ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
What is it with you guys and the "talking points/script" thing? Why do you find it hard to believe that someone can read the news and form their own opinion based on their personal beliefs? Am I that great of a threat to your mind set that you refuse to believe I can be doing this on my own?
I get my news via morning radio, yahoo news, very little FOX news 5-10 mins a day, and the various news articles people post in here.
I get my opinion style news from very little Rush less than an hour a week, Hannity- listen to him for 15 mins 3 times a week on drive home, National Review online and some of the posts and blogs I find and read due to stuff posted on here.
I am not on ANY mailing list, no one sends me "talking points" or anything else like that. I don't even get mail from the RNC asking for money (although I do get a check for these posts
)The most commendable thing I've seen from a mainstream media outlet in years. I especially loved the way he echoed Murrow.
Finally, someone is speaking up. I was proud of Clinton for speaking the truth and I'm even prouder of Olbermann, since he has something to lose by saying what so many of us know, and what so many others ignore.
Finally, someone is speaking up. I was proud of Clinton for speaking the truth and I'm even prouder of Olbermann, since he has something to lose by saying what so many of us know, and what so many others ignore.
You're seriously misconstruing the meaning of "base of support", and furthermore I don't give a damn if Bush has 70 percent approval ratings. He's criminally incompetent and unfit to manage a Wendy's, much less a country.
Man - the libs must truely be realizing that they're on the ropes and likely to end up irrelevant in the next Congress too... I liked the part about condemning our soldiers to waterboarding - at least they'd still have their heads if that were the case.
No, it means that there have been third party candidates with stronger showings in some elections - Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader in 2000. Clinton had a 9 point margin of victory in 1996, while Bush had a less than 3 point margin (putting fraud aside); who had the stronger popular support?
The 'over 50%' has reflects a lot on the third parties running, rather than only the popular support for the winner.
Think maybe you have a bit of cultural bias? That being beheaded is worse than being shot by a rifle or bombed by a jet?
Let's look at the facts - how many US forces have been beheaded, and how many innocent Iraqis have been shot or bombed by US forces?
Our military launched 50 attacks to try to kill Saddam. Were they careful and respectful of the fact that those bombs killed civilians? The 0 for 50 score is a hint.
Let me make this as clear as possible: If the Democrats don't take a majority in the next congress, if Republicans win AGAIN...America as we know it is most likely dead.
I think that's currently one of the bigger problems with our generation. Cultural bias shouldn't be a derogatory term - people should equate it a little more with national pride.
Our way of life and governance is superior in many ways... we should celebrate that rather than self hating.
Yes, and if Bush had been running against Gore or Clinton in 2004, you might have a point. But that's not what happened, was it? Corbett's point was that Democrats said "the tide is turning" before the 2004 election and "look how that turned out", implying that they got their asses handed to them. I simply pointed out that Bush's margin of victory over Kerry in 2004 wsa historically a very narrow one, especially for a sitting President, suggesting that perhaps the Dems DIDN'T get their asses kicked in 2004.
Heh, your feeble grasp of even the most basic concepts involving numbers and facts is actually making my day much more enjoyable.
Do you mean the prior election where he LOST the popular vote? I got to say, that's quite impressive...he managed to narrowly beat his previous margin of -0.5%. Sorry, the facts simply aren't on your side here. I'm not one of these people who will whine about Bush "stealing the election", he won both times, but equally stupid is the idea that his election margins represent an ass kicking delivered to the Dems. Face it, he is just about the least elected President in history.
I actually partly agree with you. In some ways, the whites in America go too far with fully supporting and celebrating other cultures preserving and practising their distinct cultures, while worrying that any caucasian-specific cultural preactices and identification are racist/discriminatory.
I'll even go one further and say that the US is a leader in the world at respecting diversity among different cultures. Is there a nation with more cultures in the population?
But, that's about as far as we're going to agree. There's a darned good reason why there's some caution about these things - the US caucasian culture has more than its share of power and influence in the world, and it's known to step all over other cultures sometimes - and to be among the populations most ignorant about others in the world of any first-world nation. And you can probably change that to 'the most ignorant'.
But you pick a poor example to celebrate our right to cultural bigotry. If we want to think that football is better than soccer, fine; but arguing that the cultural bias which leads us to say we have the moral high road because a small number of people are beheaded by others while our side is killing vastly more people, I'd say is an unjustified example. The only reaction we should have to that cultural bias is to recogize it and get rid of it, and adopt a fair, sane view of the issue.
When we're, say, reckless in setting up road blocks where we fail to trian soldiers that the common US gesture of a raised palm to mean 'stop' means something else - hello - in the Iraqi culture, and we kill innocents over and over as a result, it's time to take responsiblity and say we're sorry and fix it, not arrogantly pretend it's ok and their fault.
You take the issue of justified pride in your own culture way too far.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Either his margin of victory improved or it didn't, thems the facts. Here's what you said:
You make it sound like "in a long time" means, you know, a long time. Wheras "in a long time" actually means since the previous election. Notwithstanding the fact that his margin of victory did actually increase the 2nd time around. But whatever, your "facts" are your "facts" and I certainly wouldn't want to take that away from you......
My bad, but never let it be said that I can't admit when I'm wrong. So here's what I SHOULD have said...the 2004 election popular vote was the closest in a long time, except for the 2000 election, where Bush lost the popular vote. In any case, nitpick all you want, the idea that Bush is some wildly popular president who totally whipped the Dems in 2004 is just a partisan fantasy. Yes, his popular vote margins improved...from "losing by the skin of his teeth" to "winning by the skin of his teeth". Well hot damn, that's quite the accomplishment!
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Let's look at it this way...
in 2004 49.3% of the country picked someone besides Bush to be President.
in 1996 50.8% of the country picked someone besides Clinton to be President.
in 1992 57% of the country picked someone besides Clinton to be President.
So in 1992 and 1996 more people did NOT want Clinton to be President than people who did not want Bush to be President in 2004.
You're distorting the situation by cherry-picking the facts you mention - even after this was clearly demonstrated to you.
That can work both ways - for example, in 2000, 47.9% of voters, 50,460,110 voted for Bush, and in 2004, 48.3% of Americans, or 59,028,111, voted for Kerry.
So, in both 2000 and 2004, more Americans both by percentage of voters and by absolute number votes, wanted the democrat to be president than wanted George W. Bush to be president in 2000 - Kerry with *9 million more votes* than Bush in 2000, 59 million to Bush's 50 million.
So what.
I'll repeat it thogh you don't care to notice it:
That can work both ways - for example, in 2000, 47.9% of voters, 50,460,110 voted for Bush, and in 2004, 48.3% of Americans, or 59,028,111, voted for Kerry.
So, in both 2000 and 2004, more Americans both by percentage of voters and by absolute number votes, wanted the democrat to be president than wanted George W. Bush to be president in 2000 - Kerry with *9 million more votes* than Bush in 2000, 59 million to Bush's 50 million.
So what.
I'll repeat it thogh you don't care to notice it:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter