Washington Times digging deep

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"

The bolded parts have to be true or false.

Which is it?

They are false according to Gallup's own numbers. The editorial seems completely unhinged from reality. It states that Obama's approval ratings in April were 56 percent by Gallup's numbers, but Gallup has NEVER recorded a result lower than 59% for Obama, rated him at 65% on the day the editorial was written, and gives him an average of 63% for his first 100 days. Furthermore, if you check Gallup's own article on where Obama falls in the scope of presidents after their first 100 days, they place him above Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, and Nixon, and below Carter, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

If you want to see the fundamental dishonesty in this editorial, you have to check what it's being based upon. It seems to be using this poll from Gallup and then only taking the people who rate Obama's job as 'good' or 'excellent' as his approval rating, ignoring those who describe it as 'fair' in order to come up with his 56% number. Why he is using this as compared to the straight approve/disapprove numbers that Gallup provides in the same article as Obama's 'approval rating' is because those numbers are inconvenient for him.

Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

In short, the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup in the hopes that people aren't smart enough to read it for themselves. It's the Washington Times though, so that's not exactly a surprise. (you know how the librul media is!)

edited for quote clarity.

You don't understand. That is all because the librul media is lying to all of us to artificially make Obama seem like a god. Don't you know nuffin about nuffin? It is all the democrats and probably the jews or somefing.

Finally there was someone with the courage to manipulate the data with a conservative AMERICAN spin and you have to go showing facts and book learnings and stuff like that to prove it rong!

All the other chicken little neocons in this thread are gunna ignore this "fact stuff" cause they are afraid that they might look like complete morons when shown they were wrong, but not me!!
Don't worry fellas! Come in and make more proofless and ridiculous claims. OC? RyanPaulPeterMarkTomDickHarry? Winnar? Where the fuck have you been lately anyway? Fear All Evil?? Where are you guys... Don't run away!

 

[Genx87]

Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
You don't understand. That is all because the librul media is lying to all of us to artificially make Obama seem like a god. Don't you know nuffin about nuffin? It is all the democrats and probably the jews or somefing.

Finally there was someone with the courage to manipulate the data with a conservative AMERICAN spin and you have to go showing facts and book learnings and stuff like that to prove it rong!

All the other chicken little neocons in this thread are gunna ignore this "fact stuff" cause they are afraid that they might look like complete morons when shown they were wrong, but not me!!
Don't worry fellas! Come in and make more proofless and ridiculous claims. OC? RyanPaulPeterMarkTomDickHarry? Winnar? Where the fuck have you been lately anyway? Fear All Evil?? Where are you guys... Don't run away!

You must be awfully crowded with all those strawmen you keep around.

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

If you expect something to be disagreeable and it turns out to actually be disagreeable, then you have gotten what you expected.

If someone asked me today if Obama's actions have been what I expected from him, my answer would be that they are indeed roughly what I expected. If I were asked whether I agreed with those actions, the answer would be different.

I think that most Republicans (and many conservatives) would agree that Obama's actions are essentially what they expected. That's neither necessarily positive or negative. At best it's neutral.

Maybe so, but the editorial claimed people were disenchanted by Obama as an explanation for his "low" approval ratings. As the polling data indicates however, people got what they expected (i.e. are not disenchanted) and his polling numbers are about average (i.e. not low.)

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

trying not to go off topic, but really? I could have sworn I saw a post from him a few days ago. I thought me might have just wisened up and learned to STFU when he had something stupid and factless to say.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

You're a broken record dude. Don't you have some teabagging to do?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Genx87
Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

trying not to go off topic, but really? I could have sworn I saw a post from him a few days ago. I thought me might have just wisened up and learned to STFU when he had something stupid and factless to say.

I would say it has been at least 3 weeks, possibly more. He was found to be a previously banned member troll who was only interested in trolling. In this case he decided to post inflamatory threads about Obama to rile up the majority of this board. It worked hehe

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

Finally. Anyway, it looks like he switched to his other account.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

whats amazing to me is that as soon as these crazies get banned some random old account pops up and spouts huge crazy

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SirStev0
You don't understand. That is all because the librul media is lying to all of us to artificially make Obama seem like a god. Don't you know nuffin about nuffin? It is all the democrats and probably the jews or somefing.

Finally there was someone with the courage to manipulate the data with a conservative AMERICAN spin and you have to go showing facts and book learnings and stuff like that to prove it rong!

All the other chicken little neocons in this thread are gunna ignore this "fact stuff" cause they are afraid that they might look like complete morons when shown they were wrong, but not me!!
Don't worry fellas! Come in and make more proofless and ridiculous claims. OC? RyanPaulPeterMarkTomDickHarry? Winnar? Where the fuck have you been lately anyway? Fear All Evil?? Where are you guys... Don't run away!

You must be awfully crowded with all those strawmen you keep around.

ZV

oh Sorrry, I forgot that is the new defense. We aren't arguing facts against nonsense, we are arguing against mythological made up creatures we designed. Wake up and grow up. The garbage posted on these forums by some people is actually what they believe. You can pretend all you want that it is us Damn Dirty Trickster Libruls who keep making up these imaginary rightwing nut jobs.
The fact is that I tend to be a pretty moderate guy and it is all these nutjobs that are completely pushing me away from the Repub party. I don't want to be a part of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck Party. If you'd learn to keep your nutjobs quiet you'd be a much more popular party. The problem is that you saw W and Cheney monster win by polarizing everything and now you think you have to keep up the same bullshit in order to attempt to stay alive.

Quit making strawmen and I'll stop belittling them.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Genx87
Winnar was banned weeks ago, try to keep up.

whats amazing to me is that as soon as these crazies get banned some random old account pops up and spouts huge crazy

Isn't that amazing... /strokes chin with thumb and pointer finger

:laugh:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

If you expect something to be disagreeable and it turns out to actually be disagreeable, then you have gotten what you expected.

If someone asked me today if Obama's actions have been what I expected from him, my answer would be that they are indeed roughly what I expected. If I were asked whether I agreed with those actions, the answer would be different.

I think that most Republicans (and many conservatives) would agree that Obama's actions are essentially what they expected. That's neither necessarily positive or negative. At best it's neutral.

Maybe so, but the editorial claimed people were disenchanted by Obama as an explanation for his "low" approval ratings. As the polling data indicates however, people got what they expected (i.e. are not disenchanted) and his polling numbers are about average (i.e. not low.)

I agree that the editorial is misrepresenting the statistics, but it's an editorial. I don't exactly expect random newspaper editorials to be intelligent.

I don't agree with your comment about people not being "disenchanted". If one was never "enchanted" in the first place, it's impossible to become "disenchanted", but that doesn't mean that they approve. Without knowing exactly what each individual's expectations were, a poll asking whether someone has met or exceeded expectations is worthless. The baseline is different for each respondent which means that it's not possible to normalize the results.

To use an obviously absurd hyperbole, if people expected that the president would go on a killing spree and he didn't, they would be able to honestly say that the president exceeded their expectations. While if other people expected that the president would cure all disease and he didn't, these people would honestly be able to say that the president did not meet their expectations. Both sets of people could be rating the same president, but because of the variance in their baseline expectation, those who said the president exceeded expectations are not necessarily praising him while those who said that the president did not meet their expectations are not necessarily upset with him.

Granted, my example is intentionally ridiculous but it illustrates my point.

ZV

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

If you expect something to be disagreeable and it turns out to actually be disagreeable, then you have gotten what you expected.

If someone asked me today if Obama's actions have been what I expected from him, my answer would be that they are indeed roughly what I expected. If I were asked whether I agreed with those actions, the answer would be different.

I think that most Republicans (and many conservatives) would agree that Obama's actions are essentially what they expected. That's neither necessarily positive or negative. At best it's neutral.

ZV

So? The rest of my post pointed out why the editorial's approval numbers were BS, that part of my post only specifically dealt with the Times declaring that his numbers were low because Americans got something different than they expected. If Americans do not think they got something different than they expected, no matter if they expected good or bad, a betrayal of their expectations as described in the editorial cannot be the reason for his 'low' approval ratings.

I was showing how the editorial was bullshit in yet another way, not defending Obama's approval ratings. (they don't need defending)

edited for clarity.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

If you expect something to be disagreeable and it turns out to actually be disagreeable, then you have gotten what you expected.

