Limbaugh popular with nation's troops
Stephen Maio, Westminster
Monday, May 19, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
In his May 15 letter to the editor, "Limbaugh dissing GIs," Jim Cleary made comments concerning the primary votes where Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton and that somehow that shows disrespect for the troops fighting in the Middle East.
Allow me to enlighten him. First, the Democrats gave the nomination to John McCain the same way by voting in Republican primaries. Second, Rush Limbaugh's is the most listened to show on Armed Forces Radio and has been for around 17 years, and he has received numerous awards and honors from the troops.
No one who is honest could possibly believe Limbaugh has anything but the utmost respect for our troops.
Cleary asks whether it's possible for Limbaugh to be any more disrespectful of our soldiers. I ask Cleary if he could be any more ignorant of the facts. I doubt it.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 20, 2008
6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
Stephen just wait to see what the anti crowd has to say.
Rush just gets under their skin because he has been on the radio so long and they cant get him to shut up and stop telling the truth.
May 20, 2008
6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Finegold, Boxer, Feinstein, Murtha, Biden, Gore, etc. reman very unpopular.
Nothing has changed.
May 20, 2008
6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
The anti crowd has drummed into my head the phrase 'willful ignorance,' anytime one has a idea that doesn't agree with their little-world view. In this case, I would actually apply it to their understanding of Limbaugh.
May 20, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
"Rush just gets under their skin because he has been on the radio so long and they cant get him to shut up and stop telling the truth."
Thanks for the morning laugh Earl, that was truly hilarious!
May 20, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I wonder how many troops know that Rush dodged the draft due to a boil on his butt?
May 20, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I have no problems with limbaugh as long as people understand that he is a propagandist. We have a time-honoured tradition in this country of propaganda and propagandists influencing elections and the national discussion. It probably started in the time of Thomas Paine and his anti-British "broadsides".
The left certainly has its share of propagandists as well including Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and other pundits. These folks never debate people of opposing viewpoints, but instead cherry pick, manipulate and take out of context the words and ideas of the individuals political and otherwise with whom they disagree. Limbaugh is no different.
The problem comes when people don't question the propagandists, but instead hang onto and believe their every word. Some people actually use them as a source of information and come to base their opinions upon what the Limbaughs and Moores of the world say. That is where the danger lies. These people make good entertainment, but they have an agenda and that agenda is to move people to their side of the debate by any means possible. They misrepresent, and try to paint their opponents as fools and clowns not worth listening to. In my opinion that hurts the debate. I would have to say: watch them, listen to them and laugh with them because they can be good entertainment. Just be careful, because even as they are making you laugh at the other guy, they are trying to manipulate you. Don't let them.
May 20, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
not any that care but they do know the bubba refused his physical and went to england and protested the war.
May 20, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Isn't Rush Limbaugh that drug addict guy?
May 20, 2008
7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
What about Kerry Earp? Are you going to start that Swifty boat nonsense? Funny, the guy whose life he saved by turning into the gunfire and diving out of the boat believes it to be incredibly heroic. (He used to be a Republican until the 2004 nonsense.)
May 20, 2008
7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
limbugh= still a flaming Nazi gas bag, after all these years. a guy who advocates long prison sentences for drug offenders, excluding himself of course.
May 20, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
Limbaugh is designed for, and dedicated to, the production of empty minded, idle brained, ditto-heads, who will never think for themselves, and never really stop to analyse whatever they are told to do, parrot, or respond. And, he is a great success at the job. Witness the postings on this blog, every time something comes up in reference to him.
Like it or not, the basic purpose of any form of armed forces Basic Training is, simply, to produce as empty minded, idle brained, and absolutely loyal followers as will never question an order; do what they are told when they are told to do it; and never challenge any form of authority giving orders. The whole of history is witness to that.
So, naturally, Limbaugh would be perfect for Armed Forces Radio, and the continuation of such trainning and indoctrination as would re-inforce the basics: "When ordered to jump, ask how high on the way up."
Obedience without question is an absolute necessity when fighting a war; even a mock war, such as today's vague battle against "terrorism", as such be defined by anyone who wants to creat havoc by raising the suspicion that someone else might be "sympathetic to", or "supportive of", this bogeyman, because they dare to see the world differently, and question the propaganda of the "cause". Limbaugh's "truth" is strictly limited to the level of propaganda. But, one does have to admit he's effective. Just look at the number of empty minded, idle brained, ditto-heads we have here.
May 20, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
I have heard of Wyatt Earp, but not Kerry Earp. Was that another of John Kerry's fantasies?
May 20, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
Take your meds gene. then come back and and contribute something coherent.
May 20, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Once again earl proves he has no clue what he's talking about;
"not any that care but they do know the bubba refused his physical and went to england and protested the war."
May 20, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Greenleaf! Spot on!!! Do you think anyone absorbed what you just said?? Oh well.... (Sigh)
May 20, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Stephen,
"Allow me to enlighten him. First, the Democrats gave the nomination to John McCain the same way by voting in Republican primaries."
Really. What proof do you have that this happened. There is proof that Limbaugh and his crowd of idiots did this but I never heard of a planned attack by the Democrats on the Republican primaries.
Allow me to enlighten you Stephen. You got McCain because you own party decided that conservatism is probably not the best way to go. Even they've figured you guys out.
"Second, Rush Limbaugh's is the most listened to show on Armed Forces Radio and has been for around 17 years, and he has received numerous awards and honors from the troops."
Does this go along with the brainwashing technique used by the military to have all the troops vote Republican?
What awards? And since you say "numerous", how many? I hear of lots of entertainers going to wars to entertain the troops, some of them may receive awards but rarely do I hear of Limbaugh receiving awards. Maybe the reason we don't hear about it is because it would give away the brainwashing thing???
May 20, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
He has been so popular on armed forces radio for 17 years. Gee, does that have anything to do with the fact that conservative radio has been given an inordinate amount of air time on the on armed forces radio as compared to others? Hmmm!
May 20, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
leftside, limbaugh has never even been on a USO tour.
