Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ohio, a presidential bellweather state.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/09/ohio-voters-prefer-george-w-bush-over.html

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'll explain the point in easily understandable terms.

Let's suppose there's a tramp who has got a couple of litre cans of sterno.

No, just stop. You had me at sterno....

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

He didn't two years ago.

The main reason Obama won was because he wasn't Bush or Republican.

He does now. In the words of the immortal bard: Miss me yet?

Bush doesn't have poll numbers now. I think your either trolling (likely) or are confused (also likely).

There have been polls recently on who you would rather have in the white house. Evidently that hope and change thing isn't working out.

Who were they polling? Beck U students?

Frazzled wrote:Ohio, a presidential bellweather state.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/09/ohio-voters-prefer-george-w-bush-over.html

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html

The full survey that is being referenced in both those blog posts is located here.

Interestingly, 48% of respondents reported that voted for John McCain in the last election, compared to 45% who claimed a vote for Obama, and 7% who claimed that they didn't remember. The survey also reports that the partisan affiliation of all respondents was split 40/40/20 between Republicans/Democrats/Independents, and that 44% of Ohio residents identify as independent, 40% identify as conservative, and 16% identify as liberal.

The numbers regarding political self-identification could indicate many things, but given the result of past elections it seems likely that the mass of independent voters describe a lack of serious, traditional political bias across the state. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, we can discard political bias as a relevant factor. The numbers on partisan affiliation appear more deterministic; being especially illustrative of the close nature of all Presidential elections in Ohio. However, taken in the context of the report on voting in the lat election, they tell an interesting story. Obama took Ohio, and yet most non-neutral respondents indicated that they voted for McCain. Statistically, this tells us that the majority of the neutral respondents in fact voted for Obama. Given that there is a similar margin of neutral parties in the statistic Frazlzed is citing, it is possible to conclude that the margin has been artificially distorted by the absence of a forced choice; meaning that the numbers for Obama could up to 7 points higher. Even if they were only 3 points higher, the results would be placed into statistical equivalence due to the small sample size and wide margin of error.

Killkrazy's most impressive post ever the last page

Kilkrazy wrote: when he could have got a nutritious meal at McDonalds for just a dollar.

..well, I got the reference *tips hat*

Now can I haz cheez burgar?

Got another 50c?

No loitering! Buy something or get out!

Dollar for gold.

You gimmee $10 for 100 Gil?

Kilkrazy wrote:Now can I haz cheez burgar?

..with your cholesterol level ? Your missus would skin me and then start to hurt me.

Or you'd want one made from Kobe beef anyway

Don't worry if its McDonalds its not real meat, or at least real beef. What does "long pig" mean again?

reds8n wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Now can I haz cheez burgar?

..with your cholesterol level ? Your missus would skin me and then start to hurt me.

Or you'd want one made from Kobe beef anyway

I'll have you know the last time my cholesterol was tested it was at the bottom of the normal range.

Kilkrazy wrote:Dollar for gold.

You gimmee $10 for 100 Gil?

Sold if you throw in bbq chocobo wings

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-declares-victory-sort-of-depending-on-how-yo,17916/

Kilkrazy wrote:

I'll have you know the last time my cholesterol was tested it was at the bottom of the normal range for the living dead.

I knew it !

and you'll all notice he didn't deny that I'd be skinned .. he seems so kind, and then you get indoors...

.. and then the bad things happen.

reds8n wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

I'll have you know the last time my cholesterol was tested it was at the bottom of the normal range for the living dead.

I knew it !

and you'll all notice he didn't deny that I'd be skinned .. he seems so kind, and then you get indoors...

.. and then the bad things happen.

All I have to say is beware of people with an unnatural fascination with sweaters...

..*he..he... he wears them like a .a.. like a frenchmen !*

.. he seemed so polite !

He was a quiet man.

Frazzled wrote:He was a quiet man.

They always are.

.. and then the killing starts.

This is why, once I'm elected to the Whitehouse in 2012 -- " A red in the Whitehouse in '12, why not eh You've tried the "best" now try the drunk!?" --- my gun control policy will be to limit gun ownership to loud, flamboyant, brightly dressed, "Tom Jones" type listening people.

People like that never go $%%^&&*&* and come into work and try to kill you with hunting rifles and "assault weapons".

Or get depressed and dance in the moonlight wearing their mothers skin, whilst wailing a chant to our dark overlord Beelzebub. The skin on their drums flayed from the hide of the mailman/postman.

No siree.

Thye just get on with things.

Even whilst heavily medicated

Snorlax.

Indeed. I shall put an end to my experiment in mirroring your own "debate" style back at you. It is indeed somewhat liberating and entertaining to simply spout insulting obfuscation at somebody, but it's not very useful.

Instead, I'll be clear on my opinion...

I think you're treating rhetoric as reality. Bush is a "criminal" the Iraq war was "unlawful," etc. etc.

You say that even as you recognize that the UN will never pass a resolution condemnin the war as unlawful. You also are no doubt aware that the Supreme Court would probably side with Bush, and if a Republican gets another appointee in the near future, even moreso.

Which is my point. Legal findings are both more political and more subjective than we would like to admit.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to be found guilty in order to have broken a law. That's a very strict standard, and not a bad one, but it's not the only one. Clearly one can break the law and not be caught, not be prosecuted, etc.

But you insist on your rhetoric. Bush is a "criminal." I accept that's your opinion. I accept that people agree with you. But it's not a fact, and it's not something that you can say without drifting off into the land of rhetoric.

If you said to me "George W Bush's policies have drawn strong and widespread legal criticism, and are believed by many to have broken the law" I would agree.

But that would be a fact, and not nearly as rhetorically rewarding. Doesn't make for a good bumper sticker, and, quite frankly, you're a little too enamoured of bumper sticker thinking.

I say that because you seem like a smart guy, you just don't always know the difference between fact and opinion when it comes to your hot button issues. Like most any left-leaning American, you get constant reinforcement of your views, to the point that you consider them facts.

But they're not facts. They're opinions. The Iraq war was not, point of fact, unlawful. The argument has been made. Some will agree, some will not. I don't mean to suggest that it WAS lawful. In my opinion, it was, or, at least, is within the framework of how things are done. But that's my opinion.

You'll no doubt argue that jurisprudence isn't about opinion, it's about objective facts. But it's really not.

At the end of the day, if the laws are all read, and everything is tracked, and reviewed and the critical verbiage is found, it will always come down to something being legal "when sufficient justification is present."

And what's "sufficient justification?"

It's an opinion. It's whatever the party that happens to have the most Supreme Court justices says it is. It's whatever is politically expedient at the time. Whatever. It's not objective fact.

And don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion, to consider it correct, and to stick to your guns. If you think Bush was a criminal, then good for you. But if you're talking to me, and to many other people, you have to know that's NOT reality. You have to understand that it's not a universal opinion, and if you refuse to speak in terms that are irrefutible, then you're dealing in rhetoric, and not fact.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of question here about how we should conduct our policy. There are questions about wiretapping, about when the battlefield spills into the homeland, as it will when terrorism is a primary weapon. We need to be thinking about answers to these questions in a realistic fashion. They'll confront Barack Obama. They'll confront the next President.

GWB was trying to protect the country with every single option at his disposal. We EXPECT him to go right up to the very edge of legality, to do everything that is in his power. If he steps over, we need to be thoughtful and make clear rulings on what is, and is not permissible. That's what this debate SHOULD be about. By turning it into "Bush is evil, without him there's no problem, just admit how evil he is and vote Democrat," we solve no problems. We just give you the partisan win you want, and then leave your candidate in just as much of a bind when it comes to responding to new conflicts, new challenges and new technologies.

Phryxis wrote:

Snorlax.

Indeed. I shall put an end to my experiment in mirroring your own "debate" style back at you. It is indeed somewhat liberating and entertaining to simply spout insulting obfuscation at somebody, but it's not very useful.

Were you doing that? It seemed like you were posting in the method you always do, with little substance and constant insistence of ad hominim and intentional misinterpretations of the opposing argument. I'm pretty sure you're just continuing to do that with a less then skillful dodge here.

Instead, I'll be clear on my opinion...

I think you're treating rhetoric as reality. Bush is a "criminal" the Iraq war was "unlawful," etc. etc.

You say that even as you recognize that the UN will never pass a resolution condemnin the war as unlawful. You also are no doubt aware that the Supreme Court would probably side with Bush, and if a Republican gets another appointee in the near future, even moreso.

Which is my point. Legal findings are both more political and more subjective than we would like to admit.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to be found guilty in order to have broken a law. That's a very strict standard, and not a bad one, but it's not the only one. Clearly one can break the law and not be caught, not be prosecuted, etc.

But you insist on your rhetoric. Bush is a "criminal." I accept that's your opinion. I accept that people agree with you. But it's not a fact, and it's not something that you can say without drifting off into the land of rhetoric.

If you said to me "George W Bush's policies have drawn strong and widespread legal criticism, and are believed by many to have broken the law" I would agree.

But that would be a fact, and not nearly as rhetorically rewarding. Doesn't make for a good bumper sticker, and, quite frankly, you're a little too enamoured of bumper sticker thinking.

I say that because you seem like a smart guy, you just don't always know the difference between fact and opinion when it comes to your hot button issues. Like most any left-leaning American, you get constant reinforcement of your views, to the point that you consider them facts.

But they're not facts. They're opinions. The Iraq war was not, point of fact, unlawful. The argument has been made. Some will agree, some will not. I don't mean to suggest that it WAS lawful. In my opinion, it was, or, at least, is within the framework of how things are done. But that's my opinion.

You'll no doubt argue that jurisprudence isn't about opinion, it's about objective facts. But it's really not.

At the end of the day, if the laws are all read, and everything is tracked, and reviewed and the critical verbiage is found, it will always come down to something being legal "when sufficient justification is present."

And what's "sufficient justification?"

It's an opinion. It's whatever the party that happens to have the most Supreme Court justices says it is. It's whatever is politically expedient at the time. Whatever. It's not objective fact.

And don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion, to consider it correct, and to stick to your guns. If you think Bush was a criminal, then good for you. But if you're talking to me, and to many other people, you have to know that's NOT reality. You have to understand that it's not a universal opinion, and if you refuse to speak in terms that are irrefutible, then you're dealing in rhetoric, and not fact.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of question here about how we should conduct our policy. There are questions about wiretapping, about when the battlefield spills into the homeland, as it will when terrorism is a primary weapon. We need to be thinking about answers to these questions in a realistic fashion. They'll confront Barack Obama. They'll confront the next President.

GWB was trying to protect the country with every single option at his disposal. We EXPECT him to go right up to the very edge of legality, to do everything that is in his power. If he steps over, we need to be thoughtful and make clear rulings on what is, and is not permissible. That's what this debate SHOULD be about. By turning it into "Bush is evil, without him there's no problem, just admit how evil he is and vote Democrat," we solve no problems. We just give you the partisan win you want, and then leave your candidate in just as much of a bind when it comes to responding to new conflicts, new challenges and new technologies.

crim·i·nal   [krim-uh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of the nature of or involving crime.
2.
guilty of crime.
3.
Law . of or pertaining to crime or its punishment: a criminal proceeding.
4.
senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food.
5.
exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices.
–noun
6.
a person guilty or convicted of a crime.

There we go, now that thats cleared up, lets look at what I've actually been saying. Not what you've been reading in whatever fantastical bizzaro world your screen resides in.

And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone. It's not like he is millions of people. I was arguing primiarilly against the concept that it was a war anyone would have fought, and I personally don't believe that the majority of presidential candidates would have engaged in the theatre in the same way.

Depends on what laws you wish to use. The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted. Torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture of enemy combatants? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability through the reclassification of what constitutes torture. Wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being party to wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability and the ability to delay the courts and to tie the issue indefinitely until wiretapping is later legalized on case by case basis by a secret judge.

Most people understand the concept of presidential platitudes and the ways in which a president cant break numerous laws while walking away from it without blinking an eye. It takes a casual perusal of the average news story during the bush administration to see how he was doing it.

A criminal is someone that has committed a crime. You can be a criminal without being prosecuted. It's a term based more in the absolutes of reality, kind of like how something can be red even if you aren't looking at it. I believe they have committed a crime (well, several). Criminal is not strictly a legal term. They are suspects in ongoing legal reviews, and they have been found guilty of unethical practices (especially in Cheneys case). However without prosecution they are not convicts or felons. I would have used more concrete terms if they were warranted. They weren't and I did not.

That doesn't actually matter. Their opinions are irrelevant, only the laws. They were found to have acted unjustly in the wiretapping case and the supreme court has repeatedly rebuked their right to torture. That means it's illegal. That means when they did it it was illegal (since it was) and it still is. They don't will law into being.

I used the word criminal. The bush administration is guilty of several crimes and has been found guilty of acting in a criminal fashion on numerous occasions. We have already hashed over all of this. I'm well aware of the fact that he is not a felon, and I started out by stating that much of the legality of the issues presented remained in court or were surreptitiously hidden from the public eye. I also started out by stating that a criminal is not always a felon and that not every free man is innocent. Criminal is a term that pertains often to legalistics but is not a strictly legal term. You are and have been well aware of my intention in using the word from the beginning as well as my usage of the term illegal for the conflict. Things don't become illegal once they are determined such, they are illegal from the start and are then judged to be so. The egg doesn't come before the chicken in this. We have repeatedly rehashed the came conceptual argument of post facto criminality and innocence under dubious inability to prosecute, but a man can be guilty while walking free. You know this as well as I. Laws, especially international ones are a representation of popular belief and popular enforcement Iraq was not a popular war internationally and rapidly became widely unpopular nationally. It's legal defenses are few and far between and often predicated on the sincerity of incorrect intelligence. It has not been found to be illegal internationally, but then I've been arguing from the inception that it doesn't have to be declared illegal to be illegal. The post facto declaration doesn't inherently change the nature of reality, it's simply a declaration of intent by an adjudicating body. Given the state of world politics it's likely physically impossible for the war to be declared illegal due to the security councils veto vote, and in such a case no war the U.S. declares could ever be deemed illegal. It's a testament to the weakness of that system, not the innocence of all nations.

You understand very well the grounds upon which I have been arguing, you have roughly restated (while disagreeing with) them in the post which I am quoting. You wish me to use a subtler, less accusatory tone when discussing the concepts, but you also seem to think I an obligated to do so if I wish to remain respectful or understandable as a discussion partner. If I must state that bush is "believed by many to have broken the law" then why can I not speak as one such believer? Do I have to opt out my own existence for the sake of arguing the subject? Every time we are on opposite sides of an argument you inherently misrepresent my posts and intentions. You have done it in every clash since you started posting here. It's the nature of your argumentative style and it's highly visible. I do not go around reading the socialist times and listening to kanye state that bush doesn't like black people on repeat and I most certainly don't just hover around blaming bush for all problems. Considering half of your posts alluded directly or indirectly to that is a testament to just how little you really had to say concerning this topic. It's boring. It makes me .

You wish me to use a subtler, less accusatory tone when discussing the concepts, but you also seem to think I an obligated to do so if I wish to remain respectful or understandable as a discussion partner.

And then...

Every time we are on opposite sides of an argument you inherently misrepresent my posts and intentions.

These two quotes add up to you being wrong. Not wrong about Bush, just meta-wrong. You've been arguing in bad faith. You've been repeatedly presenting yoru opinions as facts, and you refuse to take direct responsibility for doing so.

On some level I've assumed all along that you're smart enough to know that your opinion on the legalities is mere opinion. But - and your self quotes don't change this at all - you've spent this thread repeatedly suggesting that Bush IS a criminal, that, regardless of any legal conclusion, it's a simple fact that he broke the law.

If the person you're debating with is saying that they don't believe one of your suggestions in a fact, you have (at least) two choices: you can restate your belief that it IS a fact, or concede that it is not a fact, but remain convinced of its truth.

You chose to do the former. You suggested it was FACT that Bush has broken laws, as opposed to your interpretation that Bush broke these laws. You did so repeatedly. Then, when I told you that you're arguing in bad faith, you cry about me not listening to what you're saying, even as you suggest that you can't say anything besides what you believe.

That's why you're meta wrong. On one hand, you suggest it's ridiculous of me to expect you to use a less accusatory tone, and then on the other, you suggest I'm misrepresenting you by claiming you're using an excessively accusatory tone.

Bottom line, you're quite aware of when you're being dogmatic and partisan, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it.

In my opinion, I'm actually less dogmatic and partisan than you are (which isn't saying much), but I'm also willing to admit my bias. You're pretty much unwilling to admit bias as a policy.

These two quotes add up to you being wrong. Not wrong about Bush, just meta-wrong. You've been arguing in bad faith. You've been repeatedly presenting yoru opinions as facts, and you refuse to take direct responsibility for doing so.

I believe that I am correct, thus I also believe that my opinions are facts. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

On some level I've assumed all along that you're smart enough to know that your opinion on the legalities is mere opinion. But - and your self quotes don't change this at all - you've spent this thread repeatedly suggesting that Bush IS a criminal, that, regardless of any legal conclusion, it's a simple fact that he broke the law.

Yes. I know. I've been saying that.

If the person you're debating with is saying that they don't believe one of your suggestions in a fact, you have (at least) two choices: you can restate your belief that it IS a fact, or concede that it is not a fact, but remain convinced of its truth.

And I have been restating the belief that it is a fact and backing that with logical theory, law, and quotes that you didn't like much.

You chose to do the former. You suggested it was FACT that Bush has broken laws, as opposed to your interpretation that Bush broke these laws.

Yes. As I am likely to believe that my own interpretations are correct, and given that if they are correct they are then facts it is logical to assume that I am going to treat my interpretations as facts when I present them.

You did so repeatedly. Then, when I told you that you're arguing in bad faith, you cry about me not listening to what you're saying, even as you suggest that you can't say anything besides what you believe.

That would make sense, but you haven't so much as used the term bad faith before, let alone actually accused me of doing so in a fashion that would avoid my accusation that you are re-characterizing my arguments to fit your own.

That's why you're meta wrong. On one hand, you suggest it's ridiculous of me to expect you to use a less accusatory tone, and then on the other, you suggest I'm misrepresenting you by claiming you're using an excessively accusatory tone.

I didn't use the term ridiculous, in fact I just pointed out the logical flaw in you wishing to have me quote that other people believe what I do while excising my own belief from the conversation. You're doing that thing where you mischaracterize and misquote me again.

Bottom line, you're quite aware of when you're being dogmatic and partisan, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it.

I'm assuming that was directed at yourself though thats probably more fair then I should be. I guess I can't tell the difference between dogmatism and partisan opinions because I get all of my opinions from "coffee shop rhetoric".

In my opinion, I'm actually less dogmatic and partisan than you are (which isn't saying much), but I'm also willing to admit my bias. You're pretty much unwilling to admit bias as a policy.

So I'm more bias then you and unwilling to admit being bias while you are readily able to admit being bias only so long as you are less so. Nice backhanded anticomplimentacusocritisism.

I believe that I am correct, thus I also believe that my opinions are facts. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

No, but they also don't directly follow.

One can believe oneself to be correct, but not be so certain of it as to consider it fact.

Again, I think if you're going to idolize dogma, you're going to need to pay a lot closer attention. What's it say in his sig?

"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance."

You're QUITE certain of your knowledge. In fact, you rarely speak in anything other than a tone of utmost certainty of your correctness. I would think both dogma and Bertrand Russel would find you rather unfortunate. Oh, right, and of course I would as well.

No, but they also don't directly follow.

One can believe oneself to be correct, but not be so certain of it as to consider it fact.

Again, I think if you're going to idolize dogma, you're going to need to pay a lot closer attention. What's it say in his sig?

"Dogmatism is like pragmatism as watermelons are like the moon. Both have dark sides and seeds, but you can't eat pragmatism."

"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance."

I don't think thats what it says.

You're QUITE certain of your knowledge. In fact, you rarely speak in anything other than a tone of utmost certainty of your correctness. I would think both dogma and Bertrand Russel would find you rather unfortunate. Oh, right, and of course I would as well.

Is there a point at which you cease berating those you are on the other side of an argument from? I mean, I'm a rock, I can take it. But think of how poor sebster or whatwhat must feel like after you've spent 90% of every post on contentless ad hominim attacks or intentional misquotations and mischaracterizations. I bet they feel awful! I would much prefer you cease the attacks and continue the blithering. The blithering's kind of constant. I can fall asleep to it. In every response you made to me you drove home the concept that A: I don't know american law because I'm a wacky coffee house liberal, and B: I have no logical foundations for my points. Both of these ideas are swimming well against the current of my last fifty thousand posts on this forum and that water runs even faster when we just look at the debate history between the two of us.

I make an assertion, you say it's wrong and call me a socialist. I explain the logic of my assertion you say it's flawed and call me a lieberal. I explain how it is not flawed and you tell me to go back to school or equivocate to another point asserting that I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh, then you imply that I love to sit in bohemian coffee shops all day and sing about Cuba. Wash, rinse repeat. These responses to eachother have been painfully circular. It should follow from generality that I know that what I state can be proven wrong at any time. No "facts" are indisputable and no opinions can be proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. I didn't take a strong stance on this issue, I don't even fething care about this issue. These aren't really even issues anymore. The mere fact that you can act like you are debating with some sort of craven obsessed anti bush liberal, especially given that the tone of my posts did not imply that at all, is a testament to just how far you are willing to box up the people you discuss politics with into convenient little packages to better enable your own insult heavy debate style.