If someone asked me today if Obama's actions have been what I expected from him, my answer would be that they are indeed roughly what I expected. If I were asked whether I agreed with those actions, the answer would be different.

I think that most Republicans (and many conservatives) would agree that Obama's actions are essentially what they expected. That's neither necessarily positive or negative. At best it's neutral.

Maybe so, but the editorial claimed people were disenchanted by Obama as an explanation for his "low" approval ratings. As the polling data indicates however, people got what they expected (i.e. are not disenchanted) and his polling numbers are about average (i.e. not low.)

I agree that the editorial is misrepresenting the statistics, but it's an editorial. I don't exactly expect random newspaper editorials to be intelligent.

I don't agree with your comment about people not being "disenchanted". If one was never "enchanted" in the first place, it's impossible to become "disenchanted", but that doesn't mean that they approve. Without knowing exactly what each individual's expectations were, a poll asking whether someone has met or exceeded expectations is worthless. The baseline is different for each respondent which means that it's not possible to normalize the results.

To use an obviously absurd hyperbole, if people expected that the president would go on a killing spree and he didn't, they would be able to honestly say that the president exceeded their expectations. While if other people expected that the president would cure all disease and he didn't, these people would honestly be able to say that the president did not meet their expectations. Both sets of people could be rating the same president, but because of the variance in their baseline expectation, those who said the president exceeded expectations are not necessarily praising him while those who said that the president did not meet their expectations are not necessarily upset with him.

Granted, my example is intentionally ridiculous but it illustrates my point.

ZV

But your point is absurd. No Obama hater is going to sarcastically answer a question like that. You would never in a million years if surveyed answer that he is meeting your expectations because as much as you want to pretend that it is playing with wording, you know what they are asking. If anything they would try to answer the question in the most negative way possible, because otherwise they are the ones artificially raising his numbers. I would hope people aren't that stupid.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Red...why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

LOL..

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Regardless of what this guy or the MSM is saying. Obama is neither hated nor the most popular president we have ever had at this point in his career. Besides the 100 day mark is a silly measurement anyways.

It will be interesting to see if Obama is able to command high approval ratings through his entire career. It really depends how the economy goes. If we continue in a stagnant poor performing economy he is doomed. If it comes around regardless of what he had to do with it he will recieved credit. It is the nature of the beast.

He won't. Unless there's some sort of nation-unifying disaster, the odds of a president keeping his approval ratings above 50% are pretty slim these days I think.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Red...why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

LOL..

Facts have already been present. You are choosing to ignore them. Surprise, Surprise.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You must be awfully crowded with all those strawmen you keep around.

ZV

oh Sorrry, I forgot that is the new defense. We aren't arguing facts against nonsense, we are arguing against mythological made up creatures we designed. Wake up and grow up. The garbage posted on these forums by some people is actually what they believe. You can pretend all you want that it is us Damn Dirty Trickster Libruls who keep making up these imaginary rightwing nut jobs.
The fact is that I tend to be a pretty moderate guy and it is all these nutjobs that are completely pushing me away from the Repub party. I don't want to be a part of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck Party. If you'd learn to keep your nutjobs quiet you'd be a much more popular party. The problem is that you saw W and Cheney monster win by polarizing everything and now you think you have to keep up the same bullshit in order to attempt to stay alive.

Quit making strawmen and I'll stop belittling them.

Ah, yes. Because I'm conservative I must think in exactly the way you describe me. I'm sorry. I forgot that your preconceptions dictated my thoughts. I apologise for presenting a legitimate and logical criticism of your preference for stereotyping and mockery as opposed to engaging in actual debate. In the future, per your preference, I will stop engaging in independent thought and behave according to your prejudices.

Thus far you have contributed nothing to the discussion in this thread. You have not brought rational rebuttal to the skewed statistics used in the Times' editorial (eskimospy did that, and thanks to him). You have not dug deeper into those results in response to intellectual challenges (jonks did that, and thanks to him). The only thing you have done is lump all conservatives into a homogeneous group according to your own prejudices.

Still, given the first line of your signature I have to admit that I find your abusive diatribes to be deliciously ironic.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So? The rest of my post pointed out why the editorial's approval numbers were BS, that part of my post only specifically dealt with the Times declaring that his numbers were low because Americans got something different than they expected. If Americans do not think they got something different than they expected, no matter if they expected good or bad, a betrayal of their expectations as described in the editorial cannot be the reason for his 'low' approval ratings.

I was showing how the editorial was bullshit in yet another way, not defending Obama's approval ratings. (they don't need defending)

edited for clarity.

That was unclear to me in your original post, but I was reading quickly so it's quite likely my own fault. I was under the impression that you were seeking to concoct an 86% approval rating for Obama, which would have been just as false as the 56% number was.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. And I agree that the editorial is BS.

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....

"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"

The bolded parts have to be true or false.

Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. [/b]

why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

LOL..

he who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

Do any of you have any reasoned response (that leaves you out FNE) to this analysis:

Originally posted by: eskimospy
They are false according to Gallup's own numbers. The editorial seems completely unhinged from reality. It states that Obama's approval ratings in April were 56 percent by Gallup's numbers, but Gallup has NEVER recorded a result lower than 59% for Obama, rated him at 65% on the day the editorial was written, and gives him an average of 63% for his first 100 days. Furthermore, if you check Gallup's own article on where Obama falls in the scope of presidents after their first 100 days, they place him above Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, and Nixon, and below Carter, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

If you want to see the fundamental dishonesty in this editorial, you have to check what it's being based upon. It seems to be using this poll from Gallup and then only taking the people who rate Obama's job as 'good' or 'excellent' as his approval rating, ignoring those who describe it as 'fair' in order to come up with his 56% number. Why he is using this as compared to the straight approve/disapprove numbers that Gallup provides in the same article as Obama's 'approval rating' is because those numbers are inconvenient for him.

Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

In short, the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup in the hopes that people aren't smart enough to read it for themselves. It's the Washington Times though, so that's not exactly a surprise. (you know how the librul media is!)

does the conservative intelligencia present here have any response?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Red...why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

Hey I was just pointing out that he did the same as those whom he was accusing as do you and Fear No Evil and you definitely aren't Liberals.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You must be awfully crowded with all those strawmen you keep around.

ZV

oh Sorrry, I forgot that is the new defense. We aren't arguing facts against nonsense, we are arguing against mythological made up creatures we designed. Wake up and grow up. The garbage posted on these forums by some people is actually what they believe. You can pretend all you want that it is us Damn Dirty Trickster Libruls who keep making up these imaginary rightwing nut jobs.
The fact is that I tend to be a pretty moderate guy and it is all these nutjobs that are completely pushing me away from the Repub party. I don't want to be a part of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck Party. If you'd learn to keep your nutjobs quiet you'd be a much more popular party. The problem is that you saw W and Cheney monster win by polarizing everything and now you think you have to keep up the same bullshit in order to attempt to stay alive.

Quit making strawmen and I'll stop belittling them.

Ah, yes. Because I'm conservative I must think in exactly the way you describe me. I'm sorry. I forgot that your preconceptions dictated my thoughts. I apologise for presenting a legitimate and logical criticism of your preference for stereotyping and mockery as opposed to engaging in actual debate. In the future, per your preference, I will stop engaging in independent thought and behave according to your prejudices.

Thus far you have contributed nothing to the discussion in this thread. You have not brought rational rebuttal to the skewed statistics used in the Times' editorial (eskimospy did that, and thanks to him). You have not dug deeper into those results in response to intellectual challenges (jonks did that, and thanks to him). The only thing you have done is lump all conservatives into a homogeneous group according to your own prejudices.

Still, given the first line of your signature I have to admit that I find your abusive diatribes to be deliciously ironic.

ZV

Isn't it though. I just want you to take a look quick at the thread since Eskimo actually put facts into it. What happened? That is right, all the neocons tucked their tails between their legs and ran away. Exactly as my post predicted. Imagine that.

To be quite frank, I wasn't initially lumping you in with them. The short list I compiled were the usual turn and run crew who spout off a bunch of incendiary comments and then when proven wrong deliberately ignore them. You choose to defend such posters by claiming that I made them up and completely misrepresented their position. But that very much was their position. They did just that. The only one to actually post anything more was Fear No "lol" at the mod call out.

These are the people representing your party/position. I will agree that there are a handful of conservatives on these boards that aren't employing these techniques. For instance, sometime OC actually has some legitimate commentary that he actually backs up with facts. Just for instance.

However, the majority have adopted the Limbaugh/Beck strategy of making shit up, barely presenting facts, making tons of assumptions, employing a slippery slope argument and then ignoring every contrary fact.

If you do not fall into this category, well sir, I applaud you. I truly think there are some legitimate concerns and issues that the conservative side of the coin has right. The sad fact is the mouth for these issues suck. I encourage you to present such arguments; I really do. I just ask for you to refrain from the usual conservative bullshit. Otherwise, I'm calling the bullshit out.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I agree that the editorial is misrepresenting the statistics, but it's an editorial. I don't exactly expect random newspaper editorials to be intelligent.

I don't agree with your comment about people not being "disenchanted". If one was never "enchanted" in the first place, it's impossible to become "disenchanted", but that doesn't mean that they approve. Without knowing exactly what each individual's expectations were, a poll asking whether someone has met or exceeded expectations is worthless. The baseline is different for each respondent which means that it's not possible to normalize the results.

To use an obviously absurd hyperbole, if people expected that the president would go on a killing spree and he didn't, they would be able to honestly say that the president exceeded their expectations. While if other people expected that the president would cure all disease and he didn't, these people would honestly be able to say that the president did not meet their expectations. Both sets of people could be rating the same president, but because of the variance in their baseline expectation, those who said the president exceeded expectations are not necessarily praising him while those who said that the president did not meet their expectations are not necessarily upset with him.

Granted, my example is intentionally ridiculous but it illustrates my point.

ZV

But your point is absurd. No Obama hater is going to sarcastically answer a question like that. You would never in a million years if surveyed answer that he is meeting your expectations because as much as you want to pretend that it is playing with wording, you know what they are asking. If anything they would try to answer the question in the most negative way possible, because otherwise they are the ones artificially raising his numbers. I would hope people aren't that stupid.

I'm sorry. I forgot that everyone who disagrees with Obama on matters of policy automatically hates him. And here I've simply been considering Obama to be an intelligent man with whom I happen to disagree. Guess I've been wrong. I really do apologize for so thoroughly failing to adhere to your stereotype of how I should behave.

Aside from a rather small but very vocal minority, most people who disagree with Obama do not "hate" him. It just plain doesn't work that way.

The question is not, "Has Obama done as you expect a president to do," the question is, "Has Obama done as you expect him to do," which makes the answer different. The answer to the first question is that I think he has made an admirable effort in good faith, which is all that can be asked of a person, but that I disagree with many of his policies. The answer to the second is that, overall, Obama's actions have been in line with the views he professed prior to taking office and have been consistent with my expectations.

I am not accusing them of trying to play with the wording in order to doctor the result, I am simply stating that the question itself has little worth in measuring approval. If a person has neutral expectations, it is easy to exceed them; if a person has fantastically positive expectations, it is easy to fall short. Because the question lacks a standard baseline it cannot be used to measure approval. However, as eskimospy very astutely pointed out, the question does an excellent job of measuring the integration of a politician's actions and his projected image during his campaign.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I truly think there are some legitimate concerns and issues that the conservative side of the coin has right. The sad fact is the mouth for these issues suck. I encourage you to present such arguments; I really do. I just ask for you to refrain from the usual conservative bullshit. Otherwise, I'm calling the bullshit out.

I'm far from immune to errors of fact, but I do hope that you'll call them out when they occur. Preaching to the choir has a disturbing tendency to turn a person into someone like Glenn Beck.

ZV

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings.

Kind of like what you are doing in this thread and forum

Red...why don't you address the facts and prove him wrong?

LOL..

Facts have already been present. You are choosing to ignore them. Surprise, Surprise.

I'm not ignoring any facts here and can't imagine how you could come to such a twisted conclusion...I simply asked Red Dawn a very simple question. You got a problem with that? :roll: