the sound of crickets. You?

To be as fair as possible you must have missed 449 then...

480

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:22:58pm

re: #477 marjoriemoon

Again, to be clear, i was not trying to nitpick. You did say "A human fetus is not fully human, that is, if it cannot survive outside the womb and in the first trimester, it cannot." I thought, in good faith, that this was the crux of your opinion and wanted to clarify it. I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

481

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:22:59pm

re: #464 Aceofwhat?

Actually, you said "What about the raped women from Haliburton and the Franken Bill? Defend the GOP's anti woman, anti-basic decency, evil actions there. That was every GOP senator to a man. Explain please. Defend this."

That's the thing about evil. Either it's "to a man" and evil, or it's not and it's not.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.

If i made the same mistake about an AGW case, you'd lose it. Wish you had the same standards for yourself.

Wow, care to look at the voting results... It really was more than 30 IIRC. since there are only 40 GOP senators at the time and two senators weren't there, what does that say? In the mean time, of course, it is evil.

Now as to coganitive dissonance, are you ready to admit that physics trumps politics?

482

What, me worry? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:23:14pm

re: #459 LudwigVanQuixote

Franken was AWESOME in defense of this woman and the laws that prevented her from prosecuting her attackers. It is my understanding that she was only allowed mediation. Not a jury of her peers, not a court, not a judge. And mediations in this way are always biased towards the corporations.

483

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:23:30pm

re: #479 jamesfirecat

*smacks own head* I meant to write #449 rather than #446. I was in fact referring to post #449, since I didn't see any follow-up to it.

As an activist for Israel, it's nearly always of interest to me how other people view Israel's attempts at peace. I would have liked to read what Baier had to say on the subject.

In any event, I'm heading over to the next post just as soon as I brew another pot of scalding hot tea for this persistent cold.

484

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:24:02pm

re: #461 Aceofwhat?

They never said there was. The worst thing i can recall is Colin's presentation about the aluminum tubes. They said that Saddam was attempting to build refining capability.

Where did I miss the press release that Saddam had already built the giant facility?

What are you smoking... The entire Powell UN speech was about mobile centrifuge facilities.

485

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:24:46pm

re: #482 marjoriemoon

Franken was AWESOME in defense of this woman and the laws that prevented her from prosecuting her attackers. It is my understanding that she was only allowed mediation. Not a jury of her peers, not a court, not a judge. And mediations in this way are always biased towards the corporations.

That is exactly correct. And the GOP couldn't have a woman having her day in court when it would hurt their corporate backers.

486

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:25:14pm

re: #458 elizajane

out of curiosity, why do you take such issue with my link to a credible fact, namely that there were massive amounts of yellowcake in Iraq?

487

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:26:53pm

re: #481 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow, care to look at the voting results... It really was more than 30 IIRC. since there are only 40 GOP senators at the time and two senators weren't there, what does that say? In the mean time, of course, it is evil.

Wow, because it's the entire GOP, to a man?

Stick by your statements or don't make them. The party, to a man, did not vote against this thing. But whatever, right? The party is eeevil.

sheesh

488

MKELLY Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:30:52pm

re: #450 LudwigVanQuixote

You totally ignore all the other reasons given. And not having centrifuges is different than not having a nuclear program (which they had). The gas they used on their own people was still available as far as we knew. They did not account for all the biological weapons. And in Powell's talk at the UN a tape was played where an Iraqi major tells a higher up that he has some of the gas and wants to know what to do. No one lied to go to war and you saying such things is dishonest.

489

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:31:26pm

re: #487 Aceofwhat?

Wow, because it's the entire GOP, to a man?

Stick by your statements or don't make them. The party, to a man, did not vote against this thing. But whatever, right? The party is eeevil.

sheesh

Ace you are really being daft now. I said that the GOP senators voted against the bill to a man. That is my memory of it. You are ignoring the case and the facts of it, and the fact that even if I am mistaken and it was only almost all of them, you are still missing the evil of locking a raped woman in a cargo crate, denying her rights and then having your corporate bought GOP senators try to help you cover.

You would rather quibble than look at the evil here. That is pretty pathetic.

You further are being blind to the physics that caught your party in a complete lie. I am sorry that the truth hurts, but these are the facts.

490

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:32:17pm

re: #488 MKELLY

You are misremembering the history. We only ever heard about chemical programs after we went and found no nukes. The reason given for the war was a lie.

491

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:32:37pm

re: #484 LudwigVanQuixote

What are you smoking... The entire Powell UN speech was about mobile centrifuge facilities.

No it wasn't.

Here's the transcript. he talks about saddam's acquisitions of tubes, magnets, etc. components. quote me the part where he says that Saddam is actually processing yellowcake (which he did have) in centrifuges (which he did not have, and which Powell did not claim he had built, from what i can tell)

492

elizajane Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:34:57pm

re: #486 Aceofwhat?

out of curiosity, why do you take such issue with my link to a credible fact, namely that there were massive amounts of yellowcake in Iraq?

Because, as another poster noted, although they had an ingredient they had no actual way of using it, and it was on the basis that they were going to use it that we went to war. Having the ingredient was not relevant.

493

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:35:28pm

re: #491 Aceofwhat?

No it wasn't.

Here's the transcript. he talks about saddam's acquisitions of tubes, magnets, etc. components. quote me the part where he says that Saddam is actually processing yellowcake (which he did have) in centrifuges (which he did not have, and which Powell did not claim he had built, from what i can tell)

OMG are you really that stupid? Really? What are the tubes for in his allegations? They were to make centrifuges? What about the trucks moving them so they could have a mobile processing facility - which is itself a stupid thing to say as to physics and how the centifuges work. What is wrong with you? The problem with talking to GOP true believers, is that they simply can not look at facts. Read it yourself.

494

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:37:11pm

re: #489 LudwigVanQuixote

Ace you are really being daft now. I said that the GOP senators voted against the bill to a man. That is my memory of it. You are ignoring the case and the facts of it, and the fact that even if I am mistaken and it was only almost all of them, you are still missing the evil of locking a raped woman in a cargo crate, denying her rights and then having your corporate bought GOP senators try to help you cover.

You would rather quibble than look at the evil here. That is pretty pathetic.

You further are being blind to the physics that caught your party in a complete lie. I am sorry that the truth hurts, but these are the facts.

I will look at the evil in my own time. I refuse to let you get away with unhelpful, willful hyperbole. Gross accusations - precision = hyperbole, and it's a disservice to your ability to make more cogent arguments on other topics.

And you are grossly distorting what Powell said at the UN. I am sorry, but these are the facts.

495

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:38:54pm

re: #469 dr. luba

Actually statistically speaking it is a coincidence because given the voting majority in a state (which can sometimes be as low as 51% or as high as 80+ such as Utah) that saying a "red" or "blue" state has this rate of A or B is not synonymous with saying Republicans have this percentage of A or B. It's why it's done on a state basis and you aren't quoting numbers that directly represent Democrat vs. Republican percentages for those statistics. The numbers you throw around are meaningless and substitute for an intelligent point. It's an attempt at being clever without actually being clever or having to think.

496

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:39:43pm

re: #492 elizajane

Because, as another poster noted, although they had an ingredient they had no actual way of using it, and it was on the basis that they were going to use it that we went to war. Having the ingredient was not relevant.

Uh-huh. What else, would ya say, one would do with yellowcake? He was building a peaceful nuclear reactor?

And that was not the only basis that was used for going to war. Read the Powell transcript.

497

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:41:38pm

re: #477 marjoriemoon

I think you and Ace are nit picking me to death and stretching the intent of my comments out of proportion.

It's not my intent to stretch your comments out of proportion.

But your definition of "fully human" or "a person" is fundamental to the discussion, so I think it's important to pick at it and see what happens. It's THE source of disagreement between you and the crowd you're trying to understand. You consider personhood to start sometime in the second trimester based on viability; those you disagree with think it starts sooner based on other factors.

The key point I want to make in this regard is that there's legitimate room to disagree with your definition (and with any other.) One particular weakness of your definition is that it changes with technology; it's quite possible that we'll one day reach the point where a first-trimester fetus could be "viable"; it's even possible that a just-fertilized egg could be "viable". Those who say personhood starts at conception don't have this same problem; as medical technology improves, their position stays the same. (That doesn't mean they're right, just that this objection doesn't work on them.)

Does it make sense to you that IF someone considers personhood to start at or near conception, they might be anti-abortion and yet pro-death-penalty? Or is that still confusing?

abortion is considered murder. A person is held accountable for abortion by way of sanctions, monetary compensation, not jail time. Why? Because the fetus is only potentially a person. We don't prosecute all murders the same anyway.

Your statement would hold together just fine if you removed the bolded portion. The fetus could be a "full person" and yet the sanctions could still be different (as they were in Exodus/Leviticus for striking a slave vs a free person, for example.) Like you said, we don't prosecute all murders in the same way.

In Judaism, abortion is considered murder -- AND the death penalty applies to certain crimes. Isn't that exactly the position you thought was so bizarre all the way up in post #17?

498

Jadespring Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:42:14pm

re: #289 jamesfirecat

I think they're a problem also and think that they should be adressed via better sexual education, and better education to students about the true costs of raising a child.

I think I've also probably wasted a lot of both of our time by reading a intention into your question that was never there to start with, but hey its a lazy Tuesday afternoon and my classes are done with...

I got that sort of education in a consumer ed class at about age 14-15. We had to do a life project based on what it would cost to live out in the real world. Everyone had to sketch out their ideal life and then drew a situation, education level, job salary, kids etc out of a hat and we had to budget and create our 'lives' using real world costs like rents and store prices. Then we presented our lives to the class. Looking back it was really quite brilliant as reality pretty much smacked most in the face. No you're not going to have a nice place to live, have money for all the fun and vacations, lots of toys and raise three kids on minimum wage. What do you mean it cost this much for rent or mortgage!!! What do you mean food costs this much, my entire paycheck is gone and I don't have money to go out!!! Diapers cost that much! That's like crazy and stuff!!

LOL. Good times.

499

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:42:17pm

re: #494 Aceofwhat?

And just to make the point... from the transcript you provided.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

500

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:43:14pm

re: #496 Aceofwhat?

Uh-huh. What else, would ya say, one would do with yellowcake? He was building a peaceful nuclear reactor?

And that was not the only basis that was used for going to war. Read the Powell transcript.

NO he had a defanged and aborted atomic program. He did not have an active one as the Bush administration claimed. Never did.

501

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:43:54pm

re: #492 elizajane

So now there isn't even the pretense on your side that it was becuase of WMD materials, now you revise it to we went to war because we said he was going to use WMDs? I never heard anyone say that during the lead up. It was always presented as he was trying to reconstitute and post 9/11 we couldn't allow it. Personally I don't agree, but now you're trying to rewrite history as to the motives. I never understood why it was so hard to understand.

At the time I wasn't necessarily on board with the reasoning, but it was pretty straightforward. Post 9/11 we won't sit back and let a threat get to the point where it is imminent. That's the reason it's called pre-emptive. They said he was reconstituting and we weren't going to let him. Disagree with it like I did, it wasn't a lie. Saying it was a lie is a bigger mistruth then the reasoning for the war. It's intellectually lazy.

502

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:44:18pm

re: #499 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to make the point... from the transcript you provided.

Yeah. "intended to serve as a..."

As in..."there aren't any yet".

Why is this hard? You are saying there weren't any functioning facilities. Where was Powell saying that there was a functional facility?

503

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:45:22pm

re: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

NO he had a defanged and aborted atomic program. He did not have an active one as the Bush administration claimed. Never did.

I am not saying the administration was right on. I am saying that you are not right on. Don't assume that the latter means the former.

504

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:45:38pm

re: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

No one claimed it was active. Reconstituting doesn't mean active. Initial planning phases and having a lot of the parts may not mean it's active, but it certainly isn't non-existant. Again this doesn't get to the point of whether it was a good idea or not, but you're being revisionist.

505

MittDoesNotCompute Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:47:12pm

re: #309 ludwigvanquixote

You mean Torah...

Which part of do not address me did you miss?

Oh, get over your damn self...if you want to ignore someone you don't like/care for, fine, because that's your prerogative. But, every time you do this "do not address me!1!1!" crap to Steve or Bagua or that winded, prepackaged spiel with Walter, you look like a insufferable prick that's gone on a "drama queen" tear. You're saying, "Look at me, look at me! I'm ignoring you, although I'm really not, but I'm gonna keep reminding you I'm ignoring you!"...that shit's getting old real quick.

You can bring a lot to the table when you want, but this tear you're on is offputting, to say the least.

506

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:48:46pm

re: #459 LudwigVanQuixote

Well what they did, was put in their contracts a clause that all disputes with them would be sent to an arbitrator of their choosing. It's the same way the credit card companies try to get you to sign away your rights.

Yeah, I get that part. I operate under an employment contract myself. In general, I don't have a problem with such things as they are agreed to voluntarily. It is a very common thing.

The bill was to prevent the US government from giving contracts to corporations with such clauses.

Not quite correct, I think. If it were as you state, then the US would be hard pressed to employ any contractors which were incorporated. Large corporate employers often have arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.

... horrifying case details deleted for brevity ...

She then found that she could not sue, and the then GOP controled government refused to do press criminal to Haliburton for things they did overseas.

Ah, so it sounds like she could pursue rape/assault charges. All the contract did was force arbitration in lieu of civil suit naming Hallibuton as a defendant. Not quite the same thing as "protecting Haliburton's right to rape." Did the government give a reason for not filing charges? I suspect they were being scandal averse just like any other government. Not to mention they were in a war zone with other things distracting their attention. It is infuriating that "evidence was lost" and all that. Bullshit is what I say to that.

I thought it was more than 30 GOP senators, but ok let's say it was only 30 out of 40 with two not present who voted against the bill.

Well you went off on quite a rant and specifically said "to a man" for emphasis as if it were fact. Not a good way to convince others of your viewpoint.

That doesn't really help your case at all.

What case would that be? I am certainly not trying to defend Halliburton or the GOP. As I said, there is much to criticize about this case. But using a brutal rape and subsequent likely coverup to support a partisan political rant rubs me the wrong way. You were essentially saying the GOP was pro-rape which is just idiotic.

507

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:49:04pm

re: #504 robdouth

No one claimed it was active. Reconstituting doesn't mean active. Initial planning phases and having a lot of the parts may not mean it's active, but it certainly isn't non-existant. Again this doesn't get to the point of whether it was a good idea or not, but you're being revisionist.

Exactly. and being revisionist isn't so bad until you use the revisionism to scream EVIL!. then it's beyond the pale.

508

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:53:57pm

bbiab

509

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:54:28pm

No one is revising history except the GOP. I can't believe you guys. I can't believe it at all.

Do I really need to go and look for the hours of footage of Busgh and Powell and Rummy and Condis saying that we were going into Iraq to stop an atomic program?

Do I need to go over yet again that no such program, like they claimed could have existed because physics doesn't work that way?

Do you think my memory is so short that I forgot that the chemical and everything else only got emphasized after we invaded?

What insults me is that you think I am that stupid.

510

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:54:51pm

re: #507 Aceofwhat?

Exactly. and being revisionist isn't so bad until you use the revisionism to scream EVIL!. then it's beyond the pale.

Yes their evil actions are beyond the pale.

511

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:56:29pm

re: #507 Aceofwhat?

I get the feeling you and I are in the same boat. The reasoning wasn't solid, and may have been rushed in the lead up to the war, but it wasn't exactly the stampede they make it out to be because it took almost a year to lay out what case they had. Argue the intelligence was bad and that they wanted to go to war and I'll not argue you on that point, but saying it's all in bad faith and a complete lie is disingenuous at best, and that's me giving them the benefit of the doubt, because every time I hear this screed it's blah blah blah, evil Bush, evil Cheney, evil Halliburton.

The case was definitely not a beyond a shadow of a doubt case, and it turns out they were wrong on some of the stuff they presented, but it's a far cry from lying us into a war. Remember this is from someone who didn't think it was a good idea at the time, and in hindsight feels he probably should have been more against it at the time because of what it's done to the country's psyche, but let the whole canard of the BS lied-died rhyme scheme go.

512

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:57:00pm

re: #506 gamark

Only you can not sign away your rights to a fair trial or criminal proceedings. A corporation can not make itself immune to felonies.

Because this was an overseas operation, this is exactly what was allowed to happen.

The Franken bill was very short and to the point about preventing that.

Go look it up. I remember reading the Franken amendment. It was two whole paragraphs long and very tightly focused.

513

MKelly Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:59:04pm

re: #490 LudwigVanQuixote

Sorry you are wrong on the gas. As naval officer during the first gulf war I saw the picture of the villages that were gased. Women, children dogs, everything dead bloated, and rotting in the street. He had gas we knew long before the second war. He would not hesitate to use them either.

514

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:59:49pm

re: #500 LudwigVanQuixote

he had a defanged and aborted atomic program. He did not have an active one

It sounded to me (from the quote you gave in #499) like they thought he had a "defanged" program, but not an "aborted" one. In Bush terminology, Saddam was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, but the program wasn't developed to the point of being an "imminent threat".

In other words, you're right that Saddam did not have the huge facilities necessary to have a "functional" nuclear program -- but Bush/Condi/Powell/Cheney weren't saying Saddam's program was "functional", only that he hadn't truly abandoned it.

515

harlequinade Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:00:51pm

re: #431 jamesfirecat

Um...what about Northern Ireland?

The negotiations with the IRA were kinda successful

516

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:04:10pm

re: #513 MKelly

Sorry you are wrong on the gas. As naval officer during the first gulf war I saw the picture of the villages that were gased. Women, children dogs, everything dead bloated, and rotting in the street. He had gas we knew long before the second war. He would not hesitate to use them either.

Woah, I am not debating that Saddam used chemical weapons. Not at all. I am not debating that he was a monster.

I am saying that the primary message from the administration to the American public for over a year was about a clear and present danger of a nuclear program that we had to go in and stop right away.

That was a clear and proven lie.

Are you really denying all of those broadcasts? Is your memory that short?

517

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:04:33pm

re: #509 LudwigVanQuixote

No one is revising history except the GOP. I can't believe you guys. I can't believe it at all.

Do I really need to go and look for the hours of footage of Busgh and Powell and Rummy and Condis saying that we were going into Iraq to stop an atomic program?

Do I need to go over yet again that no such program, like they claimed could have existed because physics doesn't work that way?

Do you think my memory is so short that I forgot that the chemical and everything else only got emphasized after we invaded?

What insults me is that you think I am that stupid.

Only people who get caught obfuscating squirm like this. Stick to what you said earlier. "The entire Powell UN speech was about mobile centrifuge facilities." and "Do you think my memory is so short that I forgot that the chemical and everything else only got emphasized after we invaded?"

Those statements are betrayed by the FULL transcript that I linked to, and are a point of emphasis in this discussion insofar as they relate to your "physics = lie = evil".

At the UN, what you stated and what was actually stated are not nearly the same thing, and on that basis the GOP is evil?

Are you this accurate about the other subjects that you like to post on?

518

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:06:02pm

re: #511 robdouth

what's worse is "they lied and are therefore evil". The telling part was when he posted the part of the transcript that proved my point, not his.

519

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:09:33pm

re: #517 Aceofwhat?

Only people who get caught obfuscating squirm like this. Stick to what you said earlier. "The entire Powell UN speech was about mobile centrifuge facilities." and "Do you think my memory is so short that I forgot that the chemical and everything else only got emphasized after we invaded?"

Those statements are betrayed by the FULL transcript that I linked to, and are a point of emphasis in this discussion insofar as they relate to your "physics = lie = evil".

At the UN, what you stated and what was actually stated are not nearly the same thing, and on that basis the GOP is evil?

Are you this accurate about the other subjects that you like to post on?

No you are shifting goal posts and twisting what I said contrary to history that is not even ten years old. How many hours of Bush or Rummy or Condi or Cheney saying that the ATOMIC program was a clear and imminent danger that we had to stop right away are you ignoring?

520

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:10:31pm

re: #518 Aceofwhat?

what's worse is "they lied and are therefore evil". The telling part was when he posted the part of the transcript that proved my point, not his.

No it didn't. You are being insane. Do you deny that for about a year that the Administration clearly spoke of a dangerous and active Iraqi atomic program? Do you deny that?

521

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:14:50pm

re: #518 Aceofwhat?

Frankly you are a Republican. It takes a member of the GOP to call an elephant a doorknob. What is wrong with you. Were you in another country when there were broadcasts almost every night from some administration source about the Iraqi atomic program?

Were you living under a rock when Rummy said we had to go in right away?

Were you in a coma when the President went on and on about the Iraqi ATOMIC program as the issue?

Have you forgotten all that, or is it just inconvenient?

You are wasting my time.

What about the Plame affair? Why was that such a big deal then if the emphasis was not on atomics?

You fools have got to be kidding me.

522

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:15:28pm

re: #519 LudwigVanQuixote

No you are shifting goal posts and twisting what I said contrary to history that is not even ten years old. How many hours of Bush or Rummy or Condi or Cheney saying that the ATOMIC program was a clear and imminent danger that we had to stop right away are you ignoring?

I'm ignoring everything that you claim on the subject, at the moment, and i'm right to do so since you can't even accurately recount the Powell UN speech. Link, please, or be rightly assumed to be hyperventilating...again.

What it appears is that you're now making generic statements because i've refuted your specific ones. Please either make specific statements that you're willing to stand behind for longer than ten minutes, or make generic statements buttressed by the information that you are relying on.

At the moment it is my memory, not yours, that is proving more accurate in this thread.

523

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:16:05pm

re: #521 LudwigVanQuixote

You'll note that i have refrained from borrowing your more personal insults.

524

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:18:08pm

re: #522 Aceofwhat?

What do you mean, I put up the segment of the Powel speech that was relevant to your earlier faulty memory.

You mean to say "La La La I can't hear you! I won't listen to or remember the truth!"

Very typical for a Republican.

525

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:19:00pm

re: #522 Aceofwhat?

NO refuted nothing. More like you denied history, refused to read your own link and still fail to acknowledge the science.

526

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:19:44pm

re: #524 LudwigVanQuixote

What do you mean, I put up the segment of the Powel speech that was relevant to your earlier faulty memory.

You mean to say "La La La I can't hear you! I won't listen to or remember the truth!"

Very typical for a Republican.

intended to build

is that the part we're disagreeing on?

527

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:21:36pm

re: #525 LudwigVanQuixote

NO refuted nothing. More like you denied history, refused to read your own link and still fail to acknowledge the science.

ps - i wouldn't have linked if i didn't believe it fully supported my point...

528

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:24:07pm

re: #512 LudwigVanQuixote

Only you can not sign away your rights to a fair trial or criminal proceedings. A corporation can not make itself immune to felonies.

Agreed.
That sounds pretty much in line with what I said and at odds with your statement about "a bill that would prohibit the US from contracting with companies that would deny raped women their day in court". When I see "rape" and "day in court", I think criminal prosecution. Maybe you see civil lawsuit for money. There is a significant and important difference.

The Franken bill was very short and to the point about preventing that.
Go look it up. I remember reading the Franken amendment. It was two whole paragraphs long and very tightly focused.

Do you have a link to the amendment's language? I couldn't find it in the sea of news stories google presents to me. Saying the bill was very tightly focused tends to support the argument of some in the GOP that is was an attack on Halliburton. I really don't buy that argument. I'd like to see the actual Halliburton language. Does is really say arbitration for "sexual assault"? Seems to me that sexual assault is a criminal matter and not subject to arbitration, so it wouldn't make sense to be in an employment contract. Anyway, I see the employment contract as playing a small part in the victim's ordeal. The real outrage here is that no one was prosecuted, not that Halliburton wasn't sued. And actually, the lawsuit is in court now thanks to the ruling of a Bush (the elder) appointed federal judge.

529

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:24:43pm

And in terms of hyperventilating, it is one thing to allow people other opinions. However, it is not ok to allow them to make up facts.

Do you really deny that the central message in teh lead up to the war was an atomic prgram?

as to the Franken Bill OK

Here are the senators who voted against it.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

All of them are Republican.

There were 30. I was wrong. Eight brave Republicans voted for it. OK I stand corrected. But it is a minor point really because 30 out of 40 voted against it - and it was clearly evil to do so!

530

filetandrelease Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:25:35pm

re: #88 ludwigvanquixote

I am sick and astonished at this poll.

So once again, does anyone doubt why I think the GOP is immoral, stupid and evil?

Let's break it down.

If you are opposed to abortion and birth control, you are a complete moron. The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

If you deny gay people basic rights, you are just evil.

If you honestly think the President Obama is a socialist you are just stupid and you don't know what socialism means.

If you don't think he was born here, well you really are stupid.

If you think Palin is anything other than an idiot, you are a moron as well.

But most disturbing is the whole hypocrisy of hating abortion but loving the death penalty and swearing you love Jesus, who at last reading of his teachings was into forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This of course is coupled with the anti-science stance. It takes a special kind of stupid to hold mutually contradictory notions as fact at the same time. Because the ability to do hateful doublethink like that alows you to think the worst possible nonsense.

Nonsense like wanting to secede from the union. That is called treason.

So I repeat. The GOP: Anti thought, anti reason, stupid, immoral, evil, anti-American.

Wow, what brain dead moronic rubbish spew forth to amuse preadolescents. Never on this web site have I wasted so many precious seconds reading such vapid tripe.

Charles, I am surprised you let these petty insults to such a large percentage of this country stand.

The disagreements I have with the democratic party are many, but it would take a lot of beer for me to .... hell, not even that.

531

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:27:20pm

re: #527 Aceofwhat?

ps - i wouldn't have linked if i didn't believe it fully supported my point...

OMG will stop twisting the facts and the conversation. I mentioned Powel because he really did harp on the Atomic program in his seech that was the key point he made to the UN right in the middle of it as a highlight. read your own link. If you honestly believe he wasn't harping on an atomic program you just can't read.

This espescially the case when you look at the whole Year of speeches made by the Administration about the atomic program and it's dangers. Further al that BS about mobile facilities was about an ACTIVE program not a dormant or potential one like you are falsely claiming and openly lying about.

532

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:27:43pm

re: #528 gamark

IIRC, the courts had already told Halliburton they couldn't arbitrate this by the time that Franken proposed the bill.

533

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:27:49pm

re: #530 filetandrelease

Wow, what brain dead moronic rubbish spew forth to amuse preadolescents. Never on this web site have I wasted so many precious seconds reading such vapid tripe.

Charles, I am surprised you let these petty insults to such a large percentage of this country stand.

The disagreements I have with the democratic party are many, but it would take a lot of beer for me to ... hell, not even that.

Except that it is the truth my wingnut buddy :)

534

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:29:40pm

re: #6 webevintage

The BC question still gets me...even if it was weighted on the Catholic side we all know that just because the Church says something is so does not mean that most of us actually pay any attention.

The tragic decline in fertility in the Irish- and Italian-American communities testifies to that.

535

Aye Pod Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:30:29pm

re: #530 filetandrelease

Youtube Video

536

TampaKnight Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:30:45pm

The socialist questions is absolute bullshit, if you ask me. Do I think he's a commie lovin, Europe adoring, Marxist reading socialist? No.

But, I do think that he views socialist economic doctrine as the path to equality in his view. If you really deny that many of the measures put forth already AREN'T socialist by nature, then you don't know WHAT socialism is. And for the record, my buds in the GOP have been guilt of the same thing.

537

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:33:09pm

re: #15 webevintage

BC...WTF?
Still, just cannot get past that.

But the other WTH? is the one about impeachment. What would he be impeached for? Do people not realize that there has to be a law broken...that you just can't impeach the President because you think he sucks or you are mad that the rest of the country did not agree that McCain/Palin were teh awesome.

You cannot impeach the President because you don't like him.

You cannot impeach the President because he is a disappointment.

You cannot impeach the President because he signs bills you do not like.

You cannot impeach the President because he makes you mad when you see him on TV.

You cannot impeach the President because you think he is a socialist.

You cannot impeach the President because you voted for the other guy.

I have been saying this for years to fellow Democrats. (Except for the socialist part.) I now share my knowledge with the other side of the aisle.

538

middy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:34:39pm

re: #531 LudwigVanQuixote

Being wrong and lying are two different things.

Are you contending that the Bush administration knew for a fact that there was no imminent threat from an Iraqi nuclear program and lied about it?

The way I interpret the facts is that they were simply wrong in their analysis of the available intelligence.

539

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:35:18pm

re: #25 MikeySDCA

It's amusing that these folks don't seem to understand that impeaching Bambi would give us Thumper as POTUS.

I don't think they think that far ahead. They just imagine Obama being escorted out of the White House in chains, and then, I don't know, Jack Bauer taking charge with Sarah Palin at his side.

Does anyone know if Bauer is registered to vote, and if so, what his party is, BTW? If he's a Democrat, these folks are gonna freak out.

540

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:36:22pm

re: #537 SanFranciscoZionist

You cannot impeach the President because you don't like him.

You cannot impeach the President because he is a disappointment.

You cannot impeach the President because he signs bills you do not like.

You cannot impeach the President because he makes you mad when you see him on TV.

You cannot impeach the President because you think he is a socialist.

You cannot impeach the President because you voted for the other guy.

I have been saying this for years to fellow Democrats. (Except for the socialist part.) I now share my knowledge with the other side of the aisle.

All good points.

You can however impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors like violating out laws against torture.

You can impeach for violating the rights of Americans by spying on them and violating the FISA act and disobeying the courts.

You can impeach for lying to start a war.

You can impeach for outing a secret agent and covering it up.

You can impeach for gross incompetence.

We should have impeached Bush.

541

middy Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:36:24pm

re: #537 SanFranciscoZionist

But we can impeach him because he's black, can't we?

LOL

Good post, SFZ.

542

filetandrelease Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:37:25pm

re: #533 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that it is the truth my wingnut buddy :)

Each persons perceptions is that persons reality. That is true.

The Democratic Party: Anti thought, anti reason, stupid, immoral, evil, anti-American.

See how easy it is, now all I have to do is waste some time to come up with some reasons. Not very hard really. IE: Any one who thinks Barack Obama has enough experience to be President is an idiot.

Yawn.

543

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:37:54pm

re: #538 middy

Being wrong and lying are two different things.

Are you contending that the Bush administration knew for a fact that there was no imminent threat from an Iraqi nuclear program and lied about it?

The way I interpret the facts is that they were simply wrong in their analysis of the available intelligence.

If you know the physics, there is know way they could have not known they were lying. That is the whole point about the centrifuges.

This is not an intelligence mess up. This is an open lie in the same way that it would be had their argument depended on the intelligence community contending that things fall up.

544

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:38:10pm

re: #38 Nanook37

It is hard to choose from all of those questions/responses to determine which is the most crazy but I would have to go with 77% percent believing in the teaching of Genesis in our public schools...

Disagree, I think it's the contraceptives. Teaching Genesis in school may be illegal, but a majority of Americans accept Genesis at least casually as a religious text of their faith, so it's a sort of logical thing for people to say sounds OK.

Thirty-one percent of Republicans wanting to OUTLAW contraception strikes me as basically unbelievable. Not reject for their own use, not discourage the use of, not not let the government fund, but OUTLAW.

That's what keeps making me think there's something weird in their sample.

545

filetandrelease Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:38:31pm

re: #535 Jimmah

Butt hurt level? Projection?

546

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:39:27pm

re: #544 SanFranciscoZionist

same here...

547

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:39:55pm

re: #542 filetandrelease

Ohhh we do have massive butthurt here! Well the thing is though, the GOP really is anti-science, anti-woman and anti-gay. They actually are all the other things I claimed they were, and it is really well documented all over the place, even at this very blog.

So you see, the problem is one of actual truths. Something you seem to have a problem looking at.

548

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:40:23pm

re: #543 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

If you know the physics, there is no way they could have not known they were lying. That is the whole point about the centrifuges.

This is not an intelligence mess up. This is an open lie in the same way that it would be had their argument depended on the intelligence community contending that things fall up.

549

Lateralis Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:41:46pm

re: #544 SanFranciscoZionist

The whole survey is a bs. I can not believe that Charles is giving credence to a poll by Daily KOS and I do not care who actually conducted the poll.

550

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:43:38pm

LVQ,

there's a difference between "saying a nuclear program existed" and "saying the nuclear program was nearing the point of being able to create an actual weapon". The Bush administration did the first, not the second. The Bush administration argued that Saddam was trying to start a nuclear program, not that he had a fully-functional program a few months from producing a bomb. One of the key Bush arguments was that we should NOT wait for an "imminent threat", but that we should attack "emerging threats", and that Saddam's nuclear program was exactly the sort of "emerging threat" that we should not allow to grow into an actual imminent threat.

This isn't "revisionist history"; I actually made this exact same argument several times in 2002 and 2003 (pre-war.) Back then, it was fairly common for the anti-war crowd to misinterpret Bush administration statements in exactly the same way as you're misinterpreting them now.

551

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:44:43pm

re: #550 LotharBot

exactly

552

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:46:59pm

re: #529 LudwigVanQuixote

There were 30. I was wrong. Eight brave Republicans voted for it. OK I stand corrected. But it is a minor point really because 30 out of 40 voted against it - and it was clearly evil to do so!

Are you seriously saying that it is evil to contract with a corporation which forces arbitration in lieu of civil lawsuits for sexual harassment complaints?

553

filetandrelease Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:48:28pm

re: #547 LudwigVanQuixote

554

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:49:11pm

aaaand I'm out... baby needs some attention. Good night everyone!

555

filetandrelease Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:50:11pm

re: #553 filetandrelease

Hmmm,

And Democrats are anti defence, big spending socialist.

It is not even fun.

Yawn

Later.

556

American-African Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:50:38pm

re: #240 Aceofwhat?

Thou shalt take thy Holy Hand Grenade...

Ei ai Iesu dominae. Donaie es requiem

557

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:51:48pm

re: #550 LotharBot

You know, I always disliked that whole approach to justify going into Iraq based on WMD arguments. I thought is was a distraction from the strong case that could have been made based on UN resolutions and Saddam's violations thereof. Though I never thought it'd come back and bite Bush in the ass as hard as it did.

558

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:53:38pm

re: #552 gamark

Are you seriously saying that it is evil to contract with a corporation which forces arbitration in lieu of civil lawsuits for sexual harassment complaints?

Why as a matter of fact yes if it is a criminal case. Rape is not a matter of arbitration, gang rape much less so. Are you seriously saying that it is good or noble to shield corporations who cover these things up? remember this is an aggravated case where Haliburton locked her in a packing crate to cover it up.

Are you honestly saying that is not a felony in of itself and that the corporation should be protected?

559

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:55:00pm

re: #550 LotharBot

LVQ,

there's a difference between "saying a nuclear program existed" and "saying the nuclear program was nearing the point of being able to create an actual weapon". The Bush administration did the first, not the second. The Bush administration argued that Saddam was trying to start a nuclear program, not that he had a fully-functional program a few months from producing a bomb. One of the key Bush arguments was that we should NOT wait for an "imminent threat", but that we should attack "emerging threats", and that Saddam's nuclear program was exactly the sort of "emerging threat" that we should not allow to grow into an actual imminent threat.

Really, because I honestly remember Bush and Condi and Rummy all saying we had to go in right away because of the threat. Was I missing something? DO I really need to search you tube for the dozens of videos where they say as much?

This isn't "revisionist history"; I actually made this exact same argument several times in 2002 and 2003 (pre-war.) Back then, it was fairly common for the anti-war crowd to misinterpret Bush administration statements in exactly the same way as you're misinterpreting them now.

560

jamesfirecat Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:55:37pm

re: #515 harlequinade

Um...what about Northern Ireland?

The negotiations with the IRA were kinda successful

That's but you shouldn't be addressing your example to me unless you were doing it as an offer of support.

Its some of the other people on this sight who evidently think you can never gain anything worthwhile by negotiating with terrorists.

561

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:56:17pm

re: #550 LotharBot

Do I really need to go to you tube to find the dozens of videos where Bush and Condi and Rummy et al called the program in imminent danger and argued that we really needed to go in right away because of it? You don't need to go in right away for what you are talking about.

562

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:58:54pm

re: #555 filetandrelease

Hmmm,

And Democrats are anti defence, big spending socialist.

It is not even fun.

Yawn

Later.

Yeah because that isn't true. You see the Dems are not socialists, and you clearly could not define the word from the way you just used it. They are not anti defense, the Pentagon gets a large amount of funding under Dem administrations as well, and they actually spend less than the GOP if you ever look at the numbers.

Try some truth for a change. I know you find it boring, but in the real world, we try to stick with it.

What isn't fun is talking to people who are incapable of looking at the truth.

563

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:58:55pm

re: #558 LudwigVanQuixote

Why as a matter of fact yes if it is a criminal case. Rape is not a matter of arbitration, gang rape much less so. Are you seriously saying that it is good or noble to shield corporations who cover these things up? remember this is an aggravated case where Haliburton locked her in a packing crate to cover it up.

Are you honestly saying that is not a felony in of itself and that the corporation should be protected?

Bingo.

564

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:00:03pm

re: #540 LudwigVanQuixote

Christ you still won't stop the lying BS. I will disagree with you on one point. I don't remember atomic being the "central theme" in the leadup to the war which really doesn't mean anything anyways. If you are going to harp on a central theme it was WMD's in general. I remember the point always quoted that was the crux of the argument. It always ran like this. They have WMD's and are trying to "reconstitute" their nuclear program. Not Active nucler, not even imminent threat. In fact the argument against them was always framed as: "Since it's not an imminent threat, should we be marching to war?" or some version of that, and the argument from the Admin was always, "we can't afford to wait for the threat to be imminent" or something along those lines. Think of my quotes as paraphrasing. So no, no one is buying on to the imminent argument because it was a given that it wasn't imminent. This is why Ace and I are having trouble with your comments. They are revisionist because you won't acknowledge these points that poke holes in your argument.

Please remember that this is from someone who ultimately agrees with you in that we should not have gone in in the first place (although hindsight bears that out now so it's not really a bold stance) but I won't sit by and let others have their own facts as you so adequately put it.

565

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:01:40pm

re: #563 SanFranciscoZionist

Bingo.

And what really offends me and causes me to cal the GOP evil in this case is that they see a case of contract law and not a woman or what was done to her.

Ignoring her humanity like that is pure evil.

566

Obdicut Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:01:49pm

re: #564 robdouth

Good god, of course it was atomic. "We don't want the something to come as a mushroom cloud". The yellowcake. The testimony at the UN. It was 90% nuclear, 10% chem/biological.

And yes, they were framing it as an imminent threat. This is provable history.

567

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:03:04pm

re: #564 robdouth

Christ you still won't stop the lying BS. I will disagree with you on one point. I don't remember atomic being the "central theme" in the leadup to the war which really doesn't mean anything anyways. If you are going to harp on a central theme it was WMD's in general. I remember the point always quoted that was the crux of the argument. It always ran like this. They have WMD's and are trying to "reconstitute" their nuclear program. Not Active nucler, not even imminent threat. In fact the argument against them was always framed as: "Since it's not an imminent threat, should we be marching to war?" or some version of that, and the argument from the Admin was always, "we can't afford to wait for the threat to be imminent" or something along those lines. Think of my quotes as paraphrasing. So no, no one is buying on to the imminent argument because it was a given that it wasn't imminent. This is why Ace and I are having trouble with your comments. They are revisionist because you won't acknowledge these points that poke holes in your argument.

Please remember that this is from someone who ultimately agrees with you in that we should not have gone in in the first place (although hindsight bears that out now so it's not really a bold stance) but I won't sit by and let others have their own facts as you so adequately put it.

I am not lying one bit. Were you in a different country when the administration went on and on about an atomic program for almost a year? Were you in a coma? What is your excuse for denying history that we all saw?

568

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:06:32pm

re: #558 LudwigVanQuixote

I thought we were in agreement that employment contracts cannot be used to shield the corporation in criminal matters? If we can't agree on that, then there's no point in continuing the conversation. If we do agree on that, then the Franken amendment had nothing to do with rape or other criminal matters.

And for the record, I find it irritating that you keep referring to Halliburton as if it was a person. How did Halliburton rape someone and how do you propose we put Halliburton in jail for that rape? I made it quite clear that the outrage in this case is that no one was prosecuted. All you seem to care about is raising righteous indignation against the GOP through some tortured, twisted logic.

569

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:10:04pm

re: #567 LudwigVanQuixote

You misread me, I said you won't stop with the lying bit, not that you were lying. My bad on the poor wording, but every time I turned on the TV leading up it was "We cannot wait until the threat is imminent"

By definition if the threat was imminent, we wouldn't call it a pre-emptive attack. You can't just play with words. If you are saying they said it was an imminent threat, then by definition, this was not a pre-emptive strike. Everyone and their brother was defending the plan (wrongly in my hindsight aided opinion) as being needed because we cannot wait for a threat to be imminent. We don't disagree on the lack of wisdom of the eventual plan, but words like pre-emptive and reconstitute don't make sense if you actually believe the threat was imminent. The idea was to act before the threat was imminent. Right or wrong, that's the reasoning that was used.

570

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:12:40pm

re: #568 gamark

Interestingly enough, legally corporations are treated like people under many facets of the law.

The Franken amendment was to insure that the corporation could not shiled itself from the civil damages arising from felonious activities by making the US not contract with them unless they dropped the arbitration clauses. It was good law and it passed.

You are also ignoring the fact that Haliburton ignored multiple complaints of harassment and fears for this woman's safety before she was gang raped. You are also ignoring that the "lost" her rape kit in order to shield their male employees.

You are ignoring any number of laws that they broke which violate her civil rights and as such come under federal Jurisdiction - which is eventually what the courts ruled, but it took years and a lot of money to get that ruling.

No the case stank through and through, and the GOP lackey of Haliburton stuck up for their cronies. It is and was a disgraceful bit of evil.

571

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:12:44pm

re: #568 gamark

very good point. You can't treat a company as a person. I would argue that if you have a problem with people who work for a company, you go after them. It doesn't make sense to go after the company itself and the share-holders. It's not like they had a share-holder meating and put it to a vote. Everyone in favor of raping this girl and covering it up, vote aye. Well the ayes have it. Initiate plan rape and cover up.

You're argument is basically, anyone who doesn't see this argument from my point of view is evil. Sad argument.

572

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:13:46pm

re: #569 robdouth

What are you talking about... some one will attack me imminently... I hit them first... that is the very definition of preemptive and exactly what the administration said.

573

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:14:43pm

re: #571 robdouth

very good point. You can't treat a company as a person.

Except the law does... In fact the very word corporation as in of a body might be a clue.

574

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:18:55pm

re: #573 LudwigVanQuixote

I meant with regard to rape. You could get them for conspiracy, or other situations where you treat a corporation as a single entity/person, but you can't in some things. A company can't be charged for rape, or assault, but the conspiracy to cover up can be, like you've claimed earlier. It sounds like you know what you're talking about on this, but again I'm loathe to punish an entire organization for the sins of a few within it. Even if it was a number of people, I think you bring them all up on conspiracy charges, but unless it's CEO or board level and the company itself was acting on something (which I'm sure is tough to prove) then you limit it to individual prosecutions.

575

hugh59 Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:30:19pm

I am sorry, but I still have a difficult time believing this poll. How did they select the sample? I am a conservative and I don't know anyone among my conservative friends who is loony like that. The only people I hear promoting the "birther" nonsense are bloggers (some of whom I know through online correspondences). I don't know anyone face-to-face who believes that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

However, people can convince themselves to believe strange things. When one of my conservative friends says something odd, I can usually straighten them out. It helps that they know I am a conservative, trust me, and know that I do my best to get the facts correct.

I think that responsible partisans on BOTH sides need to take responsibility for straightening out people on their side. Conservatives need to call in to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck and challenge them (though many of the things I hear attributed to those three often are not true). I was pissed at hell when I went to a book signing for a friend, who co-wrote a book with Julianne Malveaux. This was in 2002. Malveaux started speaking and said outrageous things about President Bush. She refused to call him the President; she called him "the resident."

576

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:33:34pm

re: #572 LudwigVanQuixote

I would argue that's self-defense. Self-defense doesn't mean you wait until someone is pointing a gun directly at you. Pre-emptive would be you shooting them while they are still trying to load their gun. Threat's not imminents, but he's reconstituting that weapon...

