Rick Santorum Compares Legal Abortion to Slavery

WingnutsJanuary 2011 • Views: 32,819

Religious right spokeshole Rick Santorum is in the news today for playing the race card on President Obama, by comparing legal abortions to slavery.

Discussing Obama’s views on abortion during a two-hour sit-down with CNS News on Thursday, Santorum said the president’s pro-choice position meant he was valuing some lives over others.

“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution?” he said. “And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”

That might seem pretty tone-deaf (to say the least), but this kind of talking point is very common among anti-choice fundamentalists like Santorum. They see the issue in stark black and white with no room for reasonable people to disagree, which means that those who support safe, legal abortions aren’t just mistaken or wrong — they’re evil. And evil monsters are capable of anything; slavery, mass murder, genocide, every hideous crime.

That absolutist world-view is also what drives the periodic eruptions of violence from the more extreme anti-choice groups. If your enemies are committing mass murder of innocents on a gigantic scale, anything is justified if it stops them.

After the statement above, Santorum followed up and made this demonization even more explicit.

For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.

Jump to bottom

350 comments

jamesfirecat Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:16:52pm

Another proud day in the history of GOP minority outreach.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:19:27pm

And if a woman is raped and gets pregnant from her attacker, it is God’s Plan that she have the baby, then never get any sort of government assistance because she should have been prepared to have the child and not come looking for a government handout, the whiny crybaby.

Jeff In Ohio Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:19:29pm

I think the remarkable thing was his sweeping implication that black people have a moral obligation to abidcate thier bodies to state dictates,

Oh yeah, that seems more like slavery.

Rick Santorum / Feus Inajar ‘12

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:20:13pm

The idea that abortion is creating a black genocide of sorts has been going around in some circles for a long time. It began as a pro-life argument, but seems to occasionally expand into a reason that African-Americans should vote Republican. So far this has not been effective, to put it mildly.

In this case, it sounds more like a nasty slam on Obama than an attempt at outreach, however.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:20:58pm

This is another push on their “personhood campaign” so they can enforce their religious views on everyone.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:21:37pm

You can thank the middle and western parts of my home state, PA, for this colossal piece of excrement. Frankly, he would fit right in with most of the people in that part of the state, with the exception of Pittsburgh, which is a lovely town, and a progressive bastion amid the surrounding lunacy.

McSpiff Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:21:40pm

Y MINORITIES NO VOTE 4 US?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:21:44pm

politico.com

jamesfirecat Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:22:31pm

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

This is another push on their “personhood campaign” so they can enforce their religious views on everyone.

The Violinist argument needs to become far more common place than it currently is.

I will grant a fetus person hood hypothetically speaking… but this begs the question… does a person A have a right to use person B’s organs without their permission?

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:24:08pm

re: #8 000G

[Link: www.politico.com…]

Word:

Garry South Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group :
Rick Santorum is a zealot and a fringe candidate. Using race to question someone’s support for a woman’s right to choose is ludicrous on the face of it. Santorum is turning himself into a male version of Sarah Palin, using outrageous rhetoric and non-sequiturs to get himself noticed. He has as much chance of being president as I do, so his views really don’t matter.

elizajane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:24:15pm

The whole “personhood campaign” is completely bogus. Until the Republicans start voting for fetuses to be eligible for coverage under SCHIP, nobody can possibly take them seriously on this.

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:24:35pm

This makes me feel sick.

I’m going to make some soup.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:24:43pm

re: #4 SanFranciscoZionist

The idea that abortion is creating a black genocide of sorts has been going around in some circles for a long time. It began as a pro-life argument, but seems to occasionally expand into a reason that African-Americans should vote Republican. So far this has not been effective, to put it mildly.

In this case, it sounds more like a nasty slam on Obama than an attempt at outreach, however.

Right, it’s a common propaganda point. Sarah Palin’s ghostwriter Lynn Vincent is infamous for writing an article titled “Black Genocide.”

littlegreenfootballs.com

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:25:24pm

re: #3 Jeff In Ohio

I think the remarkable thing was his sweeping implication that black people have a moral obligation to abidcate thier bodies to state dictates,

Oh yeah, that seems more like slavery.

“Pro-life” people never seem to realize the logical conclusions of their arguments: Either hand over women’s bodies to the state and forcing women who will get abortions anyhow into black markets and back alleys…

And that absolutist world-view is also what drives the periodic eruptions of violence from the more extreme anti-choice groups. If your enemies are committing mass murder of innocents on a gigantic scale, anything is justified if it stops them.

… or perpetrate “vigilante justice” (see Tiller murder).

Jeff In Ohio Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:26:02pm

Palin, Santorum, Newtron, Hackabee…2012 is going to be a colossal cluster fuck of medieval thinking. I’m really looking forward to these people one upping each other on their moral ladder to nowhere.

wrenchwench Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:26:32pm

“Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”
In the CNS interview, Santorum also opposed giving homosexuals the right to marry and said it’s a “disservice” for society to allow gay couples to adopt children.

“This is common sense,” he said. “This is nature. And what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society. I just don’t think that’s to the benefit of society or the child.”

So, fetuses and embryos have more rights than gay adults. Do I have that right? Gays are the new black?

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:26:54pm

re: #8 000G

[Link: www.politico.com…]

This guy says it pretty well:

Mike Fraioli
President, Fraioli & Associates :

All of the Republican presidential candidates are looking for a way to break out of the pack. They know that in order to get attention, they have to appeal to the hard right base in their party – which is generally the only way to win a Republican presidential primary. Same as Sarah Palin with her “death panels” and her latest “blood libel,” Santorum is looking for the limelight.

Hard to imagine that they want to have the 2012 election be a debate about social issues, but go for it.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:27:21pm

re: #13 Charles

Right, it’s a common propaganda point. Sarah Palin’s ghostwriter Lynn Vincent is infamous for writing an article titled “Black Genocide.”

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

That’s also been a staple of Alex Jones’ show for years, of course, “black genocide” as a form of New World Order eugenics:

Youtube Video

jamesfirecat Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:27:31pm

re: #14 000G

“Pro-life” people never seem to realize the logical conclusions of their arguments: Either hand over women’s bodies to the state and forcing women who will get abortions anyhow into black markets and back alleys…

… or perpetrate “vigilante justice” (see Tiller murder).

No the logical conclusion they really never get is that once you’ve ruled that the state has a right to make your body not your own if it can save someone else’s life… say hello to everyone being forced to getting a mandatory kidney transplants/blood donations….

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:28:52pm

re: #13 Charles

Right, it’s a common propaganda point. Sarah Palin’s ghostwriter Lynn Vincent is infamous for writing an article titled “Black Genocide.”

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

It also ties into some of the loonier attacks on Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a bit of an asshole, and far from the role model some people hold her up as, but that does not negate the good work she did. Pretending that making birth control available to the black community, with the assistance of black leaders, was a racist act, is just annoying.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:28:56pm

re: #19 jamesfirecat

No the logical conclusion they really never get is that once you’ve ruled that the state has a right to make your body not your own if it can save someone else’s life… say hello to everyone being forced to getting a mandatory kidney transplants/blood donations…

Errr: huffingtonpost.com

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:29:17pm

re: #19 jamesfirecat

No the logical conclusion they really never get is that once you’ve ruled that the state has a right to make your body not your own if it can save someone else’s life… say hello to everyone being forced to getting a mandatory kidney transplants/blood donations…

Oh come on now. You’ve got 2 kidneys. Why are you being so greedy?

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:30:01pm

re: #22 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh come on now. You’ve got 2 kidneys. Why are you being so greedy?

I have a friend who needs one. If anyone was looking to declutter their organs a bit.

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:30:27pm

The dream legislation is 100% illegality of any abortion, penalty to both provider and patient.

The consequence is El Salvador which has had exactly this since 1998.

Try to get a “pro-life” warrior (yes, I used scare quotes) to confront this and at best you get, “But we’re different. We’re the United States.”

reloadingisnotahobby Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:30:39pm

re: #22 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh come on now. You’ve got 2 kidneys. Why are you being so greedy?

Two EYES is so redundant…….//

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:31:57pm

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

It also ties into some of the loonier attacks on Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a bit of an asshole, and far from the role model some people hold her up as, but that does not negate the good work she did. Pretending that making birth control available to the black community, with the assistance of black leaders, was a racist act, is just annoying.

It’s based on the false premise that anything that prevents a certain group from rising in numbers or from not declining in numbers needs to be seen as a hostile act bent on destroying or harming that group. You can see that false premise also in the socialist movement in the early 20th century in Germany. A lot of socialist leaders were arguing against birth control measures provided by the state, arguing that it was a cynical bourgeois plot to reduce the proletariat from reaching critical mass. I kid you not.

aagcobb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:33:11pm

re: #11 elizajane

The whole “personhood campaign” is completely bogus. Until the Republicans start voting for fetuses to be eligible for coverage under SCHIP, nobody can possibly take them seriously on this.

I think they would prefer to equalize treatment for fetuses and children by abolishing SCHIP

wrenchwench Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:34:23pm

Santorum uses the “against nature” argument against gay marriage, but if you consult “nature” about abortion, well, first of all, there are thousands of “natural” abortions every month, and secondly, it looks like “nature” has put the control over life and death in the hands of the woman.

#CPAC: I Have A Short Mingle Stick.THANKS OBAMA. Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:34:42pm

You know what else is comparable to slavery? Slavery. If he thinks slavery is so bad why isn’t he steaming mad at others in his own party who actually justify slavery? like this super star…Here

Petero1818 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:37:12pm

Santorum’s problem is that even if you choose to ascribe to a fetus personhood you still can’t get them to vote.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:38:11pm

And this is the real danger from the Republican party. Once you get enough ‘True Believers’ Together on anything, then it’s incredibly easy to demonize, dehumanize and diminish anyone who opposes you. Even if Civil law is on the side of the ‘evil’ people, a ‘True Believer’ will cite ‘moral’ law as a reason to justify their actions. (see: Tiller) The ends justify the means, and it doesn’t matter how you accomplish your goals for the greater good. Because if you’re saving souls, then who cares about the mortal life, right?

Which makes any sort of fundamentalism that much more dangerous when it gains control of a political party. Because then the very aspects of society that can control and maintain a secular law become threatened. Secular law and society is incompatible with fundamentalism. It doesn’t matter if it’s Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or whatever other religion that’s out there. Any religion that gets controls of the secular levers of power will use that power for the advancement of their causes, no matter what the means or consequences.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:39:09pm

re: #26 000G

It’s based on the false premise that anything that prevents a certain group from rising in numbers or from not declining in numbers needs to be seen as a hostile act bent on destroying or harming that group. You can see that false premise also in the socialist movement in the early 20th century in Germany. A lot of socialist leaders were arguing against birth control measures provided by the state, arguing that it was a cynical bourgeois plot to reduce the proletariat from reaching critical mass. I kid you not.

Birth control is something I’m a bit passionate about. I don’t think most women my age understand how hard it was to get the right to control your fertility, and how essentially important it is.

I’ve used Plan B. People like Santorum would like for that to be unavailable to me. There was a time when condoms were illegal to manufacture or sell in this country, and frankly, I think he might also like a return to that.

I take this personally.

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:40:50pm

re: #30 Petero1818

Santorum’s problem is that even if you choose to ascribe to a fetus personhood you still can’t get them to vote.

As far as I know, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 year old girls can’t vote, either, but if they get pregnant, Santorum wants to protect their fetuses regardless of the consequences for the girls themselves.

wrenchwench Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:41:37pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

I don’t think most women my age understand how hard it was to get the right to control your fertility, and how essentially important it is.

And I don’t think most women of any age understand how easy it is to lose that right, how it’s being lost a little bit almost every day.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:41:39pm

Smaller government! The government is oppressing us, and taking away our freedoms!

Also, the government should really start making more laws forbidding gays, minorities, and women from having the same rights as Aryan Jesus intended only white people to have. /

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:41:48pm

re: #25 reloadingisnotahobby

Two EYES is so redundant…//

Maybe we should start asking for that extra testicle…

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:42:12pm

re: #29 Cankles McCellulite

You know what else is comparable to slavery? Slavery. If he thinks slavery is so bad why isn’t he steaming mad at others in his own party who actually justify slavery? like this super star…Here

The Levitical practice of slavery was actually tied to the penal system. There were no prisons in ancient Hebrew society. People convicted of theft were sentenced to servitude until they worked off the amount of the goods they stole.

dmon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:42:39pm

I’m confused……his stance is that a fetus, conceived on U.S, is an American citizen from the moment of conception…….. but brown children born on U.S, soil are not?

dmon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:44:12pm

re: #38 dmon

I’m confused…his stance is that a fetus, conceived on U.S soil, is an American citizen from the moment of conception… but brown children born on U.S, soil are not?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:44:14pm

the frothy mixture

Lidane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:44:46pm

I can’t even look at the word Santorum without thinking of Dan Savage. It’s just how it is.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:45:38pm

re: #41 Lidane

I can’t even look at the word Santorum without thinking of Dan Savage. It’s just how it is.

that’s how great Dan Savage is :D

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:45:38pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

Birth control is something I’m a bit passionate about. I don’t think most women my age understand how hard it was to get the right to control your fertility, and how essentially important it is.

I’ve used Plan B. People like Santorum would like for that to be unavailable to me. There was a time when condoms were illegal to manufacture or sell in this country, and frankly, I think he might also like a return to that.

I take this personally.

Quoted for Truth!

According the the survery I saw from PPP, a significant minority of Republicans felt that birth control should be outlawed. I don’t have the numbers off hand but I want to say it was between 25 and 30%

Plan B? We’re fortunate that it’s as available as it is. and it’s been through the tireless efforts of people to break through the FUD thrown at us by the fundamentalists that it’s on the US markets.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:46:23pm

Oftopic: I am pleased to see that pointing out China’s flaws in human rights seems to be a bipartisan issue: washingtonpost.com

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:46:55pm

re: #38 dmon

I’m confused…his stance is that a fetus, conceived on U.S, is an American citizen from the moment of conception… but brown children born on U.S, soil are not?

Yes. That is exactly his stance.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:47:08pm

re: #43 bloodstar

Quoted for Truth!

According the the survery I saw from PPP, a significant minority of Republicans felt that birth control should be outlawed. I don’t have the numbers off hand but I want to say it was between 25 and 30%

Plan B? We’re fortunate that it’s as available as it is. and it’s been through the tireless efforts of people to break through the FUD thrown at us by the fundamentalists that it’s on the US markets.

I can understand the principled stand against abortion

Americans against birth control? Those are the americans who show up in that bible belt documentary who are completely disconnected from reality

Talking Point Detective Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:47:26pm

Speaking of rightwing extremism…

I just ran across this. Where does the following statement come from? A Tea Party leader? Glenn Beck? Michelle Bachmann? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Alex Jones?:

“A new party is urgently needed today because the leaders of the two existing parties, Democrat and Republican, have deserted the principles and traditions of our nation’s founding fathers. Both of the existing parties have become the proponents of big government, crushing taxation, dictatorial federal power, waste and fiscal irresponsibility, unwholesome and disastrous internationalism, compromise with our nation’s enemies, and authoritarian regimentation of the citizens of this Republic. Control of the government, under the domination of these two existing parties, has left the hands of the people our government was created to serve.”

Actually,

This was the statement if “principles” issued by the American Independence Party in 1967. You know the American Independence Party, right? That’s the party that ran perhaps the most infamous segregationist in American history - George Wallace - for president.

Lidane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:48:47pm

re: #35 Fozzie Bear

Smaller government! The government is oppressing us, and taking away our freedoms!

Didn’t you know? These moralistic, self-righteous assholes want a government small enough to live in a woman’s uterus or in your bedroom. Or both. =P

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:48:57pm

re: #47 Talking Point Detective

Speaking of rightwing extremism…

I just ran across this. Where does the following statement come from? A Tea Party leader? Glenn Beck? Michelle Bachmann? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Alex Jones?:

Actually,

This was the statement if “principles” issued by the American Independence Party in 1967. You know the American Independence Party, right? That’s the party that ran perhaps the most infamous segregationist in American history - George Wallace - for president.

so there’s two completely different far right wing crazyass parties, one called American Independence, the other called Independent American? :D

That’s hilarious

simoom Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:49:58pm

Here’s some video of that Santorum appearance, courtesy of RightWingWatch.

Race-baiting:

Youtube Video

Homophobia:

Youtube Video

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:50:00pm

re: #47 Talking Point Detective

Speaking of rightwing extremism…

I just ran across this. Where does the following statement come from? A Tea Party leader? Glenn Beck? Michelle Bachmann? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Alex Jones?:

Actually,

This was the statement if “principles” issued by the American Independence Party in 1967. You know the American Independence Party, right? That’s the party that ran perhaps the most infamous segregationist in American history - George Wallace - for president.

And also the political party of which Todd Palin was a card-carrying member for a decade, and for whom Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at their yearly convention, just before she was tapped as McCain’s running mate.

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:51:07pm

re: #49 WindUpBird

so there’s two completely different far right wing crazyass parties, one called American Independence, the other called Independent American? :D

That’s hilarious

SPLITTERS!

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:51:13pm

re: #50 simoom

remember Santorum’s concession speech picture?

#CPAC: I Have A Short Mingle Stick.THANKS OBAMA. Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:51:34pm

Very similar to some ancient American societiesre: #37 Alouette

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:51:50pm

re: #52 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

SPLITTERS!

“We have tricorne hats!” “We have puffy hunter’s jackets!” “We have trucker caps!” “WE HAVE TRUCKER CAPS TOO!”

*fight*

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:52:28pm

re: #53 WindUpBird

the best part is the son on the right, he just has this look of “get me the fuck out of this place”

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:52:40pm

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

And also the political party of which Todd Palin was a card-carrying member for a decade, and for whom Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at their yearly convention, just before she was tapped as McCain’s running mate.

Speaking of McCain…he showed his continued lack of judgment again by suggesting Lieberman (who still believes Saddam was trying to get WMDs and said as much yesterday, despite the fact that even loyal Bushies gave up that argument years ago) would be a good Secretary of Defense.

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:53:07pm

TODAY ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW

Alex welcomes back to the show author Jerome Corsi who will address the Obama birth certificate issue. Corsi is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command. He also writes for WorldNetDaily and Human Events. Alex covers the latest news and takes your calls.

Truth!

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:53:12pm

re: #57 darthstar

Speaking of McCain…he showed his continued lack of judgment again by suggesting Lieberman (who still believes Saddam was trying to get WMDs and said as much yesterday, despite the fact that even loyal Bushies gave up that argument years ago) would be a good Secretary of Defense.

So glad liebermann is going, god that guy

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:53:57pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

TODAY ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW

Truth!

once Obama is out of office he’s going to have to find a new crazy conspiracy

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:54:19pm

re: #53 WindUpBird

remember Santorum’s concession speech picture?

I’d be crying if I was forced to wear that dress, too. And the other kids look more doped up than a domestic caribou set up as a target for a Palin photo shoot.

elizajane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:54:34pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

Birth control is something I’m a bit passionate about. I don’t think most women my age understand how hard it was to get the right to control your fertility, and how essentially important it is.

I’ve used Plan B. People like Santorum would like for that to be unavailable to me. There was a time when condoms were illegal to manufacture or sell in this country, and frankly, I think he might also like a return to that.

I take this personally.

I see it as a class issue. The more wealthy & educated women and their daughters are always going to have choices. Even many Republican mothers will justify flying to New York or, if necessary, to Amsterdam if their 17-year-old daughter, Yale acceptance letter clutched in her fist, is pregnant. The person with no choice is the poor kid in North Dakota who would have gone to community college and bettered her life but when she got pregnant (since nobody ever offered her any information about birth control) her boyfriend up and joined the army and now she’s working at the hair salon 3 days a week while grandma looks after the baby.

Does anybody on the Right ever wonder while we are now tied with England as Western Society with the LEAST Social Mobility? Is the idea that if you just keep saying “we are the land of opportunity” it will magically be so, no matter what the facts demonstrate?

Or perhaps they can find a way to stop collecting those sociological facts too, like the science ones.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:54:57pm

A case study in how Fox News reports a story vs. how Fox News Latino reports it mm4a.org

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:55:06pm

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

And also the political party of which Todd Palin was a card-carrying member for a decade, and for whom Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at their yearly convention, just before she was tapped as McCain’s running mate.

No, FB, that’s another AIP—the Alaska Independence Party. Secessionists. Ya gotta keep your nut-groups straight.

dmon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:55:44pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

Most of the Birthers have abandoned the birth certificate issue, and have moved on to the TOTALLY logical stance that since his father had British citizenship, he is not natural born….. I mean that whole two citizen parents thing is right there in the constitution//

mikefromArlington Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:56:06pm

Hey Charles, your buddy Hoft has set off a right wing half a brain storm with his claims that Michelle Obama’s initiatives to get in shape are responsible for pedestrian deaths.

gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com

Daily Caller and Washington Examiner both ran with the story in the end it appears.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:56:25pm

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

And also the political party of which Todd Palin was a card-carrying member for a decade, and for whom Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at their yearly convention, just before she was tapped as McCain’s running mate.

AIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, so hated the US that he had himself buried in Canada, so he didn’t have to be buried under a US flag.

Sarah Palin, “real american”, was the keynote speaker at a secessionist political party’s convention, moths before becoming a VP candidate for the US executive.

Why do you hate America, Sister Sarah?

Talking Point Detective Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:56:57pm

re: #49 WindUpBird

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

Actually, my bad. That is the American Independent Party.

I thought that Palin was connected to the Alaska Independent Party - are they a local sub-group?

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:56:58pm

re: #46 WindUpBird

I can understand the principled stand against abortion

Americans against birth control? Those are the americans who show up in that bible belt documentary who are completely disconnected from reality

Except that we have an entire reality show based on people who are against birth control.

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:57:11pm

re: #60 WindUpBird

once Obama is out of office he’s going to have to find a new crazy conspiracy

Maybe but I’m starting to think the Republican-Libertarian convergence may be permanent. If that’s the case Republicans will stick to a whole array of conspiracy theories. There’s a lot to choose from.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:58:05pm

re: #62 elizajane

I see it as a class issue. The more wealthy & educated women and their daughters are always going to have choices. Even many Republican mothers will justify flying to New York or, if necessary, to Amsterdam if their 17-year-old daughter, Yale acceptance letter clutched in her fist, is pregnant. The person with no choice is the poor kid in North Dakota who would have gone to community college and bettered her life but when she got pregnant (since nobody ever offered her any information about birth control) her boyfriend up and joined the army and now she’s working at the hair salon 3 days a week while grandma looks after the baby.

Does anybody on the Right ever wonder while we are now tied with England as Western Society with the LEAST Social Mobility? Is the idea that if you just keep saying “we are the land of opportunity” it will magically be so, no matter what the facts demonstrate?

Or perhaps they can find a way to stop collecting those sociological facts too, like the science ones.

Add to that that having fewer choices at one juncture adds to even fewer choices further down the line. It is an often ignored fact of the modern industrial world that raising children costs money. Raising a lot of children costs a lot of money. It can keep a family very impoverished.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:59:02pm

re: #61 darthstar

I’d be crying if I was forced to wear that dress, too. And the other kids look more doped up than a domestic caribou set up as a target for a Palin photo shoot.

The boy just looks terrified. As though he’s noticed that Cthulu is starting to come through the door.

I feel for the crying one though. Her classmates WILL find that photo.

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:59:20pm

re: #16 wrenchwench

So, fetuses and embryos have more rights than gay adults. Do I have that right? Gays are the new black?

Nah. Dubliners are the new Black, unless gays are Dubliners?

google.com

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:59:36pm

re: #68 Talking Point Detective

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

Actually, my bad. That is the American Independent Party.

I thought that Palin was connected to the Alaska Independent Party - are they a local sub-group?

Different groups. The AIP to which I was referring is the “Alaska Independence Party”.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 12:59:37pm

re: #70 Killgore Trout

Maybe but I’m starting to think the Republican-Libertarian convergence may be permanent. If that’s the case Republicans will stick to a whole array of conspiracy theories. There’s a lot to choose from.

You don’t think it’s just a matter of being out of power and if they got all of congress and the POTUS back they would turn their back on the paranoia again? But then again, how likely is it that the GOP will come up with an electable candidate for 2012…

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:00:39pm

re: #60 WindUpBird

once Obama is out of office he’s going to have to find a new crazy conspiracy

I’m sure he’ll manage to dream one up, and get plenty of suckers to send him money to fight the good fight.

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:02:12pm

re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist

The boy just looks terrified. As though he’s noticed that Cthulu is starting to come through the door.

I feel for the crying one though. Her classmates WILL find that photo.

Those kids are being raised in such a sheltered environment that the closest their classmates will come to seeing the internet will be reading the Bible on a Kindle.

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:02:55pm

re: #75 000G

You don’t think it’s just a matter of being out of power and if they got all of congress and the POTUS back they would turn their back on the paranoia again? But then again, how likely is it that the GOP will come up with an electable candidate for 2012…

I’m not sure they’ll return to sanity. Glenn Beck, the return of the Birch Society and acceptance of 9-11 truthers (even hosting Fox News shows), revisionist history, etc have poisoned the well possibly too much. Republicans will probably gain the Senate some time soon but I think it’s going to be quite some time before they gain the Presidency again.

jaunte Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:03:22pm

re: #75 000G

Paranoia seems to be a winning strategy as a motivator.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:03:42pm

re: #75 000G

You don’t think it’s just a matter of being out of power and if they got all of congress and the POTUS back they would turn their back on the paranoia again? But then again, how likely is it that the GOP will come up with an electable candidate for 2012…

The GOP has demonstrated time and again that they can throw a lot of smoke into the air when they need to, and for a short time, get even relatively reasonable people to turn against each other.

I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the GOP to win in 2012. All it takes is enough propaganda, and the Citizen’s United decision has ensured that sufficient money can be raised and spent without scrutiny.

How close did McCain/Palin get? Closer than I am fucking comfortable with. The GOP has made gains since then.

The GOP could win in 2012, even with a nutbag as a candidate. They have the most-watched news network on their side, and a metric assload of people who with deep pockets who would benefit financially. Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:04:18pm

re: #77 darthstar

Those kids are being raised in such a sheltered environment that the closest their classmates will come to seeing the internet will be reading the Bible on a Kindle.

Santorum was the one who brought the miscarried baby home to bond with the family right?

can’t keep em straight.

/fetusinajar ht JiO

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:04:28pm

re: #79 jaunte

Paranoia seems to be a winning strategy as a motivator.

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:05:29pm

re: #81 Stanley Sea

Santorum was the one who brought the miscarried baby home to bond with the family right?

can’t keep em straight.

/fetusinajar ht JiO

Yep…that’s him.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:05:42pm

re: #78 Killgore Trout

I’m not sure they’ll return to sanity. Glenn Beck, the return of the Birch Society and acceptance of 9-11 truthers (even hosting Fox News shows), revisionist history, etc have poisoned the well possibly too much. Republicans will probably gain the Senate some time soon but I think it’s going to be quite some time before they gain the Presidency again.

Well, maybe it will be time enough to reverse the trend in time. Already with the capture of the House you can see some cracks in the alliance of imbecile paranoids on the Right.

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:06:23pm

re: #81 Stanley Sea

Santorum was the one who brought the miscarried baby home to bond with the family right?

can’t keep em straight.

/fetusinajar ht JiO

Seems to have been a bit of that creepy crap in GWB’s history as well. Do two cases make a meme?

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:07:08pm

re: #80 Fozzie Bear

The GOP has demonstrated time and again that they can throw a lot of smoke into the air when they need to, and for a short time, get even relatively reasonable people to turn against each other.

I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the GOP to win in 2012. All it takes is enough propaganda, and the Citizen’s United decision has ensured that sufficient money can be raised and spent without scrutiny.

How close did McCain/Palin get? Closer than I am fucking comfortable with. The GOP has made gains since then.

The GOP could win in 2012, even with a nutbag as a candidate. They have the most-watched news network on their side, and a metric assload of people who with deep pockets who would benefit financially. Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

Also consider this: the economy just is NOT likely to be significantly improved by 2012. If we are lcuky, unemployment will go down by a point and a half, but that seems decreasingly likely. The real estate crisis is now a foreclosure crisis, and it will take a loooong time to unwind. Obama will be saddled with it, and the GOP will seem like a viable alternative to what, by then, will be considered “Obama’s recession”.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:07:24pm

re: #80 Fozzie Bear

The GOP could win in 2012, even with a nutbag as a candidate. They have the most-watched news network on their side, and a metric assload of people who with deep pockets who would benefit financially. Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

I dunno. Presidential elections have higher turnouts than Midturns and are more decided by independent/swing voters than partisans. I don’t think propaganda can be very decisive in 2012.

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:08:21pm

re: #65 dmon

Most of the Birthers have abandoned the birth certificate issue, and have moved on to the TOTALLY logical stance that since his father had British citizenship, he is not natural born… I mean that whole two citizen parents thing is right there in the constitution//

No, no, no, Obama is actually the secret son of Malcolm X. Just completely ignore the fact that Malcolm X was a U.S. citizen (that’s what the birthers do).

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:08:46pm

So basically, don’t let yourselves snark your way to a sense of security. Obama is facing a tough fight in 2012, and he might lose. It’s a very real possibility, not just an outside chance.

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:08:48pm

re: #86 Fozzie Bear

Also consider this: the economy just is NOT likely to be significantly improved by 2012. If we are lcuky, unemployment will go down by a point and a half, but that seems decreasingly likely. The real estate crisis is now a foreclosure crisis, and it will take a looong time to unwind. Obama will be saddled with it, and the GOP will seem like a viable alternative to what, by then, will be considered “Obama’s recession”.

I’d rather go into 2012 a little depressed than over-confident. You’re doing a great job, then.

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:08:50pm

re: #72 SanFranciscoZionist

The boy just looks terrified. As though he’s noticed that Cthulu is starting to come through the door.

I feel for the crying one though. Her classmates WILL find that photo.

She’s probably home schooled.

darthstar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:10:36pm

re: #91 Sionainn

She’s probably home schooled.

by Pastor Terry Jones.

elizajane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:11:22pm

re: #89 Fozzie Bear

So basically, don’t let yourselves snark your way to a sense of security. Obama is facing a tough fight in 2012, and he might lose. It’s a very real possibility, not just an outside chance.

To whom do you see him losing?

I’m really curious. Any candidate with the slightest competence seems likely to be eaten alive by the far right. Can the Republicans actually nominate a candidate acceptable to Independents and if so, who, and how do you see that process playing out?

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:12:01pm

re: #82 000G

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

Not any Democrats I know.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:12:11pm

re: #87 000G

I dunno. Presidential elections have higher turnouts than Midturns and are more decided by independent/swing voters than partisans. I don’t think propaganda can be very decisive in 2012.

We have never had an election cycle where there is no limit on PAC spending for issue advocacy. This is uncharted territory. This election will have orders of magnitude more propaganda pushed on the American people than in any past election. And it will be anonymous spending. You won’t know who is funding what.

There is going to be A LOT of smoke and obfuscation this time around, much more than we have ever seen.

Petero1818 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:12:30pm

re: #45 Fozzie Bear

Yes. That is exactly his stance.

No, I think it is worse than that. They are a person in his mind, but not necessarily a citizen. If it turned out that the fetus once born did not have a legal right to be in the USA, he would then support deportation. My guess is actually being the lovely guy that he is, he would first of course offer to broker the adoption of the child to a nice Christian family./

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:14:02pm

re: #93 elizajane

To whom do you see him losing?

I’m really curious. Any candidate with the slightest competence seems likely to be eaten alive by the far right. Can the Republicans actually nominate a candidate acceptable to Independents and if so, who, and how do you see that process playing out?

Newt, Huckabee, among others. Either one of them has a shot with enough propaganda smearing Obama, and enough furious hand waving to obscure their flaws as candidates.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:14:27pm

re: #95 Fozzie Bear

We have never had an election cycle where there is no limit on PAC spending for issue advocacy. This is uncharted territory. This election will have orders of magnitude more propaganda pushed on the American people than in any past election. And it will be anonymous spending. You won’t know who is funding what.

There is going to be A LOT of smoke and obfuscation this time around, much more than we have ever seen.

Good point.

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:14:56pm

re: #89 Fozzie Bear

So basically, don’t let yourselves snark your way to a sense of security. Obama is facing a tough fight in 2012, and he might lose. It’s a very real possibility, not just an outside chance.

There’s not much chance of a viable Republican candidate in 2012.

100

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:15:13pm

re: #94 Sionainn

Not any Democrats I know.

littlegreenfootballs.com

101

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:16:07pm

Gotta recoup that campaign cash Meg!

HP announces new directors on board, including former eBay CEO Meg Whitman - CNBC

102

S'latch Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:16:31pm

Why don’t True Conservative Republicans view the umbilical cord as a form of welfare for a nonproductive, unemployed human life and argue in favor of cutting it?

103

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:18:12pm

re: #99 Killgore Trout

There’s not much chance of a viable Republican candidate in 2012.

Whom a whole lotta dough will be blown up.

It will be a fantastic spectacle.

104

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:18:50pm

re: #103 000G

Whom a whole lotta dough will be blown up.

It will be a fantastic spectacle.

“will be blown on”

D’uh.

105

Ming Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:22:00pm

Wow. Santorum said: “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” Apart from the shockingly insensitive choice of words, there’s a really nasty subtext: it is not possible for reasonable people to disagree about abortion. Talk about escalated rhetoric!

This country may really be in big trouble.

106

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:22:49pm

re: #100 000G

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I wasn’t around LGF in 2007 and didn’t read blogs or participate in any political boards until the spring of 2008. I hadn’t heard of truthers until I became aware of birthers. In fact, it was birthers who were throwing out the truthers as being the real nutjobs that led me to reading about the truthers.

107

elizajane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:24:28pm

re: #97 Fozzie Bear

Newt, Huckabee, among others. Either one of them has a shot with enough propaganda smearing Obama, and enough furious hand waving to obscure their flaws as candidates.

Maybe Huck, but all the smoke in hell isn’t enough to obscure Newt’s flaws as a candidate. No way.

108

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:24:56pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

TODAY ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW

Truth!

Ron Paul is coming on on Friday, btw. Return of the regular Republicans.

109

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:25:49pm

Per the Real Clear Politics kludge of polls, the President is at a one-year high on approval. (Nate Silver says there is no predictive relationship between present numbers and election success this far out.)

realclearpolitics.com

110

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:25:59pm

Briton jailed for Daniel Pearl’s murder is ‘likely to be freed’

US investigators say concocted evidence was used to convict Omar Saeed Sheikh for killing of Wall Street Journal reporter

111

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:26:54pm

re: #108 000G

Ron Paul is coming on on Friday, btw. Return of the regular Republicans.

Ah, I knew they’d be back eventually.

112

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:29:52pm

re: #73 Decatur Deb

Nah. Dubliners are the new Black, unless gays are Dubliners?

[Link: www.google.com…]

“Say it once, say it loud—Oi’m Black, and Oi’m proud.”

113

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:30:54pm

re: #106 Sionainn

I wasn’t around LGF in 2007 and didn’t read blogs or participate in any political boards until the spring of 2008. I hadn’t heard of truthers until I became aware of birthers. In fact, it was birthers who were throwing out the truthers as being the real nutjobs that led me to reading about the truthers.

Oh, the most devoted nutjobs, like Alex Jones, are both.

114

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:32:04pm

re: #88 Sionainn

No, no, no, Obama is actually the secret son of Malcolm X. Just completely ignore the fact that Malcolm X was a U.S. citizen (that’s what the birthers do).

My father brought that up when I was discussing the various Obama birth myths. If his dad was Malcolm X, then he’s definitely a U.S. citizen.

The fact that they don’t look remotely alike shouldn’t stop anyone.

115

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:32:44pm

Speaking of birthers, they are going nuts over Hawai’i Governor Abercrombie right now.

116

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:32:48pm

re: #89 Fozzie Bear

So basically, don’t let yourselves snark your way to a sense of security. Obama is facing a tough fight in 2012, and he might lose. It’s a very real possibility, not just an outside chance.

That’s true, but the snarking is great craic altogether.

117

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:33:09pm

re: #92 darthstar

by Pastor Terry Jones.

Too blue-collar for the Santorums.

118

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:34:54pm

The birther meme so amazes me because it is a controversy without a prima facie case. Even if the birthers are 100% correct, and Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be eligible for the presidency, due to his mother being an American citizen.

And yet, onward they plow, ignoring that incredibly obvious fact. Even if they are right, they don’t have a fucking point.

119

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:35:59pm

re: #116 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s true, but the snarking is great craic altogether.

The Craic Was 90 in the Isle of Man:

Youtube Video

120

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:36:47pm

re: #114 SanFranciscoZionist

My father brought that up when I was discussing the various Obama birth myths. If his dad was Malcolm X, then he’s definitely a U.S. citizen.

The fact that they don’t look remotely alike shouldn’t stop anyone.

In the birther crowd, I have a strong suspicion that half of them couldn’t tell the difference between any pairing of tall thin black men.

121

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:37:04pm

re: #118 Fozzie Bear

The birther meme so amazes me because it is a controversy without a prima facie case. Even if the birthers are 100% correct, and Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be eligible for the presidency, due to his mother being an American citizen.

And yet, onward they plow, ignoring that incredibly obvious fact. Even if they are right, they don’t have a fucking point.

There is also the theory is that he had dual citizenship at some time and then gave up its US citizenship for an Indonesian one and never got the US one back or something.

122

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:37:42pm

A different take on the Daniel Perl story…
Photos of hands backed up Pearl slaying confession, report finds

Federal agents have backed up al Qaeda captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession in the killing of journalist Daniel Pearl by using photographs of the veins in his hands, according to a new report released Thursday.

Mohammed confessed to beheading Pearl after his 2003 arrest in Pakistan. But the U.S. admission that he had been subjected to “waterboarding” — a practice historically treated as torture — while in CIA custody cast doubt on the reliability of his confession, according to a lengthy investigation of the Pearl case by the Center for Public Integrity.

According to the report, the FBI and CIA used stills from the video of Pearl’s killing to match the patterns of the veins in Mohammed’s hand in 2004 and repeated the process in 2007, after Mohammed repeated his confession during a hearing at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

123

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:38:22pm

re: #114 SanFranciscoZionist

My father brought that up when I was discussing the various Obama birth myths. If his dad was Malcolm X, then he’s definitely a U.S. citizen.

The fact that they don’t look remotely alike shouldn’t stop anyone.

Google malcolm x obama morph and you’ll see their “proof.”

124

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:39:13pm

re: #122 Killgore Trout
cont…

According to Thursday’s report, his captors were “inept, plagued by bungling plans, a failure to cover their tracks, and an inability to operate cameras and computer equipment.” Even the grisly video of Pearl’s death had to be restaged, “because the cameraman failed to capture the original scene.”
Mohammed moved so quickly to cut Pearl’s throat that the photographer failed to load a tape into his camera, according to the report. He repeated the killing for the camera, severing Pearl’s head in the process and making sure the photographer showed the blood still pouring through Pearl’s throat. The scene “would later turn the stomachs of even the most hardened Pakistani and U.S. investigators,” the report states.

125

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:39:33pm

re: #121 000G

There is also the theory is that he had dual citizenship at some time and then gave up its US citizenship for an Indonesian one and never got the US one back or something.

That’s just digging deep into the crazy, even for them.

126

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:40:56pm

re: #119 Decatur Deb

The Craic Was 90 in the Isle of Man:

[Video]

Friend of mine was introduced to the concept of craic when a sweet, sixty-something Irish nun told him that she heard “There’s very good craic to be had in the pubs near the university.”

He was in shock until someone explained that she hadn’t meant ‘crack’.

127

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:41:11pm

re: #120 Fozzie Bear

In the birther crowd, I have a strong suspicion that half of them couldn’t tell the difference between any pairing of tall thin black men.

They do both wear glasses.

128

lawhawk Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:41:20pm

Should it surprise anyone that Jim Hoft is touting that nonsensical meme that First Lady Obama’s walking initiative has led to more pedestrian deaths?

/didn’t think so either…. stuck on stupid.

129

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:42:09pm

re: #121 000G

There is also the theory is that he had dual citizenship at some time and then gave up its US citizenship for an Indonesian one and never got the US one back or something.

They also argue that his mother wasn’t actually living in the U.S. a certain number of years.

Funny thing is that on another board I was frequenting, the very same person used all of those arguments at one time or another. I think they basically are throwing anything and everything out there in the hopes that something will stick so the (black) president is disqualified or even jailed.

130

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:42:45pm

Mrs. Obama looking extra lovely.

131

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:43:39pm

re: #128 lawhawk

Should it surprise anyone that Jim Hoft is touting that nonsensical meme that First Lady Obama’s walking initiative has led to more pedestrian deaths?

/didn’t think so either… stuck on stupid.

That one really is one of the dumbest outrages the wingnuts have come up with.

132

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:43:41pm

re: #105 Ming

Wow. Santorum said: “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” Apart from the shockingly insensitive choice of words, there’s a really nasty subtext: it is not possible for reasonable people to disagree about abortion. Talk about escalated rhetoric!

This country may really be in big trouble.

MAY?!?!?! :D

133

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:43:52pm

re: #128 lawhawk

Should it surprise anyone that Jim Hoft is touting that nonsensical meme that First Lady Obama’s walking initiative has led to more pedestrian deaths?

/didn’t think so either… stuck on stupid.

I never understood the walking/jogging craze as a form of exercise! All that time to end up right back where you started!

If you just had stayed there in the 1st place you could have sat, had a beer, maybe a nice sausage sub ,,,,

///

134

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:44:10pm

re: #130 Killgore Trout

Mrs. Obama looking extra lovely.

She is just adorable.

135

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:44:56pm

re: #130 Killgore Trout

Mrs. Obama looking extra lovely.

I love her hair like that.

136

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:45:28pm

re: #133 sattv4u2

I never understood the walking/jogging craze as a form of exercise! All that time to end up right back where you started!

If you just had stayed there in the 1st place you could have sat, had a beer, maybe a nice sausage sub ,,,

///

I like being constructive when I exercise: Image: DDrumPunx7PieceDoubleBassDrumSet.jpg

137

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:46:05pm

re: #136 WindUpBird

I like being constructive when I exercise: Image: DDrumPunx7PieceDoubleBassDrumSet.jpg

Me too

google.com

138

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:47:15pm

re: #137 sattv4u2

Me too

[Link: www.google.com…]

Do those make a lot of noise too? :D

139

McSpiff Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:47:25pm

re: #133 sattv4u2

I never understood the walking/jogging craze as a form of exercise! All that time to end up right back where you started!

If you just had stayed there in the 1st place you could have sat, had a beer, maybe a nice sausage sub ,,,

///

Sausage sub? That’s a new one to me! Do go on…

140

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:48:05pm

re: #126 SanFranciscoZionist

Friend of mine was introduced to the concept of craic when a sweet, sixty-something Irish nun told him that she heard “There’s very good craic to be had in the pubs near the university.”

He was in shock until someone explained that she hadn’t meant ‘crack’.

Bukkake noodles all over again, eh?

141

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:48:08pm

re: #139 McSpiff

Sausage sub? That’s a new one to me! Do go on…

Polish Navy!

142

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:48:14pm

re: #82 000G

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

There’s a fascinating bit of lying by telling the truth going on here. Democrats say Bush was warned and that makes them 9/11 truthers - the same people as claim Bush was complicit in the attacks.

On August 6th, President Bush did receive a presidential daily briefing which was titled “bin Laden determined to strike in US.” The briefing did include that one of the avenues in consideration was hijacking aircraft. It also stated there was an intent to attack with explosives.

Now the warning did not say hijacked aircraft would be used as the explosives. But there was a warning of intent to hijack — which resulted in zero increase in security; zero warnings to airlines; nothing.

That much is fact. Democrats pointed to it to say Bush didn’t do his job.

Now there is a small but vocal group who ascribe motives to this. They claim Bush colluded with bin Laden, or at best knew exactly what was coming and kept silent — shades of FDR knowing of the attack on Pearl Harbor. There’s no evidence, just a lot of peripheral data that if squinted at properly from the right point of view could be true because Bush did that — though it requires ignoring some of the other evidence around that doesn’t quite match the story.

The latter are the 9/11 Truthers.

But because both the Democrats and the Truthers start from the same factual data, the former are obviously the latter.

bah.

143

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:48:42pm

Limbaugh fell for it too…
Limbaugh Runs With Bogus Story About Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” Program Increasing Pedestrian Deaths

144

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:49:05pm

re: #139 McSpiff

re: #141 sattv4u2

Polish Navy!

Actually,,, depends on your part of the country what they’re called

Subs
Submarine sandwiches
Grinders
Hoagies
etc

145

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:49:28pm

re: #142 kirkspencer

There’s a fascinating bit of lying by telling the truth going on here. Democrats say Bush was warned and that makes them 9/11 truthers - the same people as claim Bush was complicit in the attacks.

No, you are mistaken.

Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) are BOTH truther positions.

146

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:49:35pm

re: #143 Killgore Trout

Limbaugh fell for it too…
Limbaugh Runs With Bogus Story About Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” Program Increasing Pedestrian Deaths

fell for it implies he didn’t know it was bullshit. He knows! This is all intentional, especially when it comes to Limbaugh

147

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:49:39pm

Charles has stooped so low! He now uses obscene words like “S******m” in headlines!

148

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:07pm

re: #144 sattv4u2

re: #141 sattv4u2

Actually,,, depends on your part of the country what they’re called

Subs
Submarine sandwiches
Grinders
Hoagies
etc

we call them subs, my partner who has an Italian east coast family calls them grinders

149

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:17pm

re: #138 WindUpBird

Do those make a lot of noise too? :D

If you exercise them the right way, they do

And if not, heavens knows make enough for the both of us!

150

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:20pm

re: #142 kirkspencer

Nevermind, you are a truther yourself.

151

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:37pm

re: #145 000G

No, you are mistaken.

Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) are BOTH truther positions.

Ah, but Democrats aren’t saying either. They’re saying “ignored warnings.” That is not LIHOP.

152

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:51pm

re: #143 Killgore Trout

Limbaugh fell for it too…
Limbaugh Runs With Bogus Story About Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” Program Increasing Pedestrian Deaths

Holy shit. The pedestrian scandal came from the Republican Governor’s association? Epic fail. I thought it was just dumb bloggers making this shit up. This one came straight from the top.

153

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:50:59pm

re: #145 000G

No, you are mistaken.

Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) are BOTH truther positions.

How about “tried their best to stop it but in actuality what happened is all the machines became self-aware like in Maximum Overdrive”

I need to invent a new conspiracy theory and see if it’ll take

154

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:51:40pm

re: #148 WindUpBird

we call them subs, my partner who has an Italian east coast family calls them grinders

“Grinders” in SOME East coast locals

In Boston,, SUBS

155

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:51:53pm

re: #152 Killgore Trout

Holy shit. The pedestrian scandal came from the Republican Governor’s association? Epic fail. I thought it was just dumb bloggers making this shit up. This one came straight from the top.

GOP figured it out, they can just hand this shit out to bloggers desperate for Republican Orthodox Web Surfers and they’ll repeat it like slapback echo

156

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:52:24pm

re: #154 sattv4u2

“Grinders” in SOME East coast locals

In Boston,, SUBS

I gotta visit Boston, I have this weird concentration of friends there

157

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:52:25pm

re: #151 kirkspencer

Ah, but Democrats aren’t saying either. They’re saying “ignored warnings.” That is not LIHOP.

Again, that was what more than one third of democrats thought back in 2007: littlegreenfootballs.com

158

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:53:17pm

re: #156 WindUpBird

I gotta visit Boston, I have this weird concentration of friends there

I’m sure many of your friends are weird ,,

159

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:53:18pm

re: #145 000G

No, you are mistaken.

Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) are BOTH truther positions.

Not the same thing as “didn’t take a real threat seriously, took no action, and, through incompetence, failed to prevent it”. It is the position I held, and still hold. That’s not the same thing as being a truther, and it is a position that will often get conflated with actual trutherism.

160

jc717 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:54:39pm

re: #16 wrenchwench

So, fetuses and embryos have more rights than gay adults. Do I have that right? Gays are the new black?

What if it’s a gay fetus?

161

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:07pm

re: #158 sattv4u2

I’m sure many of your friends are weird ,,

:)

Some of them are, but these are more just mild-mannered artist types

162

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:29pm

re: #159 Fozzie Bear

Not the same thing as “didn’t take a real threat seriously, took no action, and, through incompetence, failed to prevent it”. It is the position I held, and still hold. That’s not the same thing as being a truther, and it is a position that will often get conflated with actual trutherism.

I am not disputing that. But again: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance.” Granted, that’s Rasmussen. Still, knowing in advance of the attacks is very different from being incompetent.

163

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:33pm

re: #159 Fozzie Bear

Not the same thing as “didn’t take a real threat seriously, took no action, and, through incompetence, failed to prevent it”. It is the position I held, and still hold. That’s not the same thing as being a truther, and it is a position that will often get conflated with actual trutherism.

wasn’t Ashcroft more concerned with prostitution than terrorism pre-9/11?

164

Decatur Deb Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:47pm

re: #148 WindUpBird

we call them subs, my partner who has an Italian east coast family calls them grinders

“Heros” here, possibly a corruption of “Gyros”.

165

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:49pm

re: #157 000G

Again, that was what more than one third of democrats thought back in 2007: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Bush was literally warned. Given a question framed as such, it is reasonable to assume that some proportion of the polled took the question to mean “he knew something like this would happen”, which, factually, he did. He was warned, and ignored the warning.

166

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:57pm

re: #157 000G

Again, that was what more than one third of democrats thought back in 2007: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

First of all, it’s Rasmussen.

Second, it’s not clear how people interpreted the question. Bush was warned of the possible planned attacks, this info was known at the time, so some people could say “he knew” - not in CT sense, of course.

167

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:55:59pm

Back. Made my soup. It’s simmering on the stove.

There’s nothing like chopping veggies with a big Santuko to get the annoyance out.

168

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:56:16pm

re: #144 sattv4u2

re: #141 sattv4u2

Actually,,, depends on your part of the country what they’re called

Subs
Submarine sandwiches
Grinders
Hoagies
etc

“To a New Yorker like you a hero is some sort of weird sandwich.”

;)

169

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:56:24pm

re: #165 Fozzie Bear

Bush was literally warned. Given a question framed as such, it is reasonable to assume that some proportion of the polled took the question to mean “he knew something like this would happen”, which, factually, he did. He was warned, and ignored the warning.

yeah, exactly

“Knew about it in advance” can mean a GIANT GAMUT of opinions

170

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:56:37pm

re: #164 Decatur Deb

“Heros” here, possibly a corruption of “Gyros”.

Thanks ,, yes ,, I forgot about “heros” in #144

171

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:56:53pm

re: #169 WindUpBird

yeah, exactly

“Knew about it in advance” can mean a GIANT GAMUT of opinions

Yep.

172

marsl Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:57:10pm

Some people in the GOP are nuts.

And, because of those people, the GOP can’t defeat the Democratic candidate (Obama) to the presidential election of 2012.

173

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:57:13pm

re: #166 Sergey Romanov

what IS the conventional wisdom on rasmussen these days? I just sorta stopped paying attention to them

174

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:58:00pm

re: #169 WindUpBird

yeah, exactly

“Knew about it in advance” can mean a GIANT GAMUT of opinions

“It depends on what your definition of ‘it’ is”?

175

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:58:04pm

re: #172 marsl

Some people in the GOP are nuts.

And, because of those people, the GOP can’t defeat the Democratic candidate (Obama) to the presidential election of 2012.

Well, they have ONE candidate that can truly represent the wingnuts

176

Kragar Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:58:14pm

re: #168 oaktree

“To a New Yorker like you a hero is some sort of weird sandwich.”

;)

Kelly’s Heroes

177

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:59:02pm

re: #159 Fozzie Bear

Not the same thing as “didn’t take a real threat seriously, took no action, and, through incompetence, failed to prevent it”. It is the position I held, and still hold. That’s not the same thing as being a truther, and it is a position that will often get conflated with actual trutherism.

I was interested in the actual questions asked in that poll, but I’d have to sign up to Rasmussen.

178

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:59:03pm

re: #174 000G

“It depends on what your definition of ‘it’ is”?

It’s funny to frame it that way, but it really does depend on the referent of the word “it”.

179

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:59:46pm

re: #174 000G

“It depends on what your definition of ‘it’ is”?

it depends on whether the person thought they were talking about the memo, “Bin laden determined”, etc etc, or if they were talking about a conspiracy to allow a terroristic attack to take place.

One is a reasonable position, because it’s literally a fact. The other is crazypants. The question could mean either to anyone. The poll sounds broken and useless because of this.

180

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:59:54pm

re: #173 WindUpBird

what IS the conventional wisdom on rasmussen these days? I just sorta stopped paying attention to them

I would say the CW is they slant right.

Silver has criticized them:

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

Just for fun, Rasmussen’s non-reply was arrogant, pompous and out of touch: “I don’t respond to comments from bloggers and others”. Kinda illustrative.

181

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:59:58pm

re: #165 Fozzie Bear

Bush was literally warned. Given a question framed as such, it is reasonable to assume that some proportion of the polled took the question to mean “he knew something like this would happen”, which, factually, he did. He was warned, and ignored the warning.

Are you refering to this?: en.wikipedia.org

I am not so sure that your “factually” is merited, then.

182

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:00:26pm

re: #178 Fozzie Bear

It’s funny to frame it that way, but it really does depend on the referent of the word “it”.

when “it” is the critical point of the question, that’s a pretty big fucking “it” :D

183

elizajane Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:01:25pm

re: #166 Sergey Romanov

First of all, it’s Rasmussen.

Second, it’s not clear how people interpreted the question. Bush was warned of the possible planned attacks, this info was known at the time, so some people could say “he knew” - not in CT sense, of course.

Agreed. Take that statistic with a teaspoon or so of salt.

In around 2003-4, I attended a reading at Black Oak Books in Berkeley. The book was about the evils of the Military-Industrial Complex. This, I repeat, was in BERKELEY. You could not get a more left-wing crowd in the USA.

During the Q&A time, a man in the audience stood up and said, “Why aren’t you talking about how the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?” One of the book’s authors replied, in tones of great annoyance, “Because it isn’t true!”

The audience applauded him and, when the questioner turned to heckling, he was booed and encouraged to leave the gathering.

After that episode, I have NEVER believed all the right-wing claims that the left is rife with truthers. They are the fringe of the fringe. Polls by Rasmussen are worded to give the right the results it wants to believe about the left.

184

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:01:36pm

re: #181 000G

Are you refering to this?: [Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

I am not so sure that your “factually” is merited, then.

Correct, but that is still very relevant to what the Ras poll results mean.

185

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:01:59pm

re: #179 WindUpBird

it depends on whether the person thought they were talking about the memo, “Bin laden determined”, etc etc, or if they were talking about a conspiracy to allow a terroristic attack to take place.

One is a reasonable position, because it’s literally a fact. The other is crazypants. The question could mean either to anyone. The poll sounds broken and useless because of this.

It’s still bullshit. Bush never knew that something would happen (as in: was determined to). He knew that some people had grounds to believe that something might happen.

186

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:02:17pm

re: #181 000G

Are you refering to this?: [Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

I am not so sure that your “factually” is merited, then.

Looks like a warning to me!

Not like a super distinct “they’re going to hijack and then crash planes” sort of warning, but if you’re asking a quick poll question, it’s ruined the sample, because the question isn’t specific enough.

187

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:03:51pm

re: #185 000G

Bush didn’t “know”, but an average Joe Schmoe is unlikely to split hairs. Which is why it’s unlikely that this poll proves that so many Dems are or were truthers-lite.

188

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:03:55pm

re: #181 000G

Are you refering to this?: [Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

I am not so sure that your “factually” is merited, then.

It doesn’t matter whether the memo warned of the exact event that occurred, for the purposes of discerning the usefulness of that poll. What matters is that that PDB did, in fact, exist, and that it did, in fact, warn of an impending AQ attack, and that this was, in fact, public knowledge at the time of said poll.

Taken together, these facts, and the framing of the poll, would indicate that Rasmussen wasn’t measuring what they thought they were measuring.

189

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:04:28pm

re: #183 elizajane

True. But it still was the fringe of “the Left” especially when the Democrats were out of power. When the GOP was voted out, the Birthers became the fringe of the moment.

190

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:04:57pm

re: #185 000G

It’s still bullshit. Bush never knew that something would happen (as in: was determined to). He knew that some people had grounds to believe that something might happen.

I agree! it is bullshit. BUT we are talking about a uselessly ambiguous poll question, regardless, and plenty of reasonable democrats would take that memo as “advance warning” even if it’s incredibly sketchy advance warning. And that doesn’t make that person a conspiracy theorist, just someone who has a lower standard of what constitues a warning.

(I seriously don’t care either way about who in the Democrats is deluded re: 9/11, a bunch are, certainly. I do care about pointing out how easily poll questions can be framed, manipulated, etc)

191

reine.de.tout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:05:02pm

re: #144 sattv4u2

re: #141 sattv4u2

Actually,,, depends on your part of the country what they’re called

Subs
Submarine sandwiches
Grinders
Hoagies
etc

po’ boys.

192

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:05:50pm

re: #188 Fozzie Bear

It doesn’t matter whether the memo warned of the exact event that occurred, for the purposes of discerning the usefulness of that poll. What matters is that that PDB did, in fact, exist, and that it did, in fact, warn of an impending AQ attack, and that this was, in fact, public knowledge at the time of said poll.

Taken together, these facts, and the framing of the poll, would indicate that Rasmussen wasn’t measuring what they thought they were measuring.

yes :D

I’m sorta done discussing this, the flavor has been chewed out of it, it’s 100% obvious to me that that poll question was vague

193

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:06:53pm

re: #185 000G

It’s still bullshit. Bush never knew that something would happen (as in: was determined to). He knew that some people had grounds to believe that something might happen.

Of course, but we’re talking about polls

And you posted that poll saying it told us a thing. We examined it and concluded you wer eincorrect about that.

194

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:07:29pm

re: #191 reine.de.tout

po’ boys.

Another to the regional list ,, thanks

195

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:07:30pm

Also “knew and let it happen” is not necessarily LIHOP - was it on purpose, or was it because of stupidity, laziness, etc., etc.?

196

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:07:34pm

re: #188 Fozzie Bear

It doesn’t matter whether the memo warned of the exact event that occurred, for the purposes of discerning the usefulness of that poll. What matters is that that PDB did, in fact, exist, and that it did, in fact, warn of an impending AQ attack, and that this was, in fact, public knowledge at the time of said poll.

Taken together, these facts, and the framing of the poll, would indicate that Rasmussen wasn’t measuring what they thought they were measuring.

Uhm, I don’t think your conclusion is true. AFAIK, the question was specifically whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, not if he knew that some danger was iminent.

197

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:07:38pm

re: #185 000G

It’s still bullshit. Bush never knew that something would happen (as in: was determined to). He knew that some people had grounds to believe that something might happen.

What isn’t bullshit is that not only did that memo directly warn of the AQ threat, his predecessor did as well, directly, verbally, to his face. Bush didn’t take any tangible concrete action to deal with that threat until after 9/11. There was no task force, no further inquiries ordered, nothing.

That’s incompetence. Bush fucked up, and failed to take a credible threat seriously, despite multiple parties warning him.

198

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:08:11pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

Of course, but we’re talking about polls

And you posted that poll saying it told us a thing. We examined it and concluded you wer eincorrect about that.

I don’t think that I am incorrect or that I was shown that.

199

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:09:13pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

What isn’t bullshit is that not only did that memo directly warn of the AQ threat, his predecessor did as well, directly, verbally, to his face. Bush didn’t take any tangible concrete action to deal with that threat until after 9/11. There was no task force, no further inquiries ordered, nothing.

That’s incompetence. Bush fucked up, and failed to take a credible threat seriously, despite multiple parties warning him.

Again: Incompetence in dealing with a possible future event is not advance knowledge of a specific event. The latter was asked about.

200

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:09:21pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

Bush didn’t take any tangible concrete action to deal with that threat until after 9/11
like ,,???

You don’t think that post WTC #1 there wasn’t intel on the ground in the ME and the Paki region looking for a trace??

201

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:09:23pm

“This is America, where a white Catholic male Republican judge was murdered on his way to greet a Democratic Jewish woman member of Congress, who was his friend. Her life was saved initially by a 20-year old Mexican-American gay college student, and eventually by a Korean-American combat surgeon, all eulogized by our African American President.” - Mark Shields, PBS Newshour

Via Roger Ebert

202

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:09:42pm

re: #196 000G

Uhm, I don’t think your conclusion is true. AFAIK, the question was specifically whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, not if he knew that some danger was iminent.

Bush knew, in advance, that there was a likelyhood of AQ attacks. That much is a fact. When asked if bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, it is a reasonable answer to give a “yes” in response, given the context.

203

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:10:15pm

re: #199 000G

The latter was asked about.

Sure. But how was it interpreted?

204

simoom Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:10:34pm

New Yorker profile on chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Darrel Issa:
newyorker.com

In 1997, he decided to run for the United States Senate. …
Issa didn’t even win the Republican primary. … His campaign fell apart after a burst of investigative reporting raised serious questions about his honesty and his past. Many politicians have committed indiscretions in earlier years: maybe they had an affair or hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. Issa, it turned out, had, among other things, been indicted for stealing a car, arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and accused by former associates of burning down a building.

…

A member of Issa’s Army unit, Jay Bergey, told Williams that his most vivid recollection of the young Issa was that in December, 1971, Issa stole his car, a yellow Dodge Charger.
…
On March 15, 1972, three months after Issa allegedly stole Jay Bergey’s car and one month after he left the Army for the first time, Ohio police arrested Issa and his older brother, William, and charged them with stealing a red Maserati from a Cleveland showroom.
…
While the Maserati case was pending, Issa went to college. Just before 11 P.M. on Friday, December 1, 1972, two police officers on patrol in the small town of Adrian noticed Issa driving a yellow Volkswagen the wrong way down a one-way street. The police pulled him over, and, as Issa retrieved the car registration, an officer saw something peculiar in the glove compartment. He searched it, and, according to the police report, found a .25-calibre Colt automatic inside a box of ammunition, along with a “military pouch” that contained “44 rounds of ammo and a tear gas gun and two rounds of ammo for it.” Issa was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
…
According to court records, on December 28, 1979, William Issa arrived at Smythe European Motors, in San Jose, and offered to sell Darrell’s car, a red 1976 Mercedes sedan. William was carrying an Ohio driver’s license with his brother’s name on it and the dealer gave William a check for sixteen thousand dollars, which he immediately cashed. Soon afterward, Darrell reported the car stolen from the Monterey airport. He later told the police that he had left the title in the trunk.
The brothers had been together in Cleveland for Christmas, and, after Darrell gave a series of conflicting statements about his brother and whether he himself had recently obtained a second driver’s license, the investigator in the case became suspicious that the two men had conspired to fraudulently sell Darrell’s car and then collect the insurance money.

The brothers were indicted for grand theft.
…
Five months later, in January, 1981, at an intersection in Cleveland, Issa had further car troubles. He crashed a truck into a 1959 Thunderbird Classic driven by a forty-year-old woman named Juanita Martin. According to court documents, Issa told her that he did not have time to wait for the police and left the scene. Martin ended up in the emergency room the next day with neck and back pain that she said caused “permanent damage.” A month later, she sued Issa for twenty thousand dollars; they settled for an undisclosed amount.
…
Once in control, Issa allegedly used an unusual method to fire Jack Frantz, an employee. Frantz told the Los Angeles Times that Issa came into his office, placed a box on the table, and opened it to reveal a gun. Issa told the paper, “Shots were never fired. If I asked Jack to leave, then I think I had every right to ask Jack to leave… . I don’t recall [having a gun]. I really don’t. I don’t think I ever pulled a gun on anyone in my life.”

Issa was soon suspected of doing something worse: burning down the factory.

205

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:11:05pm

re: #202 Fozzie Bear

Bush knew, in advance, that there was a likelyhood of AQ attacks. That much is a fact. When asked if bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, it is a reasonable answer to give a “yes” in response, given the context.

I think it’s not a reasonable answer but a dumbass answer, given by dumbasses who could not understand the content of the PDB and were hostile to Bush and the GOP.

206

simoom Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:12:30pm

re: #204 simoom

Here’s an NPR interview, from today, with the author of the piece:

npr.org

MONTAGNE: …has haunted him to this day. I am wondering how you think that’s affected him.
Mr. LIZZA: Well, I think the jury is out because he has not started his committee’s work yet, or he’s just starting it now. I will say this. Given the fact that during about 12 years of his life, he was charged or accused of committing crimes, he was investigated for sometimes weeks; in the case of the arson, that case went on for two years. So you think in that period of his life, being investigated, having to go to court, thinking perhaps that you’re going to go to jail if these cases aren’t dismissed, I wonder if maybe that has some impact on the care with which he will investigate this administration.

MONTAGNE: As you write, he’s put certain things off limits in terms of President Obama’s past.

Mr. LIZZA: Yeah. Yeah, I mean…

MONTAGNE: Like the birther issue.

Mr. LIZZA: Well, in the line that he’s drawn, and this is sort of interesting given his own past, is he wants to look at things that the Obama administration has done since Obama was elected. In other words, nothing personal to Obama before his election. And that’s very different than what happened with Bill Clinton.

207

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:14:09pm

re: #205 000G

I think it’s not a reasonable answer but a dumbass answer, given by dumbasses who could not understand the content of the PDB and were hostile to Bush and the GOP.

Well, I’m one of those dumbasses who has felt, since he was elected, that GWB was incompetent, arrogant, and intellectually incapable of understanding the challenges he faced.

208

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:14:20pm

re: #195 Sergey Romanov

is not necessarily LIHOP

I must be getting hungry

Every time someone types that here I think of
International
House
Of
Pancakes

209

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:14:25pm

re: #205 000G

I think it’s not a reasonable answer but a dumbass answer, given by dumbasses who could not understand the content of the PDB and were hostile to Bush and the GOP.

Ah, so what we have here is a no true Scotsman condition. No reasonable person could be confused, so anybody who misunderstood cannot possibly be reasonable.

Or as you so eloquently framed it above, Democrats are 9/11 truthers.

210

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:15:09pm

re: #206 simoom

Issa is my former Rep. His whole electability is based on him spending tons and tons more money than any opponent.

211

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:15:12pm

re: #207 Fozzie Bear

Well, I’m one of those dumbasses who has felt, since he was elected, that GWB was incompetent, arrogant, and intellectually incapable of understanding the challenges he faced.

Again, knowing in advance is not at all equivalent to not knowing anything.

212

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:15:27pm

re: #205 000G

I think it’s not a reasonable answer but a dumbass answer, given by dumbasses who could not understand the content of the PDB and were hostile to Bush and the GOP.

You seem less interested in the truth of what positions were actually held by Democrats during that time period, and more interested in casting aspersions.

213

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:15:49pm

The wingnutters fixating on the First Lady telling people to move and then making them get killed are missing the bigger outrage of the day.

Not only is her ‘healthy eating and exercise’ project getting people hurt but now she’s in cahoots with Walmart! And they’re going to be changing peoples food!

Wal-Mart Unveils Plan To Make, Sell Healthier Foods

The largest company in America wants to help you eat better. At an event in Washington, D.C., Wal-Mart announced Thursday that it’s cutting the amount of sodium, sugar and trans-fats from thousands of its products. The company’s executives were joined on stage by a special guest, first lady Michelle Obama.

214

sattv4u2 Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:16:10pm

re: #207 Fozzie Bear

Well, I’m one of those dumbasses

Acknowledgment is the 1st step to recovery!!

215

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:17:38pm

re: #209 kirkspencer

Ah, so what we have here is a no true Scotsman condition. No reasonable person could be confused, so anybody who misunderstood cannot possibly be reasonable.

I didn’t say that. What I said was that anybody who uttered a dumbass statement was a dumbass for doing so. I am not really interested in creating scenarios of mitigating circumstances for excusing dumbass statements.

Or as you so eloquently framed it above, Democrats are 9/11 truthers.

I didn’t say that either.

216

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:18:01pm

re: #211 000G

Again, knowing in advance is not at all equivalent to not knowing anything.

Being warned in advance and not doing anything tangible in response is at least evidence that he misjudged the credibility of the threat, which is what I would allege was the case. As would many other non-truthers out there.

If asked if bush “knew about 9/11 in advance”, it is entirely understandable that some proportion of those asked would interpret the question to mean “was he aware of the threat”, which he absolutely was.

217

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:18:16pm

re: #212 Obdicut

You seem less interested in the truth of what positions were actually held by Democrats during that time period, and more interested in casting aspersions.

Oh, is that so?

218

Killgore Trout Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:18:52pm

re: #213 Jadespring

The wingnutters fixating on the First Lady telling people to move and then making them get killed are missing the bigger outrage of the day.

Not only is her ‘healthy eating and exercise’ project getting people hurt but now she’s in cahoots with Walmart! And they’re going to be changing peoples food!

//

Wal-Mart Unveils Plan To Make, Sell Healthier Foods

Check out the pic of the event @ #130. She looked great.

219

webevintage Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:19:31pm

It sure has been a banner day for bastards like Rick Santorum and he’s not even in Congress….

220

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:20:14pm

re: #216 Fozzie Bear

If asked if bush “knew about 9/11 in advance”, it is entirely understandable that some proportion of those asked would interpret the question to mean “was he aware of the threat”, which he absolutely was.

Sorry, I absolutely disagree with “entirely understandable”. That is a cognitive defect leading to being unable to discern between incompetence and evil, not “entirely understandable”.

221

webevintage Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:21:41pm

re: #204 simoom

New Yorker profile on chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Darrel Issa:
[Link: www.newyorker.com…]

…

Wow…talk about an inner city thug.

222

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:21:54pm

re: #220 000G

Sorry, I absolutely disagree with “entirely understandable”. That is a cognitive defect leading to being unable to discern between incompetence and evil, not “entirely understandable”.

It would appear that you are strongly committed to demonizing people who were asked vaguely worded poll questions. I didn’t realize that was your intention, but now that it is clear, my contribution to this dialogue is concluded.

223

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:23:02pm

re: #217 000G

Oh, is that so?

Well, yes, otherwise I wouldn’t have said it.

re: #211 000G

Again, knowing in advance is not at all equivalent to not knowing anything.

Nobody is saying that it is, though. Nobody. What is being said is that the question, taken in the context, could be interpreted in a very loose manner. You apparently are vacillating between rejecting the idea that that question could be interpreted in the looser fashion, and saying that people who interpreted it in the looser fashion are dumbasses anyway.

You are entirely right that that poll represents a lot of anger against Bush, some of it unreasonable. It is also true that it quickly came out that Bush had not had his eye on terrorism, and the FBI under him certainly hadn’t, to the extent that it had been under Clinton.

This is very similar to the ‘violence against the government’ question from the other day. The results did not mean that that percentage of Republicans endorsed violence against our current government. What it did mean was that that percentage were more likely to interpret the question in a broader, loose fashion.

224

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:23:14pm

re: #222 Fozzie Bear

It would appear that you are strongly committed to demonizing people who were asked vaguely worded poll questions. I didn’t realize that was your intention, but now that it is clear, my contribution to this dialogue is concluded.

“It would appear” and now my “intention” is “clear”… i.e. you made up your mind that you want to make shit up and end the discussion. Fine by me.

PS: I don’t think the question was vaguely worded.

225

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:23:56pm

re: #82 000G

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

re: #215 000G
[snip]

Or as you so eloquently framed it above, Democrats are 9/11 truthers.

I didn’t say that either.

226

Jadespring Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:24:07pm

re: #218 Killgore Trout

Check out the pic of the event @ #130. She looked great.

Yeah I looked at it when it was posted upthread which is how I found out what she was doing. She does look great.

When I saw it was Walmart and connected to her healthy food and lifestyle initiatives I laughed at the irony of this coming out on the same day as this stupid pedesterian meme.

Where the heck are they going to shop now that Walmart has gone to the dark side? :)

227

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:25:32pm

re: #220 000G

Sorry, I absolutely disagree with “entirely understandable”. That is a cognitive defect leading to being unable to discern between incompetence and evil, not “entirely understandable”.

But that’s mischaracterization of those people’s possible stances.

228

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:26:32pm

re: #223 Obdicut

Nobody is saying that it is, though. Nobody.

Uh. You might want to read the conversation we had.

What is being said is that the question, taken in the context, could be interpreted in a very loose manner. You apparently are vacillating between rejecting the idea that that question could be interpreted in the looser fashion, and saying that people who interpreted it in the looser fashion are dumbasses anyway.

I am not vacillating one bit. You should go back and read what I wrote.

You are entirely right that that poll represents a lot of anger against Bush, some of it unreasonable. It is also true that it quickly came out that Bush had not had his eye on terrorism, and the FBI under him certainly hadn’t, to the extent that it had been under Clinton.

And…?

This is very similar to the ‘violence against the government’ question from the other day. The results did not mean that that percentage of Republicans endorsed violence against our current government. What it did mean was that that percentage were more likely to interpret the question in a broader, loose fashion.

Yeah, because today’s 1984 must be met with 1776.

///

229

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:27:27pm

re: #225 kirkspencer

re: #215 000G
[snip]

I didn’t say that either.

My point exactly. JFYI: The statement that trutherism was popular among Democrats is not equal to the statement that Democrats are truthers.

230

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:27:43pm

Context, 000G. The poll was released May 4 of 2007. Do you know, or recall, why the question was in the poll?

Because it was the big discussion point from Tenet’s book At the Center of the Storm, which came out in April of 2007.

The August 6 2001 PDB and the inaction which followed were almost daily discussions in the media.

231

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:28:30pm

re: #227 Sergey Romanov

But that’s mischaracterization of those people’s possible stances.

How so? I was making a statement on Fozzie’s “entirely understandable” clause, btw.

232

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:29:04pm

re: #224 000G

PS: I don’t think the question was vaguely worded.

In context, it was. You can’t expect people to be precise and you should minimize the wiggle room. Pollsters should know that. That was not done in this case. What should have been asked is “Did Bush LIHOP”.

233

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:29:29pm

re: #230 kirkspencer

Context, 000G. The poll was released May 4 of 2007. Do you know, or recall, why the question was in the poll?

Because it was the big discussion point from Tenet’s book At the Center of the Storm, which came out in April of 2007.

The August 6 2001 PDB and the inaction which followed were almost daily discussions in the media.

No, I got the context argument already. It was brought up before. And no, I am not buying into the following argument of “once upon a time it was more reasonable to be sympathetic to truther positions”.

234

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:30:12pm

re: #228 000G

Uh. You might want to read the conversation we had.

I did. With a tinge of irony, you’re misinterpreting statements others have made.

Yeah, because today’s 1984 must be met with 1776.

This, for example, had nothing that I can tell to do with my statement whatsoever. Did you understand that what I meant was that Republicans were more likely to interpret the (initial) poll on violence towards the government in a loose manner?

235

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:30:34pm

re: #233 000G

And no, I am not buying into the following argument of “once upon a time it was more reasonable to be sympathetic to truther positions”.

Nobody is making that argument.

236

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:31:24pm

re: #229 000G

My point exactly. JFYI: The statement that trutherism was popular among Democrats is not equal to the statement that Democrats are truthers.

“I didn’t say that either” is your words.

That you cannot understand how the statement that trutherism is popular among Democrats is functionally equivalent to the statement that Democrats are truthers is interesting. And kind of sad.

237

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:31:25pm

re: #232 Sergey Romanov

In context, it was. You can’t expect people to be precise and you should minimize the wiggle room. Pollsters should know that. That was not done in this case. What should have been asked is “Did Bush LIHOP”.

Even if the question was vague with context (which I do not think it was) you then have to say people were either too stupid to get that it was vague or that they were glad that it was vague so that they had plausible deniability.

238

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:31:42pm

re: #231 000G

How so? I was making a statement on Fozzie’s “entirely understandable” clause, btw.

Because answering “yes” to that question does not mean that the answering person was “unable to discern between incompetence and evil” in Bush’s case. They could either mean it in the “incompetence” way or in the “evil” way, but I don’t see where is the lack of discernment between these two.

239

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:31:53pm

re: #228 000G

When considering Stalin’s Russia, or Hitler’s Germany, is violent revolution in such a context morally bad? The poll question discussed the other day would seem to imply that the poll was about ANY violence against ANY government. In this context, many reasonable people would answer “yes, violence against government can be permissible”.

In a similar vein, “did George Bush know about 9/11 in advance” could easily be interpreted to mean “did George Bush know that 9/11 was likely” or it could be interpreted to mean “did George Bush know there was going to be an attack on 9/11, performed exactly as it occurred.”

Answering “yes” to the first interpretation is completely reasonable, and warranted by facts as well as the wording of the question. The second is manifestly insane.

Does this make sense?

240

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:32:30pm

re: #236 kirkspencer

“I didn’t say that either” is your words.

That you cannot understand how the statement that trutherism is popular among Democrats is functionally equivalent to the statement that Democrats are truthers is interesting. And kind of sad.

I cannot “understand” it because those statements are indeed not “functionally equivalent”. I taught logics classes. Please stop talking nonsense.

241

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:33:16pm

re: #237 000G

Even if the question was vague with context (which I do not think it was) you then have to say people were either too stupid to get that it was vague or that they were glad that it was vague so that they had plausible deniability.

That describes Rasmussen people to a tee, yes.

242

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:33:23pm

re: #234 Obdicut

I did. With a tinge of irony, you’re misinterpreting statements others have made.

I hold that that is untrue.

This, for example, had nothing that I can tell to do with my statement whatsoever. Did you understand that what I meant was that Republicans were more likely to interpret the (initial) poll on violence towards the government in a loose manner?

Yes. And?

243

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:33:36pm

re: #240 000G

Given that ‘popular’ is an ill-defined term, there are definitely interpretations of ‘popular’ that makes those statements functionally equivalent.

244

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:33:48pm

re: #241 Sergey Romanov

That describes Rasmussen people to a tee, yes.

And I don’t think it made the poll results worthless, see.

245

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:34:05pm

re: #243 Obdicut

Given that ‘popular’ is an ill-defined term, there are definitely interpretations of ‘popular’ that makes those statements functionally equivalent.

if you want to be “loose” about it, sure.

246

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:34:58pm

re: #245 000G

if you want to be “loose” about it, sure.

Do you believe that most people who are asked poll questions were given classes on the strict interpretation of grammar before hand?

247

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:35:08pm

re: #242 000G

I hold that that is untrue.

That’s nice. It’s very obvious you don’t think, and aren’t willing to even consider, that you’re misinterpreting what others are saying. I’m not sure where this is getting you, though.

Yes. And?

Just as Republicans were more likely to interpret that question in a loose manner and it did not mean that they were endorsing violence against our current government, Democrats interpreting a question about Bush’s foreknowledge as being in general rather than in specific doesn’t mean that they believe he had specific knowledge.

248

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:36:17pm

re: #239 Fozzie Bear

When considering Stalin’s Russia, or Hitler’s Germany, is violent revolution in such a context morally bad? The poll question discussed the other day would seem to imply that the poll was about ANY violence against ANY government. In this context, many reasonable people would answer “yes, violence against government can be permissible”.

Uh. The context was the Tucson shooting. Other questions in that poll directly refered to it.

In a similar vein, “did George Bush know about 9/11 in advance” could easily be interpreted to mean “did George Bush know that 9/11 was likely” or it could be interpreted to mean “did George Bush know there was going to be an attack on 9/11, performed exactly as it occurred.”

“Easily”, hm. Forgive me for suggesting that partisan politics made “easily” even more easily.

Answering “yes” to the first interpretation is completely reasonable, and warranted by facts as well as the wording of the question. The second is manifestly insane.

Does this make sense?

It makes sense, but I would still substitute “completely reasonable” with “hostile to the point of stupidity”.

249

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:36:22pm

re: #244 000G

And I don’t think it made the poll results worthless, see.

We don’t know how many of the alleged 35% meant it in the evil “LIHOP” way and how many - in the incompetent “had a warning and did nothing” way. So in regard to “so many Dems are truthers” issue the poll is absolutely worthless. It may not be worthless for some other issues, but I’m not really interested in that.

250

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:37:00pm

re: #245 000G

if you want to be “loose” about it, sure.

No. There is no firm definition of popular. If you want to insist on strict semantic rigor, please use rigorous terms.

Popular is most easily defined as something that is commonly well-regarded.

251

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:37:34pm

re: #247 Obdicut

Just as Republicans were more likely to interpret that question in a loose manner and it did not mean that they were endorsing violence against our current government, Democrats interpreting a question about Bush’s foreknowledge as being in general rather than in specific doesn’t mean that they believe he had specific knowledge.

I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. It does not really matter whether they “really think”, deep down in the recesses of their souls, that Bush LIHOP’d. The matter of the fact is that they said as much.

252

palomino Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:37:36pm

First, this illustrates why Santorum isn’t a legit prez contender.

Second, the far right’s belief on this is absurd. They see themselves as modern day abolitionists, all the way down to using domestic terrorism as a form of protest. Why? Because a woman terminating her fetus is the same as separating Africans from their homelands and their families, and selling them into permanent bondage? Bullshit.

253

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:38:32pm

re: #250 Obdicut

No. There is no firm definition of popular.

I was talking about functional equivalence.

254

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:38:59pm

re: #251 000G

I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. It does not really matter whether they “really think”, deep down in the recesses of their souls, that Bush LIHOP’d. The matter of the fact is that they said as much.

But they didn’t. The question was only about knowledge, nothing about purpose.

255

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:40:37pm

re: #254 Sergey Romanov

But they didn’t. The question was only about knowledge, nothing about purpose.

If you knew that an event would happen in the future and did nothing to prevent it from happening, I think that’s pretty much LIHOP – unless you think there was nothing that anyone could have done to prevent it.

256

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:40:54pm

re: #251 000G

I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. It does not really matter whether they “really think”, deep down in the recesses of their souls, that Bush LIHOP’d. The matter of the fact is that they said as much.

No, they didn’t say that he let it happen on purpose. That is the entire point. You are simply arguing by begging the question at this point.

You are now saying “Bush knew about the attacks in advance” is functionally equivalent to “Bush let the attacks happen on purpose”.

You are ignoring the following circumstances:

“Bush knew about the attacks in advance, but not about the specifics of the attacks, so any attempt at prevention was ineffective”

“Bush knew about the attacks in advance, but not about the specifics, and his administration’s response was too incompetent to prevent the attacks”

“Bush knew about the attacks in advance, with some specifics, did a good job of attempting to stop them, but failed.”

Etc. etc.

That you appear to think that there is only one possible position is really, really bizarre.

I know I’ve asked before, but may I ask again if English is your first language?

257

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:41:25pm

re: #255 000G

If you knew that an event would happen in the future and did nothing to prevent it from happening, I think that’s pretty much LIHOP – unless you think there was nothing that anyone could have done to prevent it.

That’s what you think. That’s not necessarily what the polled people thought,

258

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:41:31pm

re: #249 Sergey Romanov

We don’t know how many of the alleged 35% meant it in the evil “LIHOP” way and how many - in the incompetent “had a warning and did nothing” way. So in regard to “so many Dems are truthers” issue the poll is absolutely worthless. It may not be worthless for some other issues, but I’m not really interested in that.

Polls are meaningful not to measure beliefs but to measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected.

259

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:41:55pm

re: #253 000G

I was talking about functional equivalence.

And? The most common usage of ‘popular’ is that it is well-regarded by all or almost all. So, yes, they really are functionally equivalent.

“Ice cream is popular among kids” “Kids like ice cream” are functionally equivalent statements.

260

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:43:50pm

re: #258 000G

Polls are meaningful not to measure beliefs but to measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected.

And we measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected to measure beliefs. Otherwise there is no point.

261

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:44:06pm

re: #259 Obdicut

And? The most common usage of ‘popular’ is that it is well-regarded by all or almost all. So, yes, they really are functionally equivalent.

“Ice cream is popular among kids” “Kids like ice cream” are functionally equivalent statements.

Nope. You are mistaken. Syllogisms don’t work that way.

262

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:44:46pm

re: #260 Sergey Romanov

And we measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected to measure beliefs. Otherwise there is no point.

The point is exactly to measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected. There is no point in trying to measure beliefs.

263

freetoken Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:44:59pm

re: #204 simoom

There was a story yesterday about how Issa is backing down from doing a “climategate” investigation. I suspect that once his aids looked into the issue and discovered there really wasn’t any there there, except for the theft of emails and illegal entry into a data processing system, that legally the issue becomes a hot potato for the SD representative.

264

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:45:13pm

re: #262 000G

The point is exactly to measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected. There is no point in trying to measure beliefs.

What is that point of measuring that?

265

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:45:45pm

re: #256 Obdicut

No, they didn’t say that he let it happen on purpose. That is the entire point. You are simply arguing by begging the question at this point.

You are now saying “Bush knew about the attacks in advance” is functionally equivalent to “Bush let the attacks happen on purpose”.

See #255

That you appear to think that there is only one possible position is really, really bizarre.

I don’t think that. That you ascribe bizarre positions to me is something I am used to, however.

266

Stanley Sea Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:46:20pm

re: #263 freetoken

There was a story yesterday about how Issa is backing down from doing a “climategate” investigation. I suspect that once his aids looked into the issue and discovered there really wasn’t any there there, except for the theft of emails and illegal entry into a data processing system, that legally the issue becomes a hot potato for the SD representative.

EXACTLY!!! The New Yorker article couldn’t have come @ a better time.

267

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:46:28pm

re: #264 Sergey Romanov

What is that point of measuring that?

Measuring what kind of statements are popular with a polled segment of the population seems to be pretty useful for conducting policies.

268

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:46:58pm

re: #261 000G

Nope. You are mistaken. Syllogisms don’t work that way.

Syllogisms may not, but the English language does. Which is what we’re using here.

When someone says “Kids like ice cream”, they are not making the logical statement that all kids like ice cream.

Do you understand that?

269

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:47:35pm

re: #265 000G

See #255

Didn’t Obdi address your point in #255 in the comment you replied to?

270

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:48:00pm

re: #268 Obdicut

Syllogisms may not, but the English language does. Which is what we’re using here.

When someone says “Kids like ice cream”, they are not making the logical statement that all kids like ice cream.

“Kids” is not semantically equivalent to “Democrats” for the purpose you want to argue.

271

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:48:19pm

Dynamic equivalence (functional equivalence) is, as I recall from classes long ago, impressionistic equivalence. Its counterpart, formal equivalence, is word for word equivalency.

You stated that a particular belief was “popular” among Democrats. The impression given is that Democrats commonly hold that belief. In short, Democrats are (at least predominately) truthers.

Later you stated that 33% of Democrats held this belief. Now as it happens I’ve a bit of difficulty swallowing the idea 33% should be considered “popular”. Especially when the poll indicates that more Democrats do NOT believe it than DO believe it. It leads me to believe you were being “loose” or “imprecise” in your original claims.

So either you’re madly tap-dancing to avoid having to say you might have been in error, or you’re trying to hold everyone who disagrees with you to standards you decline to hold for yourself. Or, just possibly, you don’t realize what you’re doing.

But you’re the one who tossed the first insult (calling me a truther) so I’m not particularly interested in cutting you slack.

272

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:49:51pm

re: #267 000G

Measuring what kind of statements are popular with a polled segment of the population seems to be pretty useful for conducting policies.

Only if that measure gives a “true” picture of people’s beliefs. Which is prevented by asking questions permitting ambiguous answers, like what we have in this case. GIGO.

273

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:50:09pm

re: #270 000G

“Kids” is not semantically equivalent to “Democrats” for the purpose you want to argue.

Yes, it is. It is a group of individuals who bear only one attribute in common.

Please demonstrate otherwise. Please try actually making an argument that doesn’t simply depend on assertion.

274

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:50:31pm

re: #270 000G

And again, is the English language your first language?

275

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:50:54pm

re: #271 kirkspencer

You stated that a particular belief was “popular” among Democrats. The impression given is that Democrats commonly hold that belief. In short, Democrats are (at least predominately) truthers.

Nope. Popular among Democrats can also mean more popular than among, say, bipartisan lines. Also, popular for what is obviously a fringe position. I also was not arguing beliefs but statements.

276

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:51:59pm

re: #273 Obdicut

Yes, it is. It is a group of individuals who bear only one attribute in common.

Please demonstrate otherwise. Please try actually making an argument that doesn’t simply depend on assertion.

Kids is a vague type term, refering to an unspecified set of individuals. Democrats is a well-defined term, refering to a specified set of individuals.

277

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:52:12pm

re: #275 000G

Popular among Democrats can also mean more popular than among, say, bipartisan lines

No, popular cannot mean that, not without those other words that you attached to it.

278

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:53:12pm

re: #272 Sergey Romanov

Only if that measure gives a “true” picture of people’s beliefs. Which is prevented by asking questions permitting ambiguous answers, like what we have in this case. GIGO.

I still hold that “beliefs” are not measured but inferred from what is actually measured namely support for or rejection of statements. And those inferences I hold are not neccessarily why the polls are conducted in the first place.

279

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:53:32pm

re: #276 000G

Kids is a vague type term, refering to an unspecified set of individuals. Democrats is a well-defined term, refering to a specified set of individuals.

Okay. If we change it to “Ice cream is popular among 14 year old boys”, that is equivalent to “14 year old boys like ice cream.”

That removes your objection.

280

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:53:39pm

re: #277 Obdicut

No, popular cannot mean that, not without those other words that you attached to it.

Yes, sure it can.

281

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:54:16pm

re: #279 Obdicut

Okay. If we change it to “Ice cream is popular among 14 year old boys”, that is equivalent to “14 year old boys like ice cream.”

Yes, that is a false equivalence.

282

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:54:17pm

re: #278 000G

I still hold that “beliefs” are not measured but inferred from what is actually measured namely support for or rejection of statements

Which is exactly what Sergey has been arguing.

And those inferences I hold are not neccessarily why the polls are conducted in the first place.

Which is irrelevant to the question we are addressing.

283

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:55:11pm

re: #282 Obdicut

Which is exactly what Sergey has been arguing.

No, he argued that beliefs were measured.

Which is irrelevant to the question we are addressing.

No, it is not because you were arguing about beliefs, and I was arguing about statements.

284

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:55:16pm

re: #281 000G

Yes, that is a false equivalence.

In what way is it false? Again, it would be really helpful if you gave an argument, and not just assertions. Right now, all you are doing is asserting that you’re right on the grounds that you’re right.

285

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:55:24pm

re: #278 000G

I still hold that “beliefs” are not measured but inferred from what is actually measured namely support for or rejection of statements. And those inferences I hold are not neccessarily why the polls are conducted in the first place.

That seems like nitpicking. If the beliefs are inferred from the measured data then beliefs are (indirectly) measured.

As for the polls, let’s not go far: why was this poll conducted in the first place?

286

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:55:48pm

re: #283 000G

Is there some reason you’re dodging the question about whether English is your first language?

287

Sionainn Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:56:12pm

re: #275 000G

Nope. Popular among Democrats can also mean more popular than among, say, bipartisan lines. Also, popular for what is obviously a fringe position. I also was not arguing beliefs but statements.

Weren’t you originally arguing about paranoia? How is that a statement and not a belief?

288

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:56:28pm

re: #283 000G

No, it is not because you were arguing about beliefs, and I was arguing about statements.

If statements are ambiguous and have not tie to measurable reality, I fail to see any use for measuring them.

289

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:57:17pm

re: #284 Obdicut

In what way is it false? Again, it would be really helpful if you gave an argument, and not just assertions. Right now, all you are doing is asserting that you’re right on the grounds that you’re right.

Maybe this might help: What do you say to a 14-year old boy who does not like ice cream?

290

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:57:43pm

Let me try this somewhat differently.

Please define “popular”.

291

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:58:12pm

re: #285 Sergey Romanov

That seems like nitpicking. If the beliefs are inferred from the measured data then beliefs are (indirectly) measured.

No, they are not measured at all. Induction problem.

As for the polls, let’s not go far: why was this poll conducted in the first place?

I dunno, maybe to give Republicans a weapon against Democrats?

292

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 2:59:10pm

re: #288 Sergey Romanov

If statements are ambiguous and have not tie to measurable reality, I fail to see any use for measuring them.

I think it’s useful to see how many people are willing to support these kind of statements.

293

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:00:03pm

re: #290 kirkspencer

Let me try this somewhat differently.

Please define “popular”.

I can tell you what isn’t popular: reading this thread.

It is painful. I give, you, Obdi and the others credit for trying, but it looks to me like your mission is doomed. You need a fair and responsive counterparty to have a meaningful conversation, and you guys lack that here.

294

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:00:39pm

re: #291 000G

No, they are not measured at all. Induction problem.

But then no problem. No beliefs were measured here, so there is no ground for stating that 35% of Dems are or were truthers. Thanks. ;-)

295

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:02:21pm

re: #294 Sergey Romanov

But then no problem. No beliefs were measured here, so there is no ground for stating that 35% of Dems are or were truthers. Thanks. ;-)

Well, Charles said that in the headline back then. I don’t think I argued it in this conversation.

296

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:02:57pm

re: #289 000G

Maybe this might help: What do you say to a 14-year old boy who does not like ice cream?

Jesus Christ, don’t be patronizing. I already pointed out that in English, it is not assumed that the statement that “x likes y” means that “All x likes y”.

Being patronizing towards me about a point that I already made to you is just mindbogglingly weird.

And for like the fourth time: Is English your first language? You’re arguing like someone who comes from a background of a much more orderly language.

297

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:03:22pm

re: #292 000G

I think it’s useful to see how many people are willing to support these kind of statements.

Well, and I don’t think it’s useful.

298

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:03:48pm

re: #297 Sergey Romanov

Well, and I don’t think it’s useful.

We agree to disagree.

299

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:05:29pm

re: #296 Obdicut

Jesus Christ, don’t be patronizing. I already pointed out that in English, it is not assumed that the statement that “x likes y” means that “All x likes y”.

I know. But I fail to see the relevance of that for you arguing that “Democrats are 9/11 truthers” is logically equivalent to “I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… “.

300

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:06:10pm

re: #295 000G

Well, Charles said that in the headline back then. I don’t think I argued it in this conversation.

You sure?

82 000G Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:04:28pm replyquote
* 1
* down
* up
* favorite
* report

re: #79 jaunte

Paranoia seems to be a winning strategy as a motivator.

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

157 000G Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:52:25pm replyquote

* 0
* down
* up
* favorite
* report

re: #151 kirkspencer

Ah, but Democrats aren’t saying either. They’re saying “ignored warnings.” That is not LIHOP.

Again, that was what more than one third of democrats thought back in 2007: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

301

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:07:47pm

re: #300 Sergey Romanov

You sure?

Again, that was what more than one third of democrats thought back in 2007: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Hm. Okay. I admit that I argued the “belief” position in #157. My bad.

302

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:09:07pm

re: #299 000G

Since you are bound and determined not to actually engage in an actual argument, but simply to state your assertions over and over, there’s nowhere to go here.

Saying that a belief is popular in a group is identifying that group with that belief, unless you hedge it carefully. You didn’t hedge it at all. There is no definition of ‘popular’ where it means “a minority of the group hold this view; a majority hold the opposite view”.

303

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:09:33pm

re: #301 000G

Hm. Okay. I admit that I argued the “belief” position in #157. My bad.

And I was merely responding to that position.

304

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:09:45pm

re: #302 Obdicut

Saying that a belief is popular in a group is identifying that group with that belief, unless you hedge it carefully. You didn’t hedge it at all. There is no definition of ‘popular’ where it means “a minority of the group hold this view; a majority hold the opposite view”.

I disagree.

305

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:10:30pm

re: #303 Sergey Romanov

And I was merely responding to that position.

I think you did a little bit more than just that, but again: Apologies for arguing the “belief” position.

306

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:11:23pm

re: #304 000G

I disagree.

It doesn’t matter if you disagree. It doesn’t change the reality of the English language. You said a belief was popular among Democrats when a larger number of Democrats explicitly rejected that belief.

By your logic, one could also say that anti-trutherism is popular among Democrats. And then you’re just disappearing up your own ass.

307

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:11:45pm

re: #305 000G

I think you did a little bit more than just that

Of course, as conversation progressed there were little branch-outs.

, but again: Apologies for arguing the “belief” position.

308

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:12:24pm

Popular, according to the dictionary at hand, is

1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general: a popular preacher.
2. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances: He’s not very popular with me just now.
3. of, pertaining to, or representing the people, esp. the common people: popular discontent.
4. of the people as a whole, esp. of all citizens of a nation or state qualified to participate in an election: popular suffrage; the popular vote; popular representation.
5. prevailing among the people generally: a popular superstition.
6. suited to or intended for the general masses of people: popular music.
7. adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste: popular lectures on science.
8. suited to the means of ordinary people; not expensive: popular prices on all tickets.

People in general. People as a whole. The common people.

If a group in general stands by a statement or holds a belief, it is generally said that the group stands by the statement or holds a belief. That is a common usage of the English language.

I think you’re tap dancing, and doing it badly at that.

309

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:12:58pm

re: #306 Obdicut

It doesn’t matter if you disagree. It doesn’t change the reality of the English language. You said a belief was popular among Democrats when a larger number of Democrats explicitly rejected that belief.

Yes. for a fringe position it was popular in that segment of the population when compared to how that position was received in other segments.

310

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:14:39pm

re: #309 000G

Yes. for a fringe position it was popular in that segment of the population when compared to how that position was received in other segments.

Dude, you are backpedaling like an NFL cornerback.

311

kirkspencer Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:15:11pm

re: #304 000G

re: #302 Obdicut
Saying that a belief is popular in a group is identifying that group with that belief, unless you hedge it carefully. You didn’t hedge it at all. There is no definition of ‘popular’ where it means “a minority of the group hold this view; a majority hold the opposite view”.
I disagree.

Please cite a reference - a dictionary or thesaurus or something - that supports your tap dancing. Otherwise you are as equally valid to claim water is not wet because sometimes, in solid form, it isn’t.

312

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:15:14pm

re: #310 garhighway

Dude, you are backpedaling like an NFL cornerback.

Not backpedaling at all. Show me where I argued differently.

313

garhighway Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:16:25pm

re: #312 000G

Not backpedaling at all. Show me where I argued differently.

I cannot imagine a bigger waste of my time. You are incapable of seeing what is in front of your own face. You have been disingenuous throughout this thread.

314

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:16:36pm

re: #262 000G

The point is exactly to measure what statements are being affirmed or rejected. There is no point in trying to measure beliefs.

Exactly. And if the statement has multiple possible interpretations that are consistent with the wording of the question, then the people who answer “yes” to the question may in fact represent an amalgamation of several different points of view.

This is why polls are meaningless unless the following are known:
1. The exact wording of the question asked
2. The exact wording of any preparatory statements given to the polled. and any questions preceding the one in question
3. The size od the sample (N).
4. The method by which the polled people were selected.

Without knowing these things, a poll’s value is limited.

315

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:17:08pm

re: #313 garhighway

I cannot imagine a bigger waste of my time. You are incapable of seeing what is in front of your own face. You have been disingenuous throughout this thread.

If you cannot show me where in the thread I argued differently, thereby proving your claim of backpedaling, then fine.

316

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:17:10pm

re: #309 000G

Yes. for a fringe position it was popular in that segment of the population when compared to how that position was received in other segments.

See those other words in your sentence? That’s what you failed to say in the first place. If you’re making a comparative statement, you need to declare that it’s comparative. Otherwise, you’re not making a comparative statement.

It’s kind of obvious.

It is really funny that in a thread about a poll question that was vaguely worded, you are now having to explain that you meant not the primary definition of something, but a tertiary definition.

317

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:17:23pm

re: #309 000G

Yes. for a fringe position it was popular in that segment of the population when compared to how that position was received in other segments.

I kind of get what you’re saying. If among those who accept A there are 85% X’s and 15% Y’s, then acc. to you “A is popular among X’s” even if only 1% of X’s share this position. Native speakers though say that it’s not how it’s used, so I’m gonna stick with native speakers.

318

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:19:00pm

re: #316 Obdicut

See those other words in your sentence? That’s what you failed to say in the first place. If you’re making a comparative statement, you need to declare that it’s comparative. Otherwise, you’re not making a comparative statement.

I thought it was obvious. Sorry if it wasn’t.

It is really funny that in a thread about a poll question that was vaguely worded, you are now having to explain that you meant not the primary definition of something, but a tertiary definition.

I don’t “have to”. I am kind of being made to. And in the context of polls on fringe views and different segments responding differently, I thought it was obvious.

319

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:21:39pm

re: #314 Fozzie Bear

Without knowing these things, a poll’s value is limited.

It’s not been great in value in measuring actual beliefs but it was great in getting a lot of people of a certain segment to affirm a fringe view, thereby giving their political opponents a formidable tool agains them.

320

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:22:03pm

re: #318 000G

I thought it was obvious.

Why did you think it was obvious, though? The meaning of “popular when compared to other groups” is entirely different from the meaning of “popular”. Absolutely nothing in your initial statement showed that it was a comparative, at all. In the least.

Why do you simultaneously pretend you’re being logically and semantically sound, and at the same time use really vague terms without defining them, and use terms you don’t even mean to use? You can really only have it one way or the other.

321

celticdragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:23:04pm

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

Birth control is something I’m a bit passionate about. I don’t think most women my age understand how hard it was to get the right to control your fertility, and how essentially important it is.

I’ve used Plan B. People like Santorum would like for that to be unavailable to me. There was a time when condoms were illegal to manufacture or sell in this country, and frankly, I think he might also like a return to that.

I take this personally.

He does want to return to the Comstock Laws days when birth control could be banned. I was shocked to discover that an awful lot of “conservatives”, and some Catholic conservatives especially, were vehemently opposed to Griswold V Conn which established that there is such a thing as a right to privacy and the governmnt had no business telling you you could not use a condom.

Astonishigly, these idiots actually do not believe in unenumerated rights (and this was in fact a major issue raisd against the original Bill of Rights, since some founders were concerned that the bill would serve to limit rights to only those written…) like those alluded to in the Ninth Amendment. This leads to lunacy from people like Bill O’Reilly who continually states that there is no actual right to geet married in the first place, although he has been reminded repeateedly on his own show that the SCOTUS settled that explitely in 1967.

SanFran Zionist is correct. Santorum and his ilk are malevolent authoritarians who have no compunction in using the coercive power of the government to enforce their religious intolerance on all of us.

I am a democrat… I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretentions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches Theocracy the worse it will be.(CS Lewis 1966:81).

322

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:23:44pm

re: #320 Obdicut

Why did you think it was obvious, though? The meaning of “popular when compared to other groups” is entirely different from the meaning of “popular”. Absolutely nothing in your initial statement showed that it was a comparative, at all. In the least.

Again, within the context of the conversation, especially the topic, I thought it was obvious.

Why do you simultaneously pretend you’re being logically and semantically sound, and at the same time use really vague terms without defining them, and use terms you don’t even mean to use? You can really only have it one way or the other.

I think I can (actually must) give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they share context with me when I converse with them.

323

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:26:12pm

re: #317 Sergey Romanov

I kind of get what you’re saying. If among those who accept A there are 85% X’s and 15% Y’s, then acc. to you “A is popular among X’s” even if only 1% of X’s share this position. Native speakers though say that it’s not how it’s used, so I’m gonna stick with native speakers.

I don’t think the 85 % vs 1 % is an accurate analogy. The Rasmussen poll was supposed to be representative for Democrats.

324

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:27:18pm

re: #322 000G

Again, within the context of the conversation, especially the topic, I thought it was obvious.

When asked “Why do you think it was obvious?” Replying “Because it was obvious” is not an answer.

I think I can (actually must) give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they share context with me when I converse with them.

No, you really must define your terms.

325

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:28:20pm

re: #323 000G

It was not an analogy, it was an illustration.

326

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:29:12pm

re: #324 Obdicut

When asked “Why do you think it was obvious?” Replying “Because it was obvious” is not an answer.

I replied with more than that.

No, you really must define your terms.

That’s besides the point. I am never going to define all of my terms in advance. A conversation cannot always contain a characteristica universalis.

327

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:29:40pm

re: #325 Sergey Romanov

It was not an analogy, it was an illustration.

Point taken. ;-)

328

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:30:10pm

re: #145 000G

No, you are mistaken.

Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) are BOTH truther positions.

But I think many people are coming from a SUSIH position (Screwed Up, So It Happened).

That’s a bit different, and I think a whole lot of people could come in for some blame…but it’s not a Truth thing, just a ‘holy shit, wish someone had been a little more paranoid’ thing.

329

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:30:14pm

re: #319 000G

It’s not been great in value in measuring actual beliefs but it was great in getting a lot of people of a certain segment to affirm a fringe view, thereby giving their political opponents a formidable tool agains them.

That’s sort of what Rasmussen is in the business of doing.

330

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:30:36pm

re: #329 Fozzie Bear

That’s sort of what Rasmussen is in the business of doing.

I know.

331

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:32:10pm

re: #321 celticdragon

I want to have sex with your brain. Just thought you should know. (That C.S. Lewis quote is spot on.)

332

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:32:20pm

re: #328 SanFranciscoZionist

But I think many people are coming from a SUSIH position (Screwed Up, So It Happened).

That’s a bit different, and I think a whole lot of people could come in for some blame…but it’s not a Truth thing, just a ‘holy shit, wish someone had been a little more paranoid’ thing.

I get that that might have very well been the actual belief or sentiment driving towards the insane statement. And that belief or sentiment can be called reasonable. Unfortunately, it was still an insane statement.

333

celticdragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:34:47pm

re: #62 elizajane

I see it as a class issue. The more wealthy & educated women and their daughters are always going to have choices. Even many Republican mothers will justify flying to New York or, if necessary, to Amsterdam if their 17-year-old daughter, Yale acceptance letter clutched in her fist, is pregnant. The person with no choice is the poor kid in North Dakota who would have gone to community college and bettered her life but when she got pregnant (since nobody ever offered her any information about birth control) her boyfriend up and joined the army and now she’s working at the hair salon 3 days a week while grandma looks after the baby.

Does anybody on the Right ever wonder while we are now tied with England as Western Society with the LEAST Social Mobility? Is the idea that if you just keep saying “we are the land of opportunity” it will magically be so, no matter what the facts demonstrate?

Or perhaps they can find a way to stop collecting those sociological facts too, like the science ones.

Repeated for truth.

The whole notion that everybody can get ahead with hard work and bootstrapping makes for a great moral fable, but is utterly disconnected from empirical reality.

You get ahead by being born into the right class and going to the right school, by and large. Most of the top 5% tier earners made their business contacts with others of the same social standing at Harvard, Columbia etc. Without those social contacts, you are dead in the water.

We love to point out the exceptions to the rule…the scrappy minimum wage guy who makes it big, but that is a one in a million chance. We love to believe otherwise, but the facts speak for thmselves. We are a class stratified country and the class you are born in is almost certainly the same class you will die in.

334

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:35:24pm

If your enemies are committing mass murder of innocents on a gigantic scale, anything is justified if it stops them.

Well, actually, no. Even if one starts from the premise that a great evil is being committed, and that some people’s politics stand in the way of preventing that evil, the Christian cannot consider himself 007-ized.

Christian teaching includes, as part of core dogma, that many measures are not justified. That the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That one wrong does not right another.

Consider the career of Wilberforce. Wilberforce did not advocate violent attacks on the slave trade. He did not call for sabotage, or assassinations, or any such measures. As a theological matter, that would have gone, and would now go, against doctrine. As a practical matter, it would have landed him in jail and discredited his position.

Santorum isn’t trying to goad people to murder and arson. He’s trying to change a mindset. This can only be done by persuasion, and he’s trying to draw an analogy. Whether enough people will be swayed is highly doubtful. Abortion strikes most of us as way different from murder, way different from slavery, and not the sort of thing that the law can control.

If mindsets can be changed along the lines of what Santorum is advocating, abortion rates will fall most of the way to zero without any change in the law. If they can’t be, then the law won’t change.

He should therefore leave the preaching to preachers, and do his job as a legislator and address those problems that are within reach of political solutions.

335

celticdragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:35:45pm

re: #331 Fozzie Bear

I want to have sex with your brain. Just thought you should know. (That C.S. Lewis quote is spot on.)

LOL

My spouse might get a tad annoyed…

336

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:38:59pm

re: #334 lostlakehiker

Very well said.

337

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:44:57pm

re: #335 celticdragon

LOL

My spouse might get a tad annoyed…

Several further comments have occurred to me, and are not fit for anyone’s consumption.

338

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:45:34pm

re: #82 000G

Yeah. But I remember a time when 9/11 truth was popular among Democrats… So, once you’ve won… maybe……

Wow, you got into an endless argument on this.

9/11 trutherism never had a majority following in any camp. Did you mean that 911 trutherism was more popular among Democrats than among Republicans? More popular then than it is now? Popular enough that it wasn’t met with general scorn when aired?

“Popular” is a loose word, true. But hopefully you had in mind a meaning that could be spelled out in crisp detail, and supported by evidence…quotations, contemporary news articles, and so forth. If so, the thing to have done, when challenged, would have been to clarify along those lines.

339

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:48:14pm

re: #338 lostlakehiker

I think I spelled out what I meant exhaustively. Maybe I could have avoided that by randomly throwing in a “relatively” qualifier in the beginning. ;-)

340

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 4:03:52pm

re: #333 celticdragon

Repeated for truth.

The whole notion that everybody can get ahead with hard work and bootstrapping makes for a great moral fable, but is utterly disconnected from empirical reality.

You get ahead by being born into the right class and going to the right school, by and large. Most of the top 5% tier earners made their business contacts with others of the same social standing at Harvard, Columbia etc. Without those social contacts, you are dead in the water.

We love to point out the exceptions to the rule…the scrappy minimum wage guy who makes it big, but that is a one in a million chance. We love to believe otherwise, but the facts speak for thmselves. We are a class stratified country and the class you are born in is almost certainly the same class you will die in.

Here’s some statistics from Wikipedia’s article on social mobility.

Recent researchers collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations, looked at the probability of reaching a particular income distribution in regards to where their parents were ranked and found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[3] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility.

Thus, if you’re born into the “fifth” class, far from being almost certain that you will die there, it is more likely than not that you will move up one or more ranks.

It is too much to expect that even in a pure meritocracy, chances for someone born into once quintile would be exactly 20% of ending in each quintile. In a meritocracy with no class barriers whatever, superb athletes would get rich. They would often have children with superb athletic talent; athletic talent is clearly to some extent heritable. This kind of thing would make for some correlation between class standing of parents and children.

On the other hand, those statistics quoted above suggest that the U.S. is not exactly a pure meritocracy. Our educational system does not in fact bring every child up to his/her potential. Parental inputs matter, and upper class parents generally work harder at educating their children, and know more and are thus in a better position to do so, given equal effort, than lower class parents. The schools, even if they supplied equal inputs to all, would not be able to make up that gap. And finally, sometimes, just inheriting a boatload of money can confer on a child a top-quintile income.

341

AlexRogan Thu, Jan 20, 2011 4:09:34pm

re: #79 jaunte

Paranoia seems to be a winning strategy as a motivator.

Worked in the 50s…

///

342

celticdragon Thu, Jan 20, 2011 5:00:58pm

re: #340 lostlakehiker

Here’s some statistics from Wikipedia’s article on social mobility.

Thus, if you’re born into the “fifth” class, far from being almost certain that you will die there, it is more likely than not that you will move up one or more ranks.

It is too much to expect that even in a pure meritocracy, chances for someone born into once quintile would be exactly 20% of ending in each quintile. In a meritocracy with no class barriers whatever, superb athletes would get rich. They would often have children with superb athletic talent; athletic talent is clearly to some extent heritable. This kind of thing would make for some correlation between class standing of parents and children.

On the other hand, those statistics quoted above suggest that the U.S. is not exactly a pure meritocracy. Our educational system does not in fact bring every child up to his/her potential. Parental inputs matter, and upper class parents generally work harder at educating their children, and know more and are thus in a better position to do so, given equal effort, than lower class parents. The schools, even if they supplied equal inputs to all, would not be able to make up that gap. And finally, sometimes, just inheriting a boatload of money can confer on a child a top-quintile income.

Wikipedia? Really?

Data on relative mobility suggest that people in
the United States have experienced less relative
mobility than is commonly believed. Most studies
find that, in America, about half of the advantages of
having a parent with a high income are passed on to the
next generation.(11) This means that one of the biggest
predictors of an American child’s future economic
success — the identity and characteristics of his or her
parents — is predetermined and outside that child’s
control. To be sure, the apple can fall far from the tree
and often does in individual cases, but relative to other
factors, the tree dominates the picture.

economicmobility.org

343

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 8:34:33pm

re: #202 Fozzie Bear

Bush knew, in advance, that there was a likelyhood of AQ attacks. That much is a fact. When asked if bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, it is a reasonable answer to give a “yes” in response, given the context.

No it isn’t. A “yes” is trooferism. In any context.

344

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 8:41:15pm

re: #302 Obdicut

Since you are bound and determined not to actually engage in an actual argument, but simply to state your assertions over and over, there’s nowhere to go here.

Saying that a belief is popular in a group is identifying that group with that belief, unless you hedge it carefully. You didn’t hedge it at all. There is no definition of ‘popular’ where it means “a minority of the group hold this view; a majority hold the opposite view”.

Well, you’re wrong about that. One definition of “popular in a group” is that it is more popular in that group than in other groups. Examples:

“Shuffleboard is popular among old people”.

“Moose hunting is popular in Alaska”.

In neither of these cases is it remotely the case that a majority of the population in question pursues the activity or enjoys it. But the word is still apt. It captures the fact that the activity has a considerably larger following in the named population than it does in the population at large.

345

lostlakehiker Thu, Jan 20, 2011 8:44:21pm

re: #213 Jadespring

The wingnutters fixating on the First Lady telling people to move and then making them get killed are missing the bigger outrage of the day.

Not only is her ‘healthy eating and exercise’ project getting people hurt but now she’s in cahoots with Walmart! And they’re going to be changing peoples food!

//

Wal-Mart Unveils Plan To Make, Sell Healthier Foods

Good grief. What could be wrong with people taking on some of the responsibility for their own health? And corporations pitching in? This is blind, witless opposition.

346

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Jan 20, 2011 8:52:38pm

re: #344 lostlakehiker

In neither of these cases is it remotely the case that a majority of the population in question pursues the activity or enjoys it. But the word is still apt. It captures the fact that the activity has a considerably larger following in the named population than it does in the population at large.

In neither of those cases does a larger percentage of the population actively reject and have antipathy to the activity.

Not at all comparable, sorry.

347

samgak Thu, Jan 20, 2011 10:32:39pm

re: #19 jamesfirecat

No the logical conclusion they really never get is that once you’ve ruled that the state has a right to make your body not your own if it can save someone else’s life… say hello to everyone being forced to getting a mandatory kidney transplants/blood donations…

I’m pro-choice, but the individual’s sovereignty over or her body shouldn’t be absolute. Mandatory vaccination should be an option to prevent the spread of a pandemic. Opt-out organ donation schemes are a good idea too, and people should have to provide a decent reason.

348

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:37:22pm

re: #347 samgak

I’m pro-choice, but the individual’s sovereignty over or her body shouldn’t be absolute. Mandatory vaccination should be an option to prevent the spread of a pandemic. Opt-out organ donation schemes are a good idea too, and people should have to provide a decent reason.

i TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS

vaccines are not optional, organ donation is important, and these anti-vax parents are endangering the rest of us and helping contribute to ill health

349

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:38:47pm

re: #331 Fozzie Bear

I want to have sex with your brain. Just thought you should know. (That C.S. Lewis quote is spot on.)

gnarly

350

ClaudeMonet Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:45:16pm

re: #47 Talking Point Detective

Speaking of rightwing extremism…

I just ran across this. Where does the following statement come from? A Tea Party leader? Glenn Beck? Michelle Bachmann? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Alex Jones?:

Actually,

This was the statement if “principles” issued by the American Independence Party in 1967. You know the American Independence Party, right? That’s the party that ran perhaps the most infamous segregationist in American history - George Wallace - for president.

To his credit, Wallace later repudiated his famous segregationist stance and even begged forgiveness from his black constituents in Alabama. That may have been small potatoes compared to his previous evil, but it shows that some people can change.

Unfortunately, I do not see such potential in the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Paul pere and fils, Palin, etc.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Rick Santorum Compares Legal Abortion to Slavery

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud