Member Discussions

That's a very sad and pathetic interpretation of what was said this week and I for one am still trying to figure out which planet you were on, or what color the filter was on your eyeglasses, or if you perhaps never watched a damn thing and are making it all up. Or maybe you just took the word of some left wing nutjob on some obscure radio station they had to pay money just to be able to speak on.

Or maybe you really are delusional and actually beleive that massive pile of tripe you just posted.

In either case, you're so far off base the 2 libs here at work are doing a double take on what you just said right along with me sitting here in stunned amazement that people like you can have so much hate for one man.

...and, finally, Kerry is Satan.

Looks like a landslide then. I can't wait 'til the movie comes out, 'It's takes an idiot to raze a village, or how I learned to love my zippo'.

I see no evidence to support this where I'm concerned.

What? Would you like me to mirror the thread or repost it? Or mail them to your competition so you free speech kittens have something to fight about next month?

Frankly, the bottom line is I asked you to correct the legal problems with your software. You screamed, moaned, bitched, ranted and raved like a six year old. It got done. A new client was released fixing the problems. Yes there is no evidence. It's all been cleaned up. You look good now Samson. A hero. Shiny. Sparkling. Clean. Love the Oliver Hardy mustache too. Looks good on you.

Ever after, army records, drugs usage, and sex lives would seem not as interesting, and they might dare discuss politics instead?

Politics is Vanity Fair. Always has been here and on your side of the pond. Issues are boring and people would much rather gossip about the people running. There are issues and positions and platforms and plans. But they'll never be page one because frankly it doesn't sell newspapers or boost television ratings. Hyperbole is the public discourse in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the United States. Europe's cultural arrogance is a failure to recognize their own hyperbole for what it is.

Hyperbole is the public discourse in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the United States.

I disagree. The only country in Europe is half as bad is the UK and I have a feeling they're doing it sort of tongue-in-cheek.

The reason why the US problem is so prominent is the virtual two-party system.

.

That's a very sad and pathetic interpretation of what was said this week and I for one am still trying to figure out which planet you were on, or what color the filter was on your eyeglasses, or if you perhaps never watched a damn thing and are making it all up. Or maybe you just took the word of some left wing nutjob on some obscure radio station they had to pay money just to be able to speak on.

Oh, you wouldn't be accusing someone of not checking their facts, would you?

However, if you want to look at the party platform (agreed upon on Monday), you'll notice the privatization of social security (the cost of which alone would be around $1 trillion in the following 10 years), bigotry against gays, increased defence (or offence, nowadays) spending and tax code simplification (which, by the way, means that the tax code will be 'simplified' to one flat rate or instituting a sales tax (disproportionatedly targeting the poor)) -and all this without raising taxes! You thought the deficit was bad now.

In either case, you're so far off base the 2 libs here at work are doing a double take on what you just said right along with me sitting here in stunned amazement that people like you can have so much hate for one man.

I'm personally amazed that one man who has so much hate for so many people can make it as the president.

.

I hope I don't get stuck with a president chosen by participants in this thread. If campaigning on Mud Connector actually affects anything, I'm moving to Russia.

>Issues are boring and people would much rather gossip about the people running.

Most european countries have a royal house for that, perhaps that is the big difference?

Anywho, since all the arrogance is obviously stored in France, where is this cultural hyperbole?

>The reason why the US problem is so prominent is the virtual two-party system.

I actually almost responded with that as well, till I changed my mind.

I'd like to add that not only does the US have a two-party system, both the parties are pretty much conservative right wing parties (from a european viewpoint) leaving very little influence to the voters.

It never ceases to amaze me how much parroting there is in the democratic party. You sound like a John Kerry hate speech. If you bothered to do any research of your own you might just rezlize what kind of a person you're electing.

BTW, I'm guessing the 11 point lead Bush now has in the polls isn't sitting too well with you guys either. I guess Kris was wrong about that too.

And if you want to talk about hate, go examine your own candidate. Yes, the one who was so desperate to negate the rise in the polls he knew was coming that you could see it in his eyes on live TV. So much hate that he actually contributed to the double digit lead and is likely to contribute to widening that lead as time goes on.

examine your own candidate

Peroutka at the top of my list with a 45% match and Kerry at the bottom with a 10% match. Bushy came in 2nd with a 40% match. That's pretty much what I expected. Have fun with it.

It never ceases to amaze me how much parroting there is in the democratic party.

I'm not claiming one way or the other. All I know is that you still have not been able to produce any sort of tangible evidence to back your allegations. Therefore I accuse you of parroting. You're welcome to change my opinion by presenting facts and actual citations.

You sound like a John Kerry hate speech. If you bothered to do any research of your own you might just rezlize what kind of a person you're electing.

I've backed up my allegations with references, while you haven't. I have no intention of doing your work for you, nor is it required of me -on the contrary, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't back up your claims, you look like a fool. You'll still have a right to your opinions, of course, however uninformed you may have been.

With regards to the 'leadership' after the terrorist attacks: anyone, including you, I and anyone on these boards could have lead the country as well (or poorly, whichever suits your fancy) as Bush did. Whether Kerry could have done any better in the war on terror is dubitable -though on the other hand I don't think he would have done any worse (Iraq doesn't purely belong to the aforementioned war, in that most anyone else would have done better than Bush); pursuing the aggressive line is a simple, effective and strategically poor solution that works adequately. A true world-class strategist would have found a better way. Those people, however, are far and few between and I know of no-one in the current high political circles capable of such genious.

BTW, I'm guessing the 11 point lead Bush now has in the polls isn't sitting too well with you guys either.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Bush will win, though I'll do anything within my power (including going to the extent of voting for Kerry and urging others to do the same) to oust Bush, for the simple reason that this country will be on the path to ruination if the current administration's policies are implemented. At least it looks like the Senate will be turned over, hopefully the House, too.

And if you want to talk about hate, go examine your own candidate.

You really have to learn (I gather you still think learning makes you incompetent) to post actual quotes, not some ambiguous strawmen, if you want to appear believable. There's a reason why you're not a speechwriter.

The only instance where I've seen anything like hatred from Kerry was when he said he wouldn't stand for his patriotism being questioned by a draft-evader and a misleader. I personally think it's a justified sentiment -Cheney, at least, certainly has no place in implying such.

On the other hand, I think the entire question about patriotism is moot; I don't think there's any doubt each of the men thinks they're doing what's best for the country.

Let me ask you a question (and please answer this at least if nothing else): do you agree with the rest of the Republican policies? Pro-life (except when talking about an adult), anti-gay, benefiting the rich and the corporate at the expense of the poor, cutting or privatizing social security, raising Medicare costs and promoting strict Christian values without allowance for those of other faiths? If you do, that's fine. If you don't, please consider that in addition to any perceived leadership the aforementioned is exactly what we all will get.

I'm sorry, Samson, but you look like just another ignorant, emotion-guided phobist when you post which is sad if you are not such a person. I'll be happy to change my opinion, but you have to show me something better.

.

Most european countries have a royal house for that, perhaps that is the big difference?

Could be. I always thought Hollywierd scratched that itch here. France doesn't have royalty and the AFP has over the years had a field day from Mitterand to Chirac and lesser ministers. The UK is not dissimilar to the US in that regard in that Blair and Howards colons have been as thoroughly examined as the royal houses. :-P

But it depends on what you consider a political issue and not a political issue don't it? We in the USA have different issues we consider important than Europeans. We even argue over whether something is an issue or not. And the issues important in Poland are not the same as in Sweden and are not the same in France. There's even a marked difference between Sweden and Norwegian political discourse, but I can't find much between Denmark and Sweden. Anyway...

Anywho, since all the arrogance is obviously stored in France, where is this cultural hyperbole?

I used 'cultural arrogance' as the cause of blinding one to one's own nation's 'hyperbole' as expressed in its media. What you see as normal in Scandanavia in your media, normal to be angry about and normal to not be angry about, what's trivial and not trivial, Americans by and large see as strange or mundane (assuming you can find one who pays the slightest bit of attention) and vice versa.

Yeah France is one. I've read AFP, it's strange and often funny. Read the Singapore newspapers, for an even odder view of what's important and what's not. For flat out ridiculous political hyperbole there is nothing today that matches Al Jazeera, except perhaps the old Soviet Pravda and other State controlled press.

Excellent link, Tyche (although it's still missing some environmental/labour questions)! I hope it will be read by the many: in my experience, very few people know where they'll sit.

My highest-ranked was the 'communist nutjob' Kuchinich with a surprising 50%. David Cobb was close with 45%, and even Bush got a fetching 25%. (In the case it's not obvious, I'm a profound Marxist-utopist.)

The overall political atmosphere in the US is readable in that Kuchinich and I agreed on most domestic and social issues, from what I can tell, the largest differences were in macroeconomy and global relations.

If you don't mind, Tyche, where did you differ with Peroutka the most?

.

(Comment added by muir on Sat Sep 4 1:58:59 2004)

Oh! The best part about this particular quiz are the explanations for each item -very educational even if some of the info is a bit outdated. Click them.

Well, France and Italy fit the hyperbolic thingie. I suggest we blame it all on the south!

The overall political atmosphere in the US is readable in that Kuchinich and I agreed on most domestic and social issues, from what I can tell, the largest differences were in macroeconomy and global relations.

The reality of the two parties is that they aren't monoliths of ideological thought rather they are coalitions that in other countries or systems might be fragmented into many parties.

If you don't mind, Tyche, where did you differ with Peroutka the most?

I differed mainly on what they called economic issues, mostly a difference of degree or where there was no opinion. The military questions, the one was way too general. The one about reducing coal, oil and nuclear power.

The reality of the two parties is that they aren't monoliths of ideological thought rather they are coalitions that in other countries or systems might be fragmented into many parties.

Put that way, it sounds like a good idea -just an extension of no parties at all. Reality, of course, is different in that usually there's a prevailing ideology for a party and everything goes by party vote rather than individually. A two-party system will homogenize politics, making it difficult for any non-mainstream ideology to gain ground (however good its merits otherwise might be), turn people off the entire electoral process and it tends to escalate inconsequalities being treated as valid political topics.

.

Regarding that supposed 11-point lead, that was *one* poll, and it was taken *before* Bush's speech. It contradicts every single other poll taken during pretty much the same time period. I'm sure that, if Time had bothered to do a poll *during* the Democratic convention as well, they would have seen a similar lead for Kerry. I can not understand why they chose to take that poll during the convention; they obviously had to have known that the results would not be reliable. Let's wait until some reliable polling is done after the convention, and I think we'll see some more realistic numbers. Kerry will ultimately win, but only if his campaign gets off its ass and goes on the offensive. Bush's actions and policies are very much out of the mainstream and are wildly unpopular, at least to those who know about them. This election will be a referendum on the incumbant (despite Bush's efforts to make it about Kerry), and so it will be Kerry's to win or lose.


As for that link, the results I got were pretty much what I expected. Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich were tied at the top of my list at 53%. Kerry and Edwards were right below that, tied at 50%, and nader had 48%. Bush was down there at 35%, and Dick Cheney was at the very bottom, at 30%. My only surprise was that Leiberman was higher on my list than Dean, since I've had far more disagreements with Leiberman than I've had with Dean.

Put that way, it sounds like a good idea -just an extension of no parties at all. Reality, of course, is different in that usually there's a prevailing ideology for a party and everything goes by party vote rather than individually.

Actually it wasn't an idea, it's an observation. It comes about as a consequence of winner-takes-all or plurality systems. The US and Canada are similar and tend towards two party systems. Canada has a three party system only by virtue of strong regional differences. Proportional systems like most of Europe, with the exception of the UK, tend toward many parties.

A two-party system will homogenize politics, making it difficult for any non-mainstream ideology to gain ground (however good its merits otherwise might be), turn people off the entire electoral process and it tends to escalate inconsequalities being treated as valid political topics.

Replublicrats. ;-) Another consequence is local conditions that cause one party to obtain an unbreakable super majority resulting local corruption, ala Chicago. Some States use runoff elections rather than primaries. Some have use alternative voting, where one picks 1st and 2nd choices. I think New York City has used proportional voting at the borough level.

Now we've got a more realistic poll out. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released just in the lsat 20 minutes or so shows that Bush got the same bounce that Kerry got out of his convention; +2 points. That is the lowest bounce for any incumbant candidate in the last 20 years. Though Bush has a 7 point lead right now, that's much lower than 12 points from a poll just a few days ago, so his artificial bounce is already disintegrating.

People like Samson would like to spin these polls to make it look like Bush is a shoe-in. Keep in mind that Mike Dukakis got a +16 point bounce after his convention, yet he lost to Daddy Bush by a sizeable margin. If that can happen after a 16 point bounce, imagine how easily a 2 point bounce can fall away.

Also, Kerry does best when his back is against the wall. In his 1996 Senate re-election campaign, he fell massively behind his Republican opponent right around Labor Day. During the 2004 Democratic primaries, Kerry was coming up as an asterisk in the polls, and people were questioning why he doesn't just drop out. In both cases, Kerry did some staff re-organization, and came out swinging. In both cases, he surged ahead and kicked some serious ass. Kerry has just reorganized his staff, and is coming out swinging with some state-by-state ads hitting Bush where it hurts. Watch over the next several weeks as Kerry surges ahead.

More realistic because you agree with the results? That's a terribly pathetic argument and you know it. You were relying on numbers beforehand which were 2 weeks old and called Time unreliable? Bah. And I'm supposed to be the one who's spinning? There are plenty of us out here who think CNN is just as biased and unreliable when it comes to poll numbers.

All I can say to you is that if Kerry wins, it won't be the first time a lying sack of *CENSORED* won the presidency in my lifetime and it won't be the last.

(Comment added by Samson on Mon Sep 6 23:11:37 2004)

BTW, doubtful anyone really cares, but that Michael Patouka or whoever person ended up as my #1 outcome on that candidate quiz link. Somethign like 55% Cheney was #2 around 55% and Bush was #3 at about 50%.

I've never heard of the guy, but he seems to side more in line with the things I beleive in.

If the poll is done by a human, it's inherently biased.

It's relatively easy to spin -any- data - statistics are lies. Period.

In fact, okay, let's do this.

66.6% of people that I have polled think sir_kris secretly loves to play with dolls.

(Insert tiny-arsed text that the margin of error is 33.3%, and the polled people total 3.)

Without reading the tiny-arsed text, however, it sure sounds like a lot of people think sir_kris likes playing with dolls, huh?

Does voodoo count?.... Did I even spell that right?


As more polls are coming in, Bush's numbers are going down and down and down, just as I predicted. The bounce didn't last long. Now a poll just released shows Bush doing even worse than before his convention; head of Kerry by only 1%, well within the margin of error. It also shows Kerry soaring ahead of Bush on the issues of healthcare and the economy. Looks like Kerry finally came out swinging. Game on.

However, you ignored my point in my prior post ;).

It was that polls inherently mean nothing, and that with a bit of effort, they can be changed to mean anything.

If the poll is done by a human, it's inherently biased.
It's relatively easy to spin -any- data - statistics are lies. Period.
In fact, okay, let's do this.
66.6% of people that I have polled think sir_kris secretly loves to play with dolls.
(Insert tiny-arsed text that the margin of error is 33.3%, and the polled people total 3.)
Without reading the tiny-arsed text, however, it sure sounds like a lot of people think sir_kris likes playing with dolls, huh?

The margin of error in your poll is 53.2%
It does help to understand statistics.