577

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:41:56pm

re: #566 Obdicut

This is from the President's SOTU leading up to Iraq War:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Again, I will say to you guys that I agree it was ultimately not a good decision, but to say they were framing it as imminent.
This is a serious instance of misunderstanding. Bush said we can't wait until the threat is imminent, Kennedy and other Democrats said he didn't do a good job making the case that the threat was imminent. Admin officials again said that they didn't want to wait until it's imminent. We eventually go to war. Now everyone is trying to claim he said the threat was imminent when on his biggest speech leading up to war (that years SOTU) he specifically says the threat is not only not imminent, but we can't wait for it to be imminent.

You've argued some good points today, but this one is just wrong. Sorry.

578

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:47:36pm

re: #552 gamark

Are you seriously saying that it is evil to contract with a corporation which forces arbitration in lieu of civil lawsuits for sexual harassment complaints?

Let's step back a second...i (silly me) assumed that LVQ was accurate when discussing the particulars of this case - i hadn't heard much about it until now.

But as far as i can tell, the votes against are being defended as "unnecessary given that the system had worked and Halliburton had been required by the courts to defend the case in court."

That makes it a lot less evil, since she was going to get her day in court with or without the Franken bill.

Comments?

579

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:48:58pm

re: #566 Obdicut

Good god, of course it was atomic. "We don't want the something to come as a mushroom cloud". The yellowcake. The testimony at the UN. It was 90% nuclear, 10% chem/biological.

And yes, they were framing it as an imminent threat. This is provable history.

what about the yellowcake?

580

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:51:01pm

re: #566 Obdicut

Good god, of course it was atomic. "We don't want the something to come as a mushroom cloud". The yellowcake. The testimony at the UN. It was 90% nuclear, 10% chem/biological.

And yes, they were framing it as an imminent threat. This is provable history.

i linked to the testimony at the UN. it was most certainly not in the proportions that you describe above.

they did not say he had the capability. they said he intended to have the capability. again, read the link.

581

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:54:10pm

re: #580 Aceofwhat?

i linked to the testimony at the UN. it was most certainly not in the proportions that you describe above.

they did not say he had the capability. they said he intended to have the capability. again, read the link.

Yes that's right they said he had an active nuclear program and implied that a mushroom cloud from them was in the near future if nothing was done. They said that in speech after speech. Of course, that was physically impossible without the centrifuges or a heavy water reactor - which we knew they did not have.

Hence they were lying.

Thank for finally making the point and agreeing to look at history truthfully.

582

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:57:12pm

re: #578 Aceofwhat?

Let's step back a second...i (silly me) assumed that LVQ was accurate when discussing the particulars of this case - i hadn't heard much about it until now.

But as far as i can tell, the votes against are being defended as "unnecessary given that the system had worked and Halliburton had been required by the courts to defend the case in court."

That makes it a lot less evil, since she was going to get her day in court with or without the Franken bill.

Comments?

Actually read up on it. The particulars are exactly as I stated.

[Link: minnesotaindependent.com...]

The amendment was offered after Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of Kellogg, Brown & Root (formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton) was sexually assaulted by her co-workers in Iraq and then locked in a shipping crate when she tried to report the rape. Her return to the United States was facilitated by U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., but upon her return, she learned that the fine print of her employment contract banned her from taking the case to court.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.”

Franken rebutted, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”

583

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:57:23pm

re: #573 LudwigVanQuixote

Except the law does... In fact the very word corporation as in of a body might be a clue.

It does indeed in many, but not all ways. Corporations have rights. Free speech is one such right, so I'm happy you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning some restrictions on corporate speech. There are certainly cases where corporations face civil penalties. Can you point to any cases where corporations have been convicted of rape, murder, robbery, or other criminal violations of that sort?

584

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:58:19pm

re: #579 Aceofwhat?

what about the yellowcake?

What about it? Which part of it is useless without the centrifuges did you miss? Is there some reason you can not comprehend this or how large an operation that is?

585

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:59:02pm

re: #581 LudwigVanQuixote

You can't just say that intended to have the capability is the same as an active nuclear program. You are making a logical leap and because of you're interpretation, you are assuming a lie. This is just you reading what you want into the words. You can't say since ace said "A" that automatically that is equal to what you've been saying with "B". They are two different things. I'm sorry to say you're stretching the meanings of words to whatever you think they mean, not what was said.

586

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:00:36pm

re: #583 gamark

It does indeed in many, but not all ways. Corporations have rights. Free speech is one such right, so I'm happy you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning some restrictions on corporate speech. There are certainly cases where corporations face civil penalties. Can you point to any cases where corporations have been convicted of rape, murder, robbery, or other criminal violations of that sort?

Now we are getting into legalities that are frankly above my pay grade. I would refer you to one of the legal lizards here for the particulars, which likely vary from state to state and from Federal law to state law. I know for a fact that corporations have been held accountable for the criminal activities of their employees in the past on numerous occasions.

587

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:01:17pm

re: #585 robdouth

You can't just say that intended to have the capability is the same as an active nuclear program. You are making a logical leap and because of you're interpretation, you are assuming a lie. This is just you reading what you want into the words. You can't say since ace said "A" that automatically that is equal to what you've been saying with "B". They are two different things. I'm sorry to say you're stretching the meanings of words to whatever you think they mean, not what was said.

NO I didn't make that leaop the administration did. Come on. They were talking about mushroom clouds if we did not act. What does that mean?

588

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:01:32pm

re: #584 LudwigVanQuixote

What part of they were not arguing it was imminent do you not get. You keep arguing this from the false notion that they were claiming it was imminent. I quoted you from what should be the preeminent admin source at the time (The president's SOTU address leading up to the war) in which he adamantly stated that we would not wait for imminence of threat. You're working on a false base of assumptions. That's why you're not getting agreements.

589

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:03:33pm

re: #588 robdouth

What part of they were not arguing it was imminent do you not get. You keep arguing this from the false notion that they were claiming it was imminent. I quoted you from what should be the preeminent admin source at the time (The president's SOTU address leading up to the war) in which he adamantly stated that we would not wait for imminence of threat. You're working on a false base of assumptions. That's why you're not getting agreements.

It's it's because they said so themselves! What country were you suffering from a coma in when they were spreading their propaganda? I can not believe you are actually that deluded!

590

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:03:45pm

re: #582 LudwigVanQuixote

Tuesday, September 15th: Victim wins court case.
October 16th: The date of your article, which says that the bill passed "on Tuesday".

Obviously, the particulars are not at all what you stated. Why am I not surprised.

Remind me again why the bill was necessary for her to get justice?

591

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:03:59pm

re: #587 LudwigVanQuixote

It's called hyperbole. Disgusting hyperbole, but still not a lie. they would claim that it's meant that if we don't act, then eventually they could reconstitute. Again they used scare tactics and I agree they overemphasized certain points, but you act as if there was no evidence for their case and they lied in the sense that they made things up out of whole cloth. The case was weak with a lot of circumstantial evidence, but they went ahead and made it anyway. You should be mad at all the people that voted to go along with it because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic, so they were spineless (Kerry etal)

592

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:05:26pm

re: #584 LudwigVanQuixote

What about it? Which part of it is useless without the centrifuges did you miss? Is there some reason you can not comprehend this or how large an operation that is?

What part of the testimony included "they have active centrifuges now therefore we must invade?"

Not the testimony to the UN, which you were happy to cite earlier when no one was reading the actual testimony to the UN.

593

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:06:29pm

re: #591 robdouth

It's called hyperbole. Disgusting hyperbole, but still not a lie. they would claim that it's meant that if we don't act, then eventually they could reconstitute. Again they used scare tactics and I agree they overemphasized certain points, but you act as if there was no evidence for their case and they lied in the sense that they made things up out of whole cloth. The case was weak with a lot of circumstantial evidence, but they went ahead and made it anyway. You should be mad at all the people that voted to go along with it because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic, so they were spineless (Kerry etal)

I agree with this statement. I am not defending every claim. I am happy to defend against spurious labels of "evil" related to a claim that they never made.

594

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:06:44pm

re: #590 Aceofwhat?

Tuesday, September 15th: Victim wins court case.
October 16th: The date of your article, which says that the bill passed "on Tuesday".

Obviously, the particulars are not at all what you stated. Why am I not surprised.

Remind me again why the bill was necessary for her to get justice?

OK now I am really tired of you being a retard. If you looked into it just a little more, you would find that one the bill was to prevent such future cases from arising and you would have also found that there were many other women victims of Haliburton waiting for their day in court. You would also, if you were capable of basic logic be capable of figuring out that the legal case is something separate from legislative action to prevent such future cases.

What the hell is wrong with you? Nothing I said was inaccurate.

595

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:07:08pm

596

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:08:57pm

re: #589 LudwigVanQuixote

You keep making points about comas and BS like that, but the only people using the litmus test of an imminent threat were Democrats. Bush in his SOTU address said explicitly (instead of your implicit points from your view of what was said) that he wouldn't wait for it to get imminent before he acted. You've not once addressed the quote I pulled directly from the SOTU address. That was lockstep the admin position. Scare people with imagery of violence granted, but claim that we can't wait until the threat is imminent. It was the biggest debate leading up to the war. One side said the threat must be imminent, the other side rejected that argument and said if we wait until it's imminent then it's too late. So to borrow your stupid arguing point, what coma in what country smoking what blah blah blah were you in that you missed the central debate on the lead up to war. I get you don't understand it, and you're chief arguing style is insult and an obsession with coma but are you going to refute the idea that the SOTU address is the biggest policy speech of the year for the president and in that address his statements directly contradict the point you are basing your argument on? There's no wiggle room. The words of the president, directly contradict your point.

597

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:10:08pm

re: #592 Aceofwhat?

What part of the testimony included "they have active centrifuges now therefore we must invade?"

Not the testimony to the UN, which you were happy to cite earlier when no one was reading the actual testimony to the UN.

Ummm that would be the part I quoted from your own link you idiot... the bit about the tubes used for centrifuges...

So here it is again, from the speech, as I remembered it when I heard it, in the middle at the highpoint...

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Now why would that be an issue if they were not talking about an active program. In the mean time, the administration was going on and on about mobile centrifuges in truch trailers.

Are you really that fucking dumb that you can't read your own link?

598

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:10:23pm

re: #594 LudwigVanQuixote

OK now I am really tired of you being a retard. If you looked into it just a little more, you would find that one the bill was to prevent such future cases from arising and you would have also found that there were many other women victims of Haliburton waiting for their day in court. You would also, if you were capable of basic logic be capable of figuring out that the legal case is something separate from legislative action to prevent such future cases.

What the hell is wrong with you? Nothing I said was inaccurate.

Thanks for the personal attack again. Stay classy.

here's what you said.

"After she was gang raped, she was locked up by Haliburton in a cargo crate, while they were trying to figure out what to do with her.

Her sympathetic guard lent her a cell phone. Hwer father got the US consulate to get her out of the crate - which is where she was when they retrieved her.

She then found that she could not sue, and the then GOP controled government refused to do press criminal to Haliburton for things they did overseas."

So why would the GOP need to support a bill they considered overbroad (i'm guessing...i haven't had enough time to read up on it fully yet) when she found that she could sue?

599

[deleted] Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:10:57pm

600

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:12:44pm

re: #594 LudwigVanQuixote

Why would the legislation prevent future cases. Isn't the idea that she wanted her day in court. Ace's point is very valid. If the legislation was needed to get the woman's day in court, how was it that she got her day in court before the legislation passed? If her case was resolved before the legislation was voted on you have to at least admit that a case could be made that the legislation was not needed, given she already got her justice. Why is that viewpoint evil? It's like the argument against hate crimes. You can be against hate crime legislation and not be evil. I can be against it and still think it's atrocious to victimize gays or racial minorities. You are equating, being against this specific legislation with denying a woman's day in court, which she already had under the existing laws, therefore all of Ace's comments ring true given the timeline.

601

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:14:05pm

re: #598 Aceofwhat?

Thanks for the personal attack again. Stay classy.

here's what you said.

"After she was gang raped, she was locked up by Haliburton in a cargo crate, while they were trying to figure out what to do with her.

Her sympathetic guard lent her a cell phone. Hwer father got the US consulate to get her out of the crate - which is where she was when they retrieved her.

She then found that she could not sue, and the then GOP controled government refused to do press criminal to Haliburton for things they did overseas."

So why would the GOP need to support a bill they considered overbroad (i'm guessing...i haven't had enough time to read up on it fully yet) when she found that she could sue?

Go read some more. That is not the only article about it. And the article I gave you certainly corroborates it. Why not look at Franken's speech about it too? He tells the story pretty well. Again, you would rather quibble about details which you perceive false than look at the real suffering of a woman. The facts are exactly as I stated. Go look it up rather than attacking it.

You are right. You are a good little Republican, happily defending the evil of your evil party. And yes. Defending lies that start wars and denying the suffering of that woman rather than looking for the facts is evil.

I just called your actions evil.

They are.

602

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:14:06pm

re: #597 LudwigVanQuixote

Now why would that be an issue if they were not talking about an active program. In the mean time, the administration was going on and on about mobile centrifuges in truch trailers.

Are you really that fucking dumb that you can't read your own link?

Personal attack again, sweet.

But i'll continue to prove you wrong, despite your attempt to assert in #599 that i'm not.

I read my own link, thanks. "First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use." and "Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. " are the only things he said about centrifuge tubes.

So, please...where. are. the. statements. about. active. enrichment?

because this is intent. you know how i know that? because he said intent. doesn't take a lot of interpretation.

603

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:15:22pm

re: #601 LudwigVanQuixote

answer the question. do you think that Franken's bill preceded her court victory, or followed it?

seems like a big deal in deciding whether i am the fruit of the devil.

604

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:15:59pm

re: #600 robdouth

Why would the legislation prevent future cases. Isn't the idea that she wanted her day in court. Ace's point is very valid. If the legislation was needed to get the woman's day in court, how was it that she got her day in court before the legislation passed? If her case was resolved before the legislation was voted on you have to at least admit that a case could be made that the legislation was not needed, given she already got her justice. Why is that viewpoint evil? It's like the argument against hate crimes. You can be against hate crime legislation and not be evil. I can be against it and still think it's atrocious to victimize gays or racial minorities. You are equating, being against this specific legislation with denying a woman's day in court, which she already had under the existing laws, therefore all of Ace's comments ring true given the timeline.

Why don't you read the amendment? It is online. Why don't you listen to Franken's speech about it? That too is online. Look into the facts which you clearly do not know.

All I see are to GOP people trying their best to defend the indefensible actions of their evil party by playing word games.

Do some research yourselves for once.

605

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:16:35pm

re: #603 Aceofwhat?

answer the question. do you think that Franken's bill preceded her court victory, or followed it?

seems like a big deal in deciding whether i am the fruit of the devil.

I think it is irrelevant and specious as a point for the reasons already given.

606

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:16:40pm

re: #601 LudwigVanQuixote

Go read some more. That is not the only article about it. And the article I gave you certainly corroborates it. Why not look at Franken's speech about it too? He tells the story pretty well. Again, you would rather quibble about details which you perceive false than look at the real suffering of a woman. The facts are exactly as I stated. Go look it up rather than attacking it.

You are right. You are a good little Republican, happily defending the evil of your evil party. And yes. Defending lies that start wars and denying the suffering of that woman rather than looking for the facts is evil.

I just called your actions evil.

They are.

I am not defending the actions of the party. I am denying the truth of your statements. it is unfortunate that you are conflating those two things, because it's a fallacy to do so.

607

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:16:46pm

re: #599 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually you are relying heavily on insult, and coma-obsession and I've sticked directly to refuting your one point on imminence of the threat with a direct quote from president Bush that contradicts the basis for your argument against me. You've ignored it all 3-4 times I've posted it and gone to the coma defense. I feel like I'm arguing agianst a character from Days of Our Lives or something. The chief administration official (president) in the chief policy speech leading up to the war (SOTU address) claims it's not imminent and we will not wait until it is imminent. Now please argue again how he was always saying it was imminent and it was the "central theme" of the war push, when the fact is that the central debate was whether or not to wait until a threat is imminent, on which the two sides disagreed.

608

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:18:31pm

re: #602 Aceofwhat?

Oh God's sake. Are you ignoring the context of that speech with everything else the administration was saying at the time... Of course you are! Why am I not surprised. I am tired of this. Go revise history on someone else's time. I was there, so was everyone else on this blog. Only you deluded GOP people can convince each other that the history is different than it was.

609

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:20:05pm

re: #607 robdouth

NO you are not. You are simply refusing to acknowledge all the times the administration publicly called the atomic program an imminent threat and alluded to mushroom clouds if we did not go in right away. Are you seriously forgetting al that history? I mean who do you think you are fooling. I am short with you in the same way I am short with any con man who is trying to sell me a bridge.

610

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:20:15pm

re: #605 LudwigVanQuixote

I think it is irrelevant and specious as a point for the reasons already given.

You said "Given the actions of the GOP of late - you know like protecting Haliburton's right to rape it's employees".

If the courts had already denied Halliburton's right to rape its employees, why is the Franken amendment a litmus test on whether Halliburton is allowed to rape its employees?

That's why it's relevant. Because voting against it isn't a vote for rape if no one is imminently getting away with rape in the absence of the bill.

611

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:21:23pm

re: #604 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually you see an independent arguing that you are using emotion instead of facts. You have an interpretation of the facts, and you conflate that with the actual facts. Then you make an opinion (this law is good, anyone who is against it is evil.) That is pure opinion, and since you refuse to see anyone's viewpoint on it, if they disagree with you, they are defending evil and I guess evil themselves. This is childish logic. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who voted against it because I don't know all the details. You said go read Franken's quotes, or listen to them, so are you taking it on faith that everything out of his mouth and everything in the wording of the amendment is the god-given truth? I think that's a huge leap of faith, and given that from the links, the amendment did pass after the victim got her day in court it seems like the law in some ways is at least somewhat superfluous because existing statutes allowed her to get her justice. I think that is the extent of Ace's point, which seems like sound logic, and isn't clouded by emotional whining and insults.

612

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:22:24pm

re: #610 Aceofwhat?

You said "Given the actions of the GOP of late - you know like protecting Haliburton's right to rape it's employees".

If the courts had already denied Halliburton's right to rape its employees, why is the Franken amendment a litmus test on whether Halliburton is allowed to rape its employees?

That's why it's relevant. Because voting against it isn't a vote for rape if no one is imminently getting away with rape in the absence of the bill.

Yes, I was exactly correct in saying that. There is more than one woman involved.

613

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:23:46pm

re: #609 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't remember any time, and if I google imminent threat, the only people using it were Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etal, so please provide me with a link where they said that Iraq posed an imminent threat because I showed you the absolute biggest speech the president makes saying the exact opposite. I can also provide links to a number of other speeches where he says we can't wait. I'm not going to search for your opinion online, because I've found the pre-eminent policy speech from the top admin official proving my point explicitly. Go ahead and get tired all you want. I'm not because I have the facts to back me up.

614

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:23:56pm

re: #611 robdouth

What are you talking about. You are trying to tell me that the year of fear mongering about an Iraqi atomic program didn't happen. And you are trying to tell me I am not being accurate? You have some chutzpah kiddo!

615

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:24:04pm

re: #608 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh God's sake. Are you ignoring the context of that speech with everything else the administration was saying at the time... Of course you are! Why am I not surprised. I am tired of this. Go revise history on someone else's time. I was there, so was everyone else on this blog. Only you deluded GOP people can convince each other that the history is different than it was.

You said that the UN speech was 'obsessed with centrifuges' (i'm tired of chasing down your quotes for you, so that may not be as verbatim of the others).

I have shown it to be otherwise. So now what are you doing? Moving the goalposts again. At some point, in order to be taken seriously, you have to actually start to make claims that can be backed up with fact.

It was not a lie to believe that Saddam intended to start a nuclear program. And nowhere can I find evidence that it was claimed that he had moved beyond intent and was actively centrifuging yellowcake into fissile-grade uranium. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I don't expect it.

616

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:24:53pm

re: #613 robdouth

So a mushroom cloud if we do not act, coupled with speeches that we can not wait to go in does not imply an imminent threat? Are you really trying to argue something so insulting of everyone else's intelligence?

617

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:25:13pm

re: #611 robdouth

you are right, that is exactly my point. it may well be a good bill, and it may be that I end up disagreeing with those who voted against it. but if it passed after she was allowed her day in court, it does not have any of the moral or emotional weight that LVQ has given it so far.

618

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:25:46pm

re: #612 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes, I was exactly correct in saying that. There is more than one woman involved.

Oh. Who else was involved?

619

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:28:13pm

re: #615 Aceofwhat?

Dude just stop. I know you would like to pick apart individual phrases and debate them to death. That is really the only way you can mount a lame defense for the lies of your party. I said that they were lying because the centrifuges required did not exist. That was the main point. I said that they made a point about the Iraqis having said centrifuges - that is the point about the excerpt of Powell's speech which you have ignored twice. I said that they knew they had to be lying because physics doesn't work that way. And it doesn't. And finally I said that they pimped the idea of an imminent nuclear attack from Iraq if we do not act immediately for a year on the basis of a program they knew did not exist.

Just cut the shit. You are wasting everyone's time and fooling no one except perhaps yourself.

620

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:28:54pm

re: #618 Aceofwhat?

Oh. Who else was involved?

Why don't you research it a little yourself? There were other women from Haliburton in a similar boat.

621

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:30:21pm

re: #617 Aceofwhat?

you are right, that is exactly my point. it may well be a good bill, and it may be that I end up disagreeing with those who voted against it. but if it passed after she was allowed her day in court, it does not have any of the moral or emotional weight that LVQ has given it so far.

Yes it finally get settled in court two days before the vote. It also took years and millions of dollars to get her that day in court. As I stated before, the point of the bill was to prevent other women from suffering a similar fate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Are you really that dumb or just acting?

622

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:31:08pm

re: #570 LudwigVanQuixote

I finally found the text of the Franken Amendment. As I suspected, it has nothing to do with criminal matters. It specifically covers matters arising from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other torts. Furthermore, paragraph (b) states that the amendment only applies to enforceable employment contracts.

[Link: www.georgiayds.org...]

I just can't muster up much outrage over a pretty much meaningless bit of legislation. There is certainly nothing evil about opposing it.