My nephew reports that they are ORDERED to listen to him!
May 20, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
T1anda,
You did my friend, I'm glad for that! Thank you!
May 20, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
greenleaf,
Ya better watch posting well thought out comments. The <insert>-wingers won't like it :-) That was a very good posting and I completely agree with you.
Scott
May 20, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
greenleaf - perfect observation!
I imagine Michael Moore & Rush having a beer together, laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible the american public can be. Meanwhile their followers are lined up around the block to but those "I'm with Stupid" t-shirts.
May 20, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Trythinking writes:
Greenleaf,
Good post. Anyone that gets their news from one source and one source only is letting someone else filter the information. Show me someone that listens to Fox News or MSNBC or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or any other source exclusively and I show you an un-informed person. I'm a pro choice, pro environment, pro gay marriage, and fiscally conservative republican. It drives people crazy. It is much more intellectually stimulating than being a far left or far right zealot.
May 20, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
He is a fat dork! What drugs is he on now! He is bad for America. So is fox news.
May 20, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jeff writes:
Greenleaf,
Kudos on your post. Good points.
I find Rush Limbaugh's following kind of creepy. I mean, sure, there are pundits and commentators I agree with, but if any of them started tooting their own horn even close to what Limbaugh does, I'd be so turned off I'd tune out, not call in (or whatever) to stroke their egos.
To all of the "dittoheads," keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh is essentially just a character, same as Dr. Phil and Brittany Spears. If you doubt that, just do a little research into all the aspects of his off-air life, past and present, that contradict his on-air image.
May 20, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Only weird white guys like A.M radio. I heard he did a half hour show on why Obama did not have a pin on coat, and people act like they understand the out-rage. The part that gets me is these dumb-ass people vote on stupid issues like that.
May 20, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
Froward69,
I had heard of places where the troops were ordered to listen to Limbaugh, just as there have been a number of newspaper articles on the subject of the Cadets down at FlyBoyHigh being ordered to attend, and listen to, the "services", and sermons, put on by the most extremely reactionary Protestant cult representatives in the Chaplain's Corp.
Of course, that is a rather expected, and expectable, situation. Limbaugh is on "Armed Forces Radio", which is programed by the Brass to begin with. And the Cadets are in a military school, with obligatory rules and regulations on their time, and military officers - Chaplains - as their religious "leaders and counsellors".
However, it does serve to illustrate the potential dangers of over-propagandizing, since ours is supposed to be a form of "citizen-military", rather than a "military ruling class".
Anyone remember the late President - and onetime General of the Army - Eisenhower's comments about the "military-industrial complex"?
And, anyone remember old Ben Franklin's reply, when asked what the Constitutional Convention had given the people: "A Republic if you can keep it"?
History tells us that Rome fell, almost overnight, when ONE ambitious, unscrupulous, and totally self-agrandizing individual decided to flout Tradition, Law, and everything else to cross the Rubicon. Are we merely doomed to repeat, because we choose to learn nothing from, history?
May 20, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
Posted by Froward69 on May 20, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
leftside, limbaugh has never even been on a USO tour.
My nephew reports that they are ORDERED to listen to him!
backward you are a true moron. your nephew lied to you as who would order anyone to listen to something they didnt want? dumpocraps maybe.
you are correct Rush did not do a USO tour he went over there on his own dime.
do you know how many hours per day Rush is on AFR? check it out and find out that more liberal crap is there than Rush.
sure seems all you liberals know an awful lot about Rush's show for not listening to him. are you all in the closet on this?
May 20, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Wow, having been there and done that (11-year vet) I can tell you that Rush has been on USO tours - he went to Afghanistan and Iraq last year and did several other tours. Besides, AFARTS picks it's shows by popular demand and no one has been "ordered to listen to Rush" - that's just foolishness.
Rush had more than a boil on his butt - during Vietnam - and if the situation had called for more soldiers, they would've taken him. The Army had already filled their quota of needed soldiers so were looking for excuses to not take people; if you want to blame anybody, blame the Army for not taking more draftees than they needed or wanted.
Just more liberal mindless name-calling, some things never change.
Oh, by the way Spencer, Mr. Earp was one man out of some 40 or so that supported Kerry in 2004. Out of the 30 or of his shipmates that spoke out about Kerry in 2004, Earp was the ONLY ONE not opposing Kerry. In fact, several of his shipmates reported that Kerry was about to be fragged when he got his "third" injury and was sent home. (For those not knowledgable in military topics, "fragged" means killed by your own troops during battle and made to look like an accident or enemy fire.)
Face it, Rush is beloved by us because he speaks the truth that we already know and knew.
May 20, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
OhBrother writes:
what is the 1st? if rush is 2nd then what or who would be the first? Is there alot of stations to listen to and everyone picks rush or is there like 4 shows and he happens to be one. I would think troops would want to listen to music or howard stern more then some ol wind bag talk about polotics but I guess this article must be 100% acurate
by the way, good comment greenleaf-these guys are laughing all the way to the bank!
May 20, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Speaking as a combat veteran, I can tell you that those in military service then and now, also find (or found) the following to be "popular":
letters/e-mails and "care packages" from home;
warm and clean bedding;
good food (well, they can dream, can't they?);
hot, or cold showers (depending on the weather);
time to decompress;
orders sending one home.
But, the number one item on almost every G.I.'s list through out history of "most popular"....PEACE, so they don't have to be "in harm's way".
May 20, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
JIMMY B, I think you missed the point. The question was, what's the #1 thing on AFRTS?
You should also be careful in how you use the term, PEACE. I've noticed there's a BIG difference between how most combat vets describe PEACE and how to accomplish it and how most liberals describe PEACE and how they work to accomplish it.
May 20, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The leftists, who DESPISE the uniforms of the United States military, and who think that anyone who would volunteer to wear the uniform is an undereducated boob, have the nerve to try and paint Rush an non-supportive of the military?"
bporousargument, do you really have to resort to such blatant strawmen arguments to try to make your weak point?
rush is nonsupportive of the troops because he favors (like many of you 27%'ers) keeping them in harm's way without the resources necessary for victory (a draft).
May 20, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I would never put Michael Moore in the same category as Rush Limbaugh. Moore was one of the first to speak out against the Iraq war, at a time when it was dangerously unpopular to do so. For taht matter, so did Bill Maher. Both of them have guts and both of them are actually funny - curiously, something most conservative pundits rarely are. Why is that? Why aren't conservatives funny??
Oh yeah, and neither have pictures of himself parading in a military uniform all over his website, exhorting his followers to mock our electoral system and commit voter fraud.
May 20, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
In Defense.
Yesterday I had to defend President Bush. Today Rushbo. I have had to do this before. It is getting old. This is the last time. With all due respect, Mr. Greenleaf, the voice of getting along and fair and balanced, your yellow stripe down the road is not centered. And your gasbag tags are all mixed up. Your Prius’s airbag must have hit you in the face. I recall the first time I heard Rush’s show; a song was playing to the tune of "I’m a Wanderer." It want, . . 'I’m Ted Kennedy, . I’m a philanderer .' My first thought was, what disrespect. How could someone get away with this. I was no fan of Ted Kennedy, but was shocked. (as I write this, sorry to hear about his health, and my prayers are with his family) I had not learned how to inhale. The show is an acquired taste. It is a mix of serious political discussion, humor and music. It is hard to classify, news, journalism, opinion, entertainment, patriotic promotion, self-improvement, etc. It is totally unique. I could bore you with a long article discussing the letter from President Ronald Reagan wrote to Rush. Some consider it the passing of the conservative mantle to the next generation. There are many competing voices today for conservatism, as it has found the mainstream. One can find shots taken at each other for dominance. But Rush Limbaugh is undoubtedly top dog. He is center right. He is brilliant. He is totally unique.
P.S. I don’t believe Limbaugh has been on any USO tours. He has made trips on military aircraft, as that is the only way to get there, but I believe they were considered private trips. Definitely no stage shows.
May 20, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Gene, I used to work at a restaurant, years ago, that advertised a "Rush Lunch." They would play his show during the lunch hour. I had never heard talk radio before and it was quite an introduction. I remember being shocked as well at the statements he was making. I just didn't realize that kind of animosity existed in our political spectrum.
Well, what can I say. I was quite young.
Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm still not a fan of talk radio, no matter who's the host. It's just too loud and strident for my taste.
May 20, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
bropous, who said this? Nobody said this! Your getting to be as big a liar as I've seen in these forums. If someone said this back it up or shutup you idiot.
""The leftists, who DESPISE the uniforms of the United States military, and who think that anyone who would volunteer to wear the uniform is an undereducated boob, have the nerve to try and paint Rush an non-supportive of the military?""
May 20, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Yesterday I had to defend President Bush. Today Rushbo."
aaahhh....the plight of a far right wing apologist.
poor gene.
May 20, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Glad to do it jay.
Mytwosense,
If you were 'quite young' say in 1990, say 17, and I will add 18 years, that still makes you only 35. Hey, that is still young.
May 20, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Once again Jay, you prove that you whacko Libs don't understand us educated, uniformed, freedom fighters.
YOU CAN'T SUPPORT THE MILITARY WITHOUT SUPPORT THE MISSION.
WE CHOOSE TO GO INTO HARM'S WAY FOR YOUR BENEFIT, DIMWEED! You sure don't have the guts to do it or the intelligence to see why it's needed...
May 20, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"YOU CAN'T SUPPORT THE MILITARY WITHOUT SUPPORT THE MISSION"
why does it always come back to this kind of ignorance, teddy?
May 20, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Hmmm...a little suspicious about Ted in Vegas's claim he served in the military. I have NEVER met anyone in the armed services who actually would spout such silly platitudes like "you whacko Libs don't understand us educated, uniformed, freedom fighters."
I call BS.
May 20, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Mytwosense,
How old are you?
May 20, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Just turned 39. You?
May 20, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Nevermind.
Now what are you wearing?
May 20, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Nevermind.
You must have missed my post above where I was speculating and gave you 4 years. Now what are you wearing? !
May 20, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Ted
"The point" of this thread was the "popularity" of Rush Limbaugh, with this nation's troupes.
I only pointed out those things I, along with my compatriots, considered most "popular", as we slogged through the jungles of Vietnam.
In this context, PEACE means the absence of combat, which is preferable to dodging bullets, RPGs and mortar rounds.
I would wager your money (I don't have any), the vast majority of our military personnel would rather not face bombs, mortars, small-arms fire, whatever. Those who wish to be "in harm's way," are not quite right in the head.
Can you support the warriors without supporting the war? Absolutely.
Don't blame those who serve, for the actions of our nation's leaders.
If it weren't for Bush's arrogance, or Congress's compliance, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
May 20, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
bropous: "Someone who did not have serve in the military but who supports them is far better than someone who served and yet attacks them.
I'll take a ChickenHawk over a ChickenSh!t any day. That includes John F'ing Kerry and Jim Webb and John Murtha types as well."
Well, I imagine that's a very convenient opinion for you to hold, seeing as you're not in the military yourself but have an interest in "military science."
May 20, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
so bropous, using your logic that chickenhawks are braver than soldiers who critique the Iraq war:
Do you consider yourself braver than JimmyB, a combat vet, because he opposes the war in Iraq and you don't? Even though you haven't served in the military yourself?
May 20, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Leftists despise the US military."
does this kind of crap play outside of the rush limbaugh fantasy hour?
"They LOVE the Cuban military, and the Chinese Communist military, just like tehy LOVED the Soviet military (so much that they put up Red Ron Dellums as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the 1980s, when Reagan was facing down the Soviet Union)."
wow...coo coo for coco puffs.
"To the Leftists, General David Petraeus is a traitor"
actually, the majority of americans distrusted petraeus's "reports" on iraq...do you believe the majority of americans to be "leftists", aporousposition?
"They despise George W Bush, and pledge allegiance to Stalin and Mussolini."
now you're just being silly. i just had a revelation and i have a new theory about bporousanother...i think he's really a democrat acting like an uneducated far right wing nut in order to make fun of the 27%'ers...
keep up the good work
May 20, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
jay: "i just had a revelation and i have a new theory about bporousanother...i think he's really a democrat acting like an uneducated far right wing nut in order to make fun of the 27%'ers..."
I swear I've had that same thought about a couple other rightwingers on this forum...
May 20, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
I have several friends and family members serving currently, and a few have described Rush as "a tub of goo" and "like one of those parasitic fish that latch onto a bigger fish to feed off it", etc.. - and these folks are conservative Republicans. So, not all the troops love Rush.
Bropous - Congrats - your lame baiting has reached new heights - you are now officially the "master" baiter. Troll on.
JimmyB - thanks for you service AND honesty.
May 20, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
Bropous:
This vet has two middle fingers pointed at you, at Rush and at G.W. Douche!!
May 20, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I'll take a peace-seeking vet over an armchair chickenhawk any day. I keep forgetting Airman Bush did a heckuva job in his Air National Guard jet of keeping North Vietnamese MiGs from flying over Texas.
I think bropous must be Ann Coulter's handle: "All liberals are traitors."
For 40 years I've believed that the US could becme Fascist far easier and simpler than it could become Communist. It would be so easy for the US to do so. Bropous proves in one post. Let us now all face our shrine of our Beloved Leader Bush and proclaim "Hail victory!"
May 20, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
mytwosense
I don't bring up my service record to brag, nor am I all that brave. There are a lot of people who did far more in that war than I did. I was just a dog-handler doing what I volunteered and was trained to do.
My only concern for those who serve now, is to get the war in Iraq over with, and bring those kids home; and not have them spit upon and called names for their service in an unpopular war.
O_TRAIN
Thank, you.
May 20, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
JimmyB
The howling anti-war libs here, are not doing themselves any good if they want to get back into power. If they are representative of the whole party, which I believe they my not be, they are living proof we could never trust the party again with the White House.
May 20, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logic1 writes:
As a fiscal conservative, I have listened to Rush many times. I have not done so in awhile though. He speaks about Dems to generally and with disdain for all. He does make good points followed up with facts. Schultz on the other hand is the libs answer to Rush, he just doesn't give facts to back up his arguements. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck seem to attack a person based on their actions and do not blast all libs or dems for their acts.
May 20, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" If [anti-war libs] are representative of the whole party, which I believe they my not be, they are living proof we could never trust the party again with the White House."
gene, how do you reconcile your minority status on this issue and still believe that you ca't "trust the party"? they're the party willing enact the will of the vast majority of americans on the issue of iraq. is that why you don't "trust" them?
May 20, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
You can't govern by polls, jay. Clinton(s) are now finding out that little fact.
May 20, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
OK, so here's the story on me.
Vet: 11 years of service; 6 Active Duty Navy (DD-971), 3 Colo. Nat. Guard (1/157th FA), 2 Navy Reserves (CVN-68).
Education: BA-PoliSci (2003), MetroState (Denver), JD (2010) UNLV
My definition of Peace (which I find to be common amongst my vet friends, shipmates and comrades-in-arms): a short period of time between conflicts wherein everyone is else is either too smart or too weak to attack my country.
No JAY, you cannot support our troops without supporting the mission. Surely, my friends and family over there would rather be home, just I would've rather not been there when I was; BUT, on the other hand, I'd rather come home the victor than defeated.
You whacko Lefties would rather we come home at any cost, regardless of victory or defeat. I (WE) hate that. Yes we want to come home AFTER WE WIN so shut up and let us do our jobs!
So why, you LIBS, do you think the majority of the military regularly, routinely and unfailing vote for Republicans (and the more conservative the better)? Because Neo-Cons and Conservatives understand that it is truly a dangerous world out there and that the natural state of man is war and force must be used to keep the wild hearts of evil men at bay (proving Thomas Hobbes to be right, at least in that regard).
May 20, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
but gene, that little pearl of wisdom doesn't change the fact that you're railing against the party with which the vast majority of americans agree in regards to iraq.
do you not feel the white house is the appropriatte place for the party with those qualifications?
May 20, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
So anyone who was against the war in Vietnam was not supporting the troops?? My oldest brother was a Green Beret in Vietnam, went to school on the GI Bill and retired from Air Force Intelligence as a Lt. Colonel in 2001. He felt the war was a mistake from day one. Does that mean he does not support the troops? I don't think so.
May 20, 2008
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Oh and he thinks Neo-cons are complete fools. Nothing worse than a Chickenhawk in his book. 2 years go he bought a new car and I took him to pick it up. Pasty Sales manager came out to discuss needless warranty extension. He started to rip on Democrats, my brother asked about his service and he stated he had "other priorities". Oh Man, did he get ripped into, sounds like a Dick Cheney wannabe, I actually felt sorry for the little pasty conservative.
May 20, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Jay,
I am not going to play your little poll game with majority, vast majority, etc, etc. Great leaders do what they have to do to lead. They don't stick their finger in the wind and take a poll with Dick Morris like Clinton used to do. Margaret Thatcher was a great leader. She didn't take polls to govern. Neither did Ronald Reagan. Neither does George Bush. They do with they were elected to do. Lead the country.
May 20, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Spencer
That's not what I said.
There were a lot of people who were against the war in Vietnam AND welcomed our G.I.s back home. Those people weren't "news worthy" to the news media, those who demonstrated violently were; just as those who demonstrate against the war in Iraq are considered to be "news worthy", those who support the warriors....not so much.
What I remember seeing, while I was in Vietnam, was the news media portraying, in almost every newscast and along with every night's war report, a nation that despised those who served (and in my recollection, Jane Fonda, upon her return from Hanoi, castigating U.S. POWs as cry babies and murderers).
I can't speak to anybody else's experience, but I wasn't treated all that well, as I was trying to get to my plane home in Seattle, after I returned.
My nephew will be leaving in a couple of weeks for a 16 month deployment to Afghanistan. I only hope he doesn't get the same reseption when he comes home.
Was the Vietnam war a mistake? Sure. Is the Iraq war a mistake? I believe it to be, but that's only one man's opinion.
Whatever, we can still support those who serve without supporting the war.
Those who don't believe that's possible have tunnel vision which won't let them see their folly. They'll never admit to it, but it's there nonetheless.
May 20, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"The left certainly has its share of propagandists as well including Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and other pundits. These folks never debate people of opposing viewpoints, but instead cherry pick, manipulate and take out of context the words and ideas of the individuals political and otherwise with whom they disagree. Limbaugh is no different." - greenleaf
Wow. Another non-committal post by greenleaf. Limbaugh, Moore, and Maher have the followings things in common: they get paid to be partisan and to be entertaining.
But, lets not get carried away by saying they all lie or stretch the truth. And, also, lets not say that they all refuse to debate those with differing viewpoints. I am a faithful viewer of Bill Maher's Real Time show. This man does not desire to discuss issues with conservatives. Have you ever watched his show? He interviews about four people each show; at least three are always extreme and clueless celebrity liberals. He has one conservative that gets booed and shouted down by the rest of the guests. This is what makes his show boring. Maher says something, the crowd cheers, and the glib panel kisses his as*.
The Limbaugh show is not like this. In fact, talk radio seeks liberal callers. It makes it fun to debate them on air. Limbaugh, Prager, Hewitt, and Medved all regurarly have liberals on their show.
Contrast this to the Sunday morning talk shows. Tim Russert, a Democrat with mostly liberal panelists; George Stephanopolous, a Democrat with all liberal panelists with the exception of George Will; the guy on CBS (I hardly ever watch CBS), also a Democrat with mostly liberal guests.
"Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm still not a fan of talk radio, no matter who's the host. It's just too loud and strident for my taste." - MTS
Who were you listening to? Limbaugh is a bit over the top for my taste. But, I still think he is a brilliant man. But, in terms of loudness, who else have you listened to? Stay away from Hannity and Laura Ingraham; they are morons. The same goes for O'Reilly. Dennis Prager has an excellent show. Very thought provoking. He is not loud at all. Hugh Hewitt is also very good. He is very energetic and loves to debate liberals. His weekly conversations with Mark Steyn are priceless. Ever heard Mark Steyn? He is very witty. Michael Medved is also a good show for listening to good intellectual debates. Have you heard the Dennis Miller show? He is pretty good too.
May 20, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
fair enough gene, but please dont imply that somehow the dems are damaged by the stances they share with the majority of americans.
May 20, 2008
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
By the way, MTS, I am curious. What conservative media do you subscribe to?
I read The New Yorker magazine. I watch the Bill Maher show. I read the High Country News magazine. I read many liberal columnists. I watch Tim Russert and George Stephanolopous every Sunday.
But, you said talk radio annoys you. So, if you do not listen to talk radio, and I am pretty sure you do not read conservative columnists and magazines, from where do you get an opposing point of view to all of your liberal views? I would wager $100 that I am the only consistent conservative in your life. Which is not the worst thing in the world. But, who will correct you if I were to kick the bucket tomorrow?
May 20, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"but gene, that little pearl of wisdom doesn't change the fact that you're railing against the party with which the vast majority of americans agree in regards to iraq." - jay
If that were true, jay, how do you explain McCain, or as you call him McSame, running in a statistical tie with Obama? If this "vast majority" were truly in support of Obama's position on Iraq, why is Obama not dominating in the polls right now?
May 20, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
john, eli had the same question last week. we debunked the myth accordingly. here's the link...hope you don't mind me just saving some time.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
May 20, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Both of them have guts and both of them are actually funny - curiously, something most conservative pundits rarely are. Why is that? Why aren't conservatives funny??" - MTS
I'm not so sure about the guts part. It doesn't take much guts to stand in front of a liberally dominated audience and say you disagree with American policy. Ever listen to Bill Maher? All he has to do is say something negative about our country and immediately girls are shouting "woo-hoo!". That does not take guts. Oh, if I were young, liberal and single...
But, I will say conservatives are not funny. I will freely admit that liberals have cornered the market on smart-as$, glib, vulgar humor. John Stewart is a funny guy, no doubt about it. Congratulations on fielding the funniest entertainers. Although, I would say Dennis Miller and P.J. O'Rourke are much funnier than liberals. But, it is a humor intended for the intellectual crowd, not the college frat boy crowd.
May 20, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
jay, do you honestly think I am going to sift through a hundred comments just to find where you supposedly said something brilliant to Eli? I have read too many of your comments to know that nothing you write is insightful or noteworthy.
May 20, 2008
5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry john, posted the wrong thread.
here's the right one...and you don't have to search...the discussion begins at:
Posted by Eli on May 12, 2008 at 1:05 p.m.
"Jay,
"many more americans support obama's policy stances than do mccain's."
One of your favorite websites, pollingreport.com, suggests otherwise. Most results show a 3-5% difference, some in favor of McCain and some not. See for yourself here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen....
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
you should be able to follow it from there, john...won't take you but 5 mintues to read and will save me having to debunk a fairly common myth over and over. the alternative is just me cutting and pasting my own arguments over again in this thread.
thanks in advance.
May 20, 2008
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
My , My,
How sensitive Reich-Wingers get when you attack their El-Rushbo....Even when facts support the left-leaning Freedom loving Americans rather than the B.S Rush spouts.
Speaking of rather, (Dan, that is) see what happens when you try to tell the truth about Reich-winged ,combat shy W.Bush?
W.Bush and Rush have a lot in common.......COWARDICE.
You Reich-wingers are all alike.....pitiful fascist-loving cowards.
Now go tell Rush, so he can make something up to make those bad Liberals stop saying bad things.
Like the TRUTH.
.without the Oxycontin, life is just too hard for soft, white, cowards with nicotine joneses and no sense of reality.
Fact: on May 15th, 2008 Rush claimed that Neo-cons were actually Democrats trying to give Republicans a bad name.
The man obviously hasn't stopped using mind-altering substances.
The Reich- wingers are going down in flames, and deserve every bit of crap they receive.
FACT:
Al Franken has entertained our troops in the Middle East 14 times, AND THEY LOVED HIM!
Oxy-man has been to the Middle East twice, protected by our troops, and never went anywhere he might get shot....including Vietnam.
May 20, 2008
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
John_II:
It's hilarious to see you slinging the demonstrably false meme that Sunday talk-shows are populated by mostly liberals.
I suppose it might look that way to someone who's idea of "moderation" is letting a few people live when you cut out large swaths of the middle-east to steal their oil like the swarthy little pirate you are.
You need some perspective, sister.
May 20, 2008
6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
CB,
Are you telling me that Sunday morning talk shows are not dominated by Democrat-supporting hosts and guests? Are you saying Russert is not a Democrat? Stephanopolous? The CBS guy? Two of the three are confirmed Democrats. In fact, they worked for Democrat administrations. Now, I dare you to count how many conservatives show up up This Week. this Sunday.
By the way, whats with your constant reference to "large swaths of the middle-east"? I don't get it.
May 20, 2008
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
jay 5:28-
You really do live in a dream world.
I went through that whole thread where you claim "we debunked that" and all I found was you, as usual, dodging direct questions and awkwardly dancing like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
Charles-
Could you give us a breakdown, in your opinion, of the individual political leanings of the Sunday Morning political show hosts based on their past employers, writings, and stances they take on the defining issues?
If you have time, maybe you could comment on these shows regular guests and the political balance or unbalance they provide?
Considering how hilarious you found J2's assertion that they overwhelmingly are Liberals, this should be easy for you.
May 20, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I went through that whole thread where you claim "we debunked that" and all I found was you, as usual, dodging direct questions and awkwardly dancing like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest."
by all means let me know which point i failed to make or address, getreallyright
May 20, 2008
11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
John_II: “If that were true, jay, how do you explain McCain, or as you call him McSame, running in a statistical tie with Obama? If this "vast majority" were truly in support of Obama's position on Iraq, why is Obama not dominating in the polls right now?”
So your “traditional” candidate (white, male) is in a statistical tie with a black guy that is yet to receive the nomination from his divided party?
There’s a lot more going on here than the war. Racism, sexism, bigotry, class warfare...
Obama wins 90% of the black vote?
Hillary kills him in West Virginia (the only state where “snake handling” is still legal)?
All this crap has reached the boiling point...and the Dems are divided right down the middle (almost).
And McCain is tied with Obama?
WOW!
May 21, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
NeilT,
I have no idea what point you were trying to make. But, judging from your exclamation of "WOW!", I am convinced that you managed to wholly impress yourself.
May 21, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
Does anyone remember when Tom Dewey "defeated" Harry Truman - "statistically", that is?
Wonderful thing, "statistics". Anyone can assert anything. And "statistics" will "prove" the assertion, regardless of all else.
Of course, John2 "(had) no idea what point (NeilT was) trying to make"; John2 relies on "statistics" when asserting. And anyone who points out just how little "statistics" have to do with REALITY - and the vast complexity of events, such as elections at times - will never be understood by a "statistician". Never mind the vote count at the polls - or in the Electoral College afterwards - "statistically" Tom Dewey always "defeated" - and will always "defeat" - Harry Truman; and "statistics" are "proof" of that.
May 21, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Wechasa,
My point is that statistics do not matter. That is why I questioned jay. On the one hand, he tells us how the vast majority disagree with Bush's policies. He also tells us the McCain is McSame. Yet, if we relied on statistics and polls for our wisdom as jay does, how does he explain McCain running a statistical tie against Obama? Seems to me that the "vast majority" would be against McCain.
May 21, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
bropous, my apologies. I was under the impression you hadn't served. And no, I haven't, but I also don't go around criticizing soldiers as "chickensh&ts" for opposing a war, either. For that matter, I've never criticized a soldier who doesn't oppose the war. My beef is with the leaders who have sent them there.
Also, I want to address something you state here to jimmyb: "Can we not at least, JimmyB, recognize that we conquered Afghanistan, the first nation to do so since the days of Alexander the Great? That we have established a stabilizing Arabic representative republic right in the middle of the turbulent Mid East?"
Technically, yeah, we "conquered" Afghanistan. Unfortunately, seven years later we still haven't stamped out the Taliban once and for all, though. What's more, women are still being brutally beaten, raped, and intimidated. I read a horrible article just a few days ago about a man who bashed his wife's face repeatedly with a rock, then set her on fire. She actually survived - and the authorities may send her back to her husband! What's more, the "prosecuter" has essentially laughed off the incident and said "we're not Americans. I would kill my wife if she went to the bazaar without me."
So the government we helped put in place is not doing much about this horrible state of affairs. And I do not consider a government who can't or won't even help its own countrywomen a "stabilizing" presence.
This is actually a source of deep sadness to me. I remember when I first started hearing stories of the brutal Taliban regime, well before 9/11. I remember hearing that Afghanistan women had the highest rate of suicide in the world. I wanted us to go in and help those people then. And after 9/11, I supported the invasion, (particularly because we gave them over a month's warning that it was coming).
It really bothers me that things are still so screwed up over there. I believe we should have truly "finished the job" in Afghanistan before we switched our military focus and many of our resources anywhere else.
May 21, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
NeilT, JohnII understands your point very well he just doesn't want to face the reality of it, as he shows by making virtually the same comment to Wechasa.
The fact of the matter it's to early to pay much attention to polls that pit Obama or Hillary against McCain. However, you do make an excellent point judging from the turnout at all the Democratic primaries. While I'm sure that some of the voters whose candidate looses will either side with McCain, an independant or will just not vote, I do believe that number will be a very small minority. I believe that the "vast majority" of people who have voted in these primaries will vote for ever wins and based on the turn out at these primaries will evidently win the presidency. Though I don't believe it will be a landslide, I do believe the Democratic candidate will win by a significant margin.
May 21, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"On the one hand, he tells us how the vast majority disagree with Bush's policies. He also tells us the McCain is McSame. Yet, if we relied on statistics and polls for our wisdom as jay does, how does he explain McCain running a statistical tie against Obama? Seems to me that the "vast majority" would be against McCain."
again john, there's is very little excuse to be made for your willful ignorance. i've very cleanly cleared up this misconception when eli brought it up last week. PLEASE read that thread...it answers all your questions.
in a nutshell, however, yes...the VAST majority of americans want republican policies discontinued and the majority support the dems' stances on the issues before the nation. those are facts. all the spin about unrelated national polling numbers isn't going to make those FACTS go away. the reason why the national polling numbers (which consistently show obama and hillary both ahead of mccain www.realclearpolitics.com) aren't relevant in discussion about specific policy stances...is...drumroll...because that polling has no mention of said specifics.
this isn't a hard concept to understand...although it is obviously a politically inconvenient truth with which you seem to be fighting hard not to come to terms.
the plight of the blindly partisan...poor john.
May 21, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
bporousargument...that is the most absurd post regarding iraq that i've read in months. i always knew the far right footsoldiers would try to shift the blame for the quagmire in iraq and the gross incompetence in afghanistan (namely largely pulling out to needlessly go into iraq) on the dems...but you've really put the capital F in footsoldier...rush would be very proud.
"The Bush Administration has failed to make this case to the people and get increases in our force structure"
LOL...bpourusanother...maybe you were asleep before the invasion of iraq and don't remember the republicans insisting that we didn't need the 350k-500k troops the military experts were screaming that we needed to win such an unnecessary campaign...but do a little research here...i'm not making this stuff up. might help you construct a little more realistic of a view of absolute stupidity that led to the worst foreign policy initiative in the history of the US.
May 21, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
jay,
I already told you I am not going to read an entire thread of comments to find some supposedly magically brilliant argument you made against someone else. I've seen enough of your comments (even on threads which I do not comment on) to know your argumentative style is childish, glib, and pointless.
Your comment here sums it all up:
"in a nutshell, however, yes...the VAST majority of americans want republican policies discontinued and the majority support the dems' stances on the issues before the nation. those are facts. all the spin about unrelated national polling numbers isn't going to make those FACTS go away. the reason why the national polling numbers (which consistently show obama and hillary both ahead of mccain www.realclearpolitics.com) aren't relevant in discussion about specific policy stances...is...drumroll...because that polling has no mention of said specifics."
I understand your dilemma, jay. One poll tells you one thing. Another poll tells you something different. This is why it is so foolish to base your arguments on polling data.
But, I do see where you are going with this. A poll tells you that the "vast majority" of people reject Republican policies. So, what will you say in November after Obama gives the best concession speech ever recorded? Obviously, it will mean that the American people hate blacks more than they hate Republican policies. It is a clever angle to aim for and I'm sure the media will help you out enormously.
May 21, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"One poll tells you one thing. Another poll tells you something different. This is why it is so foolish to base your arguments on polling data."
this is a lie. are you a liar or just confused, john? both are symptoms of willful ignorance but i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.
the polling is very, VERY consistent on these facts.
they are...once again:
the VAST majority of americans want to discontinue the republican policies of the last 8 years.
the majority of americans support the dems' policy stances regarding the issues before the country today.
the national polling consistently shows both obama and hillary ahead of mccain.
what about those statements confuses you, johnny? where exactly are you seeing inconsistencies?
are you not aware that the national polls for the presidential races share ZERO data with the polling about specific policy stances?
john, if you don't mind me asking...have you ever been to college? ever taken a high level stats class?
May 21, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
jay,
Nice attempt at faux outrage, jay.
Here are the national poll numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
McCain is down by 2.4 - 4.3 points. This is within the margin of error. In other words, it is a statistical tie.
McCain is a Republican, agreed? Can we call that a fact, Jack? Yet, according to you, the "vast majority" of voters disapprove of Republican policies. Hm, so how do you reconcile those numbers. How can a Republican be tied in the national polls when the polls say a "vast majority" of Republican policies are rejected by the people? McCain should be wildly rejected by voters. He should not even be close. Yet, he is. So, obviously, you are setting up an excuse to blame Obama's loss on something other than a pure comparison of party policies. Racism will most likely be the excuse you offer.
Since you have stooped to calling me a liar, I will let my current posts stand on their own. I am not going to get drawn into repeating myself. So, for every response to me that you post, please just refer back to this post. Thanks, jay.
May 21, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"McCain is a Republican, agreed? Can we call that a fact, Jack? Yet, according to you, the "vast majority" of voters disapprove of Republican policies. Hm, so how do you reconcile those numbers"
here again i have to ask if you've ever been to college or taken a college level stats class, john.
those two polls are completely unrelated. there is no shared data between the two polls.
give me some sign you understand that.
May 21, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
The shared data, jay, between the polls is salient: they both concern the Republican party and its policies; one is about Republican policies, the other is about a Republican who supports those policies. Now, reread my 12:42 post for clarification. And, when you repeat your question to me, reread this post.
May 21, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
john...willful ignorance is not a defensible position.
tell you what...i'll concede the point in your favor if you can tell me which specific policies are mentioned in the polling you've referenced as being relevant to the polling that explicitly includes data on specific policy stances.
otherwise...i'll expect you to do the same.
May 21, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
jay,
One of the polls does not specifically mention policies. This is obvious. John McCain is a Republican. Another poll, supposedly anyway, shows that the "vast majority" oppose Republican policies. John McCain is a Republican. He favors the policies the other poll purports to show that people oppose. One poll is about Republican policies. The other poll is about a Republican who supports those policies. If the "vast majority" oppose Republicans policies, why is the "vast majority" not opposing McCain - a Republican who supports those policies?
You really are showing your lack of critical thinking here. If a poll does not explicitly state something, you seem to have no ability to connect the dots based on available data. In other words, you are literally letting polls do you thinking. How sad. Your mind is meant for thinking, jay, not letting others do your thinking for you.
I will concede this much. You have succeeded in making me repeat myself when I said I would not do so. I fall for it every time. I guess my weakness is an extremely low tolerance for letting faulty logic go unchallenged.
May 21, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"One of the polls does not specifically mention policies."
your poll, john. the one you think refutes the facts that the majority of americans want to discontinue republican policies and support dems stances on the issues.
that's all you had to say...you may concede any time you wish.
"If the "vast majority" oppose Republicans policies, why is the "vast majority" not opposing McCain - a Republican who supports those policies?"
no clue, john...and it doesn't change a thing. we both know that the national polling in no way refutes the facts listed above. again...willful ignorance isn't going to help you wiggle your way out of the corner on this one.
like eli, you thought that the national polling in some way shed doubt on the facts i've listed. it doesn't. we could have saved ourselves some time if you'd just done as i asked and simply read this near exact conversation instead of stuck your head in the sand.
" If a poll does not explicitly state something, you seem to have no ability to connect the dots based on available data. "
that's just your problem, john. you have NO DATA that refutes those facts. none. you'd apparently like to believe you do...but as we've established and as you've admitted above...you don't.
"you are literally letting polls do you thinking."
this attempt at an insult is a lie. thus...you are now a liar along with spencerjr. i'm simply stating that these two facts are indeed facts and can not be refuted by you blindly clinging to unrelated polling with no shared data.
don't pout...don't resort to insults or your predictable strawman arguments...just move on. you're not going to win this one.
May 21, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"your poll, john. the one you think refutes the facts that the majority of americans want to discontinue republican policies and support dems stances on the issues." - jay
My poll? Did you or did you not refer me to Real Clear Politics polling data? You mentioned it. I merely provided the link.
"no clue, john...and it doesn't change a thing. we both know that the national polling in no way refutes the facts listed above. again.." - jay
If you have no clue, what are you basing your assertion on? That is too funny. Do you even follow your own arguments. You are saying that even though you cannot explain the polling discrepancy, the poll you like is right and the one you do not like is wrong. That is your preference. But there is no factual reason why your poll is correct and the other is wrong.
One poll shows a dislike for Republican policies and the other poll shows a Republican who supports those policies being in a statistical tie with his socialist opponents.
If I tell you that I do not like apples and then you see me in the store buying a bagful of apples for myself, would you not wonder whether or not I really dislike apples? I wonder, jay, if you are truly as dumb as you act or if this whole repetition thing is just a game you play when you are bored. I usually tended to believe you were just messing around with folks for the fun of it. But, now I am wondering if you truly are an imbecile.
The point, jay, is not that one poll is better than the other. The point is that polling in general is highly subjective and largely useless in an honest debate. Therefore, attempting to argue based on selective polling data is a foolish endeavor.
May 21, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"My poll? Did you or did you not refer me to Real Clear Politics polling data? You mentioned it. I merely provided the link."
the national polling john...let's not play dumb, shall we?
"If you have no clue, what are you basing your assertion on?"
an A in advanced statistics. the fact that you even have to ask the question tells me that you never took such a class.
"One poll shows a dislike for Republican policies and the other poll shows a Republican who supports those policies being in a statistical tie with his socialist opponents."
yep...and the poll about national polling STILL doesn't in any way refute the facts we've established.
"The point, jay, is not that one poll is better than the other. The point is that polling in general is highly subjective and largely useless in an honest debate. Therefore, attempting to argue based on selective polling data is a foolish endeavor."
one poll has nothing to do with another....THAT is the point, john....as inconvenient as that is for you to acknowledge. scientific polling is always denounced by those whose positions it destroys....just like yours. no one is arguing with "selective polling data" except you.
again...don't pout...just move on...you're not going to win this one.
one more time people....it is a fact that the vast majority of americans want republican policies to stop. it is also a fact that the majority of americans support the dems' stances on the issues before the country.
nothing that you've said today john has any effect on those to facts.
better luck next time.
May 21, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
john...can i tell you how much i like teeing off on you guys on the far right? sometimes my job is pretty stressful and shooting holes in your extermist positions always makes me feel better.
for that i thank you.
May 21, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"like eli, you thought that the national polling in some way shed doubt on the facts i've listed."
Not so, jay. When I discussed this polling data, not once did I claim that the numbers in the poll you were citing were wrong. And you have the balls to call other people on these threads liars? Feeling a bit hypocritical today, are we?
And I see you still don't know what a straw man argument is. Sad that you'd just run away like that so you can keep using that warped dictionary in your head on another thread.
May 21, 2008
5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"one poll has nothing to do with another....THAT is the point, john" - jay
Ha, so you see no connection between Republican policy approval polling and a Republican presidential candidate? Is McCain not a Republican? Does McCain not support the very same policies that supposedly the "vast majority" of people reject? In fact, do you not refer to McCain as McSame and claim he represents a third term for Bush? How can McCain be polling so high if he represents a third term for an unpopular president?
"scientific polling is always denounced by those whose positions it destroys..." - jay
You keep implying that I care about these polls. I do not care at all. My ideology and policy positions are not tied to any poll. So, I do not know what position you think you are destroying. None of these polls matter except for the ultimate poll: the election. Everything is else is just pure speculation.
"O, that a man might know
The end of this day's business ere it come!
But it sufficeth that the day will end,
And then the end is known." - Shakespeare
May 21, 2008
8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I haven't read all the posts here, but kudos to greenleaf (near the top) for his excellent analysis.
A big thumbs down to Mr. Maio for his pompous and arrogant letter. Like many consumers of talk radio, he apparently has internalized the messages he hears (identify villains, know that they stand against you, despise, hate, and exhibit disdain to said villains--even those who live in boogeyland, assume you hold "the truth" and everyone else in the world is a dumbass, make rhetorical claims whenever possible).