623

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:32:06pm

re: #614 LudwigVanQuixote

When did I say they didn't fear monger. I in fact said they over-emphasized the threat. You can't stay on topic though. You claim imminence was argued. I prove it wrong, then you change what you are arguing and say you say "A" which is a strawman because I never said that. Gotta be easy to argue your side, you just make up what you think I say and argue against it.

624

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:33:42pm

re: #619 LudwigVanQuixote

Dude just stop. I know you would like to pick apart individual phrases and debate them to death. That is really the only way you can mount a lame defense for the lies of your party. I said that they were lying because the centrifuges required did not exist. That was the main point. I said that they made a point about the Iraqis having said centrifuges - that is the point about the excerpt of Powell's speech which you have ignored twice. I said that they knew they had to be lying because physics doesn't work that way. And it doesn't. And finally I said that they pimped the idea of an imminent nuclear attack from Iraq if we do not act immediately for a year on the basis of a program they knew did not exist.

Just cut the shit. You are wasting everyone's time and fooling no one except perhaps yourself.

Jesus, Iceweasel. It's hard to see you updinging here and think that you're as concerned about personal comments as you and I have discussed in the past. Agree or disagree, only one of us here is behaving badly. Sigh.

And LVQ - we'll stop, fine. but the point of Powells speech is that they (mistakenly, we now know) were thought to have the components of said centrifuges. You went on and on earlier about evil = any physicist would know = huge facilities required to house all of the centrifuges.

Of course there weren't huge facilities. The claim was not that they had centrifuges, but the necessary components to build centrifuges. That's what the post says. If we continue to disagree on that point, i'll rest confidently in my mastery of the English language and go on my way in peace.

I harbor you no ill will. It's a shame that the sentiment is not returned.

625

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:35:21pm

re: #624 Aceofwhat?

Jesus, Iceweasel. It's hard to see you updinging here and think that you're as concerned about personal comments as you and I have discussed in the past. Agree or disagree, only one of us here is behaving badly. Sigh.

And LVQ - we'll stop, fine. but the point of Powells speech is that they (mistakenly, we now know) were thought to have the components of said centrifuges. You went on and on earlier about evil = any physicist would know = huge facilities required to house all of the centrifuges.

Of course there weren't huge facilities. The claim was not that they had centrifuges, but the necessary components to build centrifuges. That's what the post says. If we continue to disagree on that point, i'll rest confidently in my mastery of the English language and go on my way in peace.

I harbor you no ill will. It's a shame that the sentiment is not returned.

I don't harbor you ill will Ace. I am appalled by your willful blindness.

626

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:35:23pm

re: #621 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes it finally get settled in court two days before the vote. It also took years and millions of dollars to get her that day in court. As I stated before, the point of the bill was to prevent other women from suffering a similar fate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Are you really that dumb or just acting?

no, you said the point of the bill was to protect her because she wasn't going to get her day in court.

and her decision was ONE MONTH before the bill passed, not two days.

it's interesting to be called dumb when you have an accident with those fundamental, yet straightforward details.

627

gamark Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:35:39pm

re: #604 LudwigVanQuixote

All I see are to GOP people trying their best to defend the indefensible actions of their evil party by playing word games.

I see. All those evil GOP people supporting their evil party with words.
I have a word for you: paranoia.

628

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:36:00pm

re: #625 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't harbor you ill will Ace. I am appalled by your willful blindness.

My actions are evil, and off the top of my head, i am dumb, stupid and retarded.

Feels a little like ill will. Just sayin'.

629

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:36:20pm

re: #622 gamark

To repeat...

Are you really that dumb or just acting?

630

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:38:00pm

re: #619 LudwigVanQuixote

Dude just stop. I know you would like to pick apart individual phrases and debate them to death. That is really the only way you can mount a lame defense for the lies of your party. I said that they were lying because the centrifuges required did not exist. That was the main point. I said that they made a point about the Iraqis having said centrifuges - that is the point about the excerpt of Powell's speech which you have ignored twice. I said that they knew they had to be lying because physics doesn't work that way. And it doesn't. And finally I said that they pimped the idea of an imminent nuclear attack from Iraq if we do not act immediately for a year on the basis of a program they knew did not exist.

Just cut the shit. You are wasting everyone's time and fooling no one except perhaps yourself.

remember, i am picking apart individual phrases that, to you, meant that the GOP was evil without exception. i am therefore justified in picking apart individual phrases. if it's bothersome, make fewer blanket statements in the future...at which point the contradiction of any one point won't collapse your thesis statement.

just sayin'

631

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:38:18pm

re: #628 Aceofwhat?

Yes you are defending evil with stupid and dispoven falshoods, ignoring the sufferning caused by your defense of that evil and refusing to accept basic fact. Even really basic laws of nature facts. You are doing it by playing insulting word games and trying to think you have said clever gotcha's all in the defense of a lie that started a bad war and a company that covered up a rpae and the corrupt politicians that defended it. That is pretty damn evil.

632

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:38:23pm

re: #616 LudwigVanQuixote

No I'm ignoring your personal implication of what those speeches meant to you, and telling you what was explicitly said, and was the central theme (contrary to your belief) because the argument about imminence was the biggest and longest lasting of the debates leading up to the war. I'm simply arguing only 2 things. You say they claimed imminence (which you've since said they implied), I've shown unequivocally that the opposite was explicitly stated. That's basically it. I've given you the point of scare-mongering, and Ace has also. But we won't let untruths and claims of evil be bandied about when you are using half-truths to propagate the claim. You say go back and look at the speeches, etc. I did, and the SOTU is what I came up with. The only other quotes I have about imminence of threat are from Democrats claiming that the president didn't make the case for imminent threat, which he acquiesced to already in his SOTU address.

re: #621 LudwigVanQuixote

also, are you now claiming that Franken's amendment would make it less cheap to carry out this lawsuit. It would have taken years and millions regardless of Franken's amendment. Which is the only point I've seen Ace trying to make. He stated in so many words that the law is unnecessary because she got her day in court. I guess the logical question is, how would Franken's amendment change what would happen if this were to happen again? All the illegal actions which lead to the suit and the ruling, would they have been done faster? Would there be a different outcome?

633

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:38:34pm

re: #629 LudwigVanQuixote

To repeat...

Yes it finally get settled in court two days before the vote. It also took years and millions of dollars to get her that day in court. As I stated before, the point of the bill was to prevent other women from suffering a similar fate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Are you really that dumb or just acting?

one month

634

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:38:58pm

re: #631 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes you are defending evil with stupid and dispoven falshoods, ignoring the sufferning caused by your defense of that evil and refusing to accept basic fact. Even really basic laws of nature facts. You are doing it by playing insulting word games and trying to think you have said clever gotcha's all in the defense of a lie that started a bad war and a company that covered up a rpae and the corrupt politicians that defended it. That is pretty damn evil.

and that is ill will.

635

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:39:59pm

Iceweasel - you're ok with the tone here?

636

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:40:22pm

oops, be back in a few minutes

637

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:40:49pm

re: #632 robdouth

Really, do you honestly think I am the only person in the world who took language about mushroom clouds if we don't act right away in the context of an atomic program to mean that we were going to war to stop an active atomic program? Do you really think that is not what the administration was trying to say - for a year! - at that time?

638

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:41:59pm

re: #619 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually you are being wholly inaccurate because you are claiming that we are members of the GOP because we point out intellectual inconsistencies and emotional shortcomings in your arguments. Apparently you can only see the world in black and white where those who disagree with you are evil members of the GOP. Do you realize how pathetic that sounds? I tried to remain conservative, and if you look back at my arguments against some of Charles, you can see they were weak. I've abandoned calling myself a GOP a long time ago, and I'm happy just to be a conservative-leaning independent with minor libertarian leanings, not to be confused with Ron Paul extreme libertarianism. So keep making it personal, Ace and I have remained unemotional and factual in our arguments.

639

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:42:24pm

re: #632 robdouth

And I am not saying a damn thing about cheap or less cheap with the Franken amendment at all... Where do you get that from?

Sometimes it feels like I am through the looking glass here.

640

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:45:14pm

re: #638 robdouth

What. NO I am claiming that like good little GOP people you can't look at the facts and deny or refuse to acknowledge things that everyone knows. What the hell. This has gotten comical. Are you really saying that the GOP and the Bush administration did not make the case that Saddam had an active and dangerous nuclear program? Are you honestly trying to say that this was not their justification for the war? Are you really thinking that anyone other than a GOP bot will be fooled by your stupid sophistries?

Of course it is stupid.

Of course you are spreading a lie. What is wrong with you? Do you really think other peple are that stupid. Do you really think it is not insulting to see people, grown people lie about recent events that everyone saw?

641

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:46:43pm

re: #637 LudwigVanQuixote

Again you are trying to change the topic because you can't understand the simple point I'm making. I've told you I'm with you on the scare-mongering tactics. Every party in power uses them, be it Bush for the Iraq War, Obama for passing healthcare. People are going to use rhetorical flourishes. You would argue rightly that with Bush's it led to war and death and destruction, and I would again remind you that I am with you on declaring the war a bad idea, but I will not imply nefarious motives, when the explicitly documented record proves that to be untrue.

Let me simplify:

War was a bad idea (check), Case was over-hyped (check), Imminence was rejected as the only case in which to go to war (check this is where we disagree, and the only point where we do, but you find it reason enough to be pissy about it)

Points about atomic clouds and other things (irrelevant because I said that there was scare-mongering. It doesn't change the fact that he explicity denied imminence of threat, and it doesn't change the fact that that was the central debate of the Iraq war.

642

Almost Killed by Space Hookers Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:48:29pm

re: #641 robdouth

Then really you just are playing a stupid word game for no reason. Most of the country believed the scare mongering and lies of the president. Trying to find one speech where he lied in a more equivocal way does not get rid of his message or the fact that it was clearly heard and that we did indeed go to war over it.

643

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:49:51pm

re: #639 LudwigVanQuixote

I never said you did, but you said that it took millions of dollars and years for her to get her day in court, and you said that with regards the Franken amendment being a good thing, so I asked the obvious follow-up. How will the Franken amendment change that? with or without it, it would take years and millions to sue and receive justice from an MNC right, so what does the Franken amendment really change. I've read the language, but the justice she received, and others will receive no doubt, would have been had under existing rules. It's why Ace was arguing that the law was at best superfluous in some ways. That's why it's hard to argue that voting against it is evil per se, because like every vote, you have to understand why it was. It was not a vote for pro-rape and coverup. It's much more complex than just that. So it's insulting when you boil it down to good vs. evil, black vs. white, etc. It's beneath you.

644

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:56:17pm

re: #642 LudwigVanQuixote

Again you are calling it lies, and I don't think you know what lying means because the case was made. You can agree it was weak and founded on faulty evidence or that they only chose the evidence that supported their case, which is what politicians always do, but that's different from lying. Actually though his SOTU is the pre-eminent policy speech which you can't deny, and his language is very clear and is not a lie. It's foolish both in hindsight and in what it led too, but it was not a lie. He said it's not an imminent threat, and we won't wait until it is. Again that's completely different from saying he "implied" this or that, because he was very clear a number of times in his speeches what he meant. You're reading between the lines when a simple reading of the lines is the only thing you need. You are emotionally connected to the Bush Lied People Died mantra, so you will ignore the cognitive dissonance presented by statements that directly contradict your points. So I can understand why you'd get tired. If you found me a speech or a video where Bush admits to another official that he knows what he's saying isn't true, but he wants to make the case anyway, then I'll jump on board with your lied statement, but lying takes not just untruth, but knowledge that what you're saying is untrue. The only thing we disagree on (and I have facts not implications to back it up) is that I think Bush made the argument predominantly on good faith, but used scare tactics also. You think the entire thing was a charade. You're entitled to that opinion, but it's only that, an opinion, pulled from what you feel was implied. I'm using the recorded statements to make my case and the facts bear me out more. You use far more emotional rhetoric that describe more how you felt about what was said then what was actually said.

645

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:05:48pm

re: #640 LudwigVanQuixote

I can most definitely say that the nuclear program being "active" was not the central case made for the war. You don't seem to understand the difference between reconstituting and active. Active implies the producation of enriched uranium. No one claimed he was making enriched uranium. the closest they came to that was saying it was intent to restart his program so that at some point in the future, he could enrich uranium.

You again try to tarnish anyone's arguments by calling them GOP bots. I don't understand how you think that strengthens your case when it makes you look like a whiny teenager. I'll say again, I'm not a member of the GOP anymore, and I'm not defending the decision to go to war. I'm merely presenting evidence that shows you have your facts wrong and you are trying to present your opinions as facts. I'll grant you that your opinion is settled opinion on the left, and they treat it as gospel, but again agreed upon opinion on the left does not make it a fact, it's still you opinion. You use the word "implied" it's automatically opinion, because facts are not implied, they are stated explicitly. Once you imply something, you are leaving it open for interpretation.

Call it word games, but this is the point you are arguing with me, although you go somewhat off the reservation and bounce around a lot. I'm arguing one or two very small points. It's not a lie, because the administration believed their own hype, it's just untrue and a misstatement, and imminence was not stated. You can claim in your opinion it was implied, but you cannot claim it was explicity stated, and given your desire to impeach our former president at the time, you at least have to play the legal word games that always go on in court. If you're going to assert all these things you have to back them up with more than your opinion or statements like "everyone knew blah blah blah" because what that means is actually everyone you knew thought whatever, not this is what was stated.

As for the imagery of mushroom clouds, that is political hyperbole, just like the ads showing mushroom clouds running against Goldwater. That's politics.

646

LotharBot Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:07:23pm

re: #561 LudwigVanQuixote

Do I really need to go to you tube to find the dozens of videos where Bush and Condi and Rummy et al called the program in imminent danger and argued that we really needed to go in right away because of it? You don't need to go in right away for what you are talking about.

I promise you, you cannot find a video where Bush/Condi/Rummy/Cheney/Powell argue that we are "in imminent danger" from Saddam's nuclear program, because that's not what they argued. They argued, instead, that we should not wait until the danger is imminent to act -- that the fact that Saddam was still pursuing WMD (along with violations of the No Fly Zone, the threat he posed to his own people, providing terrorists with money/haven/training, etc.) provided adequate justification to remove him from power. (You can say the justification wasn't adequate, or parts of it weren't true, but that would be a separate argument.)

It was a common misinterpretation in 2002 and 2003 to say "the threat is imminent", but that wasn't what they said. You're persisting in that misinterpretation now. But I promise you, you won't be able to find any (legitimate, unedited) video or transcript where Bush etc. argue explicitly that the nuclear threat from Saddam is imminent.

647

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:14:19pm

re: #646 LotharBot

Well put.

[Link: www.usefulwork.com...]

For the final time. Here is a post made during 2003, about the "big lie" that Bush and admin officials claimed the threat was imminent. If you actually follow the link, you will see that as a result of the SOTU address, many front page articles took what was said in that speech and claimed Bush said the threat was imminent. They never posted retractions and let their actual lie (because they knew it wasn't true and printed it anyway.) At no time did the admin say it was an imminent threat because their actual central theme was we can't wait until it's imminent.

LA Times, Paul Krugman, et al from the link I posted above were all wrong. Do I think they all lied? No, some picked up the headline and reprinted it from AP or whatever source, but the fact is that he never argued imminence, the media claimed he did incorrectly, and people like you have repeated it because you can point to headlines (innaccurate though they may be) and claim he said it.

You will either realize you're wrong, or continue to insult, and I'm not holding out hope for the first. However, history will prove you right in that we should never have gone in the first place. I wish you well LVQ, and I don't think you were purposely misleading or lying when you remembered these misleading articles because the entire media got it wrong the day after his speech. It's only human to remember things through your own feelings about them, but this is the truth on this small point.

648

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:23:20pm

robdouth, lotharbot, great points throughout. much less proof is required for me/us to show that "X was not evil" as opposed to "X was unwise". for some reason, LVQ continues to believe that disputing the former is akin to disputing the latter. it will only lessen his ability to be persuasive on other fronts, imho, and it's a shame. if hyperbole is a negative trait in one's ideological opposition, it's no more favorable when the shoe is on our foot.

649

Aceofwhat? Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:26:19pm

re: #639 LudwigVanQuixote

And I am not saying a damn thing about cheap or less cheap with the Franken amendment at all... Where do you get that from?

Sometimes it feels like I am through the looking glass here.

then what purpose did the bill serve, if the courts have ruled against Halliburton? if the bill doesn't make it possible (because it already was) or even cheaper, then how could opposition to the bill be evil?

again, i'm not saying the bill was good or bad. but it sure as hell looks like opposition to the bill (in express contrast to what you stated above) is nowhere near equivalent to "allowing companies to rape their employees".

650

robdouth Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:56:07pm

re: #649 Aceofwhat?

That's the only thing I thought you were arguing. I don't know why saying that opposing the bill doesn't mean allowing rape has to be conflated with defending the GOP. Look, most of what they've done lately is sad and indefensible, but that doesn't mean you just allow any willy-nilly irresponsible smear to be thrown just because of your bias and ingrained hatred of the GOP. I find both parties to be disgusting, especially when out of power, but since the GOP is out of power right now, they'll be more disgusting now. However, that doesn't give you the right to make an assinine slur against a party as being pro rape of women because they didn't agree to a law you think is good law.

Let's just be sensible for a second. If the only provision in the amendment was literally following wording, "It shall no longer be allowed that employees of a company can rape another person", it still doesn't matter how the senate votes on it because that is already illegal and prosecutable under current law. It would be seen as a waste of legislative time. If I voted against that on the basis of it being political posturing and a ridiculous amendment because it's already against the law, does that mean I'm pro-rape? You have to think seriously about it. I know I'm boiling it down to extremes, but when you do, you realize how silly it is to say that not voting for A means I'm in favor of the opposite.

651

Ilan Toren Tue, Feb 2, 2010 7:25:21pm

There seems to be a 1:1 correspondence between the Fundamentalists beliefs and Republicans in this poll and that contradicts overall voting patterns.

Nothing about gender, age, income divisions, education level, professional affiliation either. Given the scope of the poll those are all important criteria and add about 15 levels to the analysis (gender = 2, age = 4 etc.) Yeah, polling is not like an epidemiology study or verifying a diet in relation to coronary risk. It is not meant to be some conclusive statement that can be extrapolated back to the entire group. That might be how it is being used by some people, but then again not everyone gets nerdy about methodology.

652

claire Tue, Feb 2, 2010 9:36:00pm

re: #646 LotharBot

That's how I remember it as well. And what always gets conveniently left out of this deja-vu like discussion is the 1st Gulf War, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his subsequent ass-whupping. He was left in power and thus obligated to comply with strict sanctions and constraints enforced by a world-wide coalition (not just the U.S.) that he gleefully violated the rules of, and played games with, at every opportunity. It wasn't like Iraq was just this random country full of "brown people" that the world had no prior history with, and a bunch of evull war-mongerers suddenly decided to swoop down on it just to drink Iraqi blood and cry havoc for no reason whatsoever.

653

pyrodoctor Wed, Feb 3, 2010 6:59:14am

I think the Kos stamp of approval throws a bad light upon the numbers in the poll because the likelihood of both moonbats and right wing trolls skunking the results is pretty high, but I think that the general results are probably correct.

I would love to see the GOP jettison the social conservatives. I don't think it is going to happen which dooms us to violent pendulum swings from left to right and back to the left in every election until saner heads prevail.

654

[deleted] Wed, Feb 3, 2010 7:51:34pm

655

Pete(Detroit) Wed, Feb 3, 2010 9:12:44pm

Wow.
Imagine my surprise, this is still collecting comments.
For the express purpose of killing this thread, I'm jumping in...
(added - apparently, it's gonna take two...)

QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
-- For what? no crime, no impeach. I don't recall that he's done anything "illegal" (as president) yet...

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
-- Silly me, I thought "redistribution of wealth" (see also "equality of result) was a prime socialist concept. There seems to be some debate on this, I know.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
-- Better question - Does he want US to WIN?

QUESTION: Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?
-- Let's see - She was 1) Town Council member 2) Mayor 3) Governor
He was 1) campus radical 2) "community organizer" 3) Law Professor
She's had to actually justify results, answer to constituants, make budgets, make decisions. His primary talents of Speaking Well (which, I fully admit he does, from a prompter) and running for the Next Big Job seem to have pretty much played out.
Seems obvious to me.

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
-- No, he hates SUCCESSFUL people - he doesn't care what color they are
-- well, that or CONSERVATIVE, INDEPENDENT people. But no, not racist
-- Unless you think that "typical white woman" comment about his grandmother has any significance...

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
YES: 23%
NO: 58%
NOT SURE: 19%
-- More of a comment on the President's direction, than anything else - and most, MANY most, said 'no'..

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?
OPPOSE: 59%
-- What part of 'illegal' do you not understand?
IF there is a legit need (15 % unemployment? yeah, right) for "illegals" let's come up w/ a documentation process... (to document the undocumented) Full citizenship? PUH-LEEZE
I have a Canadian sis-in-law, and Russian and German friends who have (had) to jump through hoops - why poo on them?

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
YES: 26%
NO: 55%
NOT SURE: 19%
-- Ok, I'm on board w/ the WTF on this one - I mean, who really gives a crap? Then again, not having served, perhaps I'm not qualified to have an opinion (in all seriousness)

656

Pete(Detroit) Wed, Feb 3, 2010 9:12:54pm

QUESTION: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
-- Obvious answer - get "the state" OUT of "marriage"
Issue ALL couples "domestic partnership" licenses
If you want "Marriage" talk to a fargin' CHURCH and leave the REST of us the heck OUT of it.. .

QUESTION: Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
-- Tough one. How 'bout benefits to "partner" if / ONLY if staying home to raise kids. Gay or Straight, same policy

QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
-- Again, WTF - what's the issue here - are we SERIOUSLY worried about "recruiting" as opposed to "born that way"?
If they're SEDUCING the students, that's pretty well covered already..

QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?
-- Yes - but "abstinence" is the ONLY 100% effective contraceptive

QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
-- Eek

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
NO: 56%
-- Again, "healthy" "NO" respone

QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?
YES: 76%
QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?
YES: 91%
-- Can we just consider it a "retroactive abortion"?

QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
-- DUH!! and Buddhists go to Nirvana, and Muslims get "Paradise" etc, etc...
What an a$$hole question...

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Poll: Bad Craziness in the GOP Base, Part 2

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud