100 facts and 1 opinion

[ApostateAbe]

Cool Hand, I hope you aren't going away any time soon. This forum needs a guy like you to keep this forum from spiraling into a leftist black hole.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool Hand, I hope you aren't going away any time soon. This forum needs a guy like you to keep this forum from spiraling into a leftist black hole.

Thanks Abe.

To clarify my political leanings, I stand by my declarations in this thread and elsewhere that I am not a right-wing Republican. I'm not right-wing at all.

My political views are very moderate to liberal regarding most social issues. I believe in minimalist government, however, to the extent practicable. I also believe that government has assumed roles and duties far exceeding that which a free republic which values individual rights above all else should allow. I loathe the curtailing of civil liberties this administration has undertaken, for instance, just as I loathe huge, awkward, cumbersome, and misguided social engineering programs. Of course, this administration hardly has a monopoly on running roughshod over individuals' civil liberties. In many respects, federal law enforcement agencies under the previous administration sometimes exhibited a truly warped sense of the government's role vis-a-vis the citizen and her liberties.

Broadly speaking, the right-wing of the Republican Party embraces outrageous legislation and constitutional amendments to impose narrow minded, intolerant moral codes upon all of us. The left-wing of the Democratic Party embraces legislation and government programs that impose upon all of us mandatory redistribution of wealth so that the government can babysit us, manage our retirements, and wipe our bottoms. The right-wing assumes that without government we are all depraved and amoral, and the left-wing assumes we are all stupid and helpless.

Both wings are on the political fringes of our nation, with the vast majority of Americans occupying positions somewhere in between. There is plenty of room in that moderate space for a myriad of views. I stand somewhere in that middle, as do most persons.

I agree with you that this message board and so many other boards that are dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking appear to be frequented by a disproportionate number of posters holding views that are much to the left of the large center of the political spectrum in the U.S. I suppose this is the "leftist black hole" you mention. I suspect you use the term "black hole" as a criticism that leftist views so often get a pass on these boards when it comes to being skeptical.

Although I do not mean for my personal observation to apply to everyone, or to all of anyone's posts, it is my subjective opinion that many persons with views skewing to the left who post here and on similar message boards apply their critical thinking skills selectively on political matters. Specifically, I see many persons giving a pass to nearly all political rhetoric from Democrats and their supporters, even when some of the commentary or assertions put forth are groundless, seriously lacking in reliable support, or just plain incorrect.

Certainly, the same criticisms about being groundless, etc. can be made about much, if not most, of the rhetoric coming from Republicans and their supporters. Nevertheless, I see far more rabid, biased attacks made here on Republican rhetoric than I do on Democratic rhetoric. Indeed, there seems to be little criticism here, rabid or otherwise, of Democratic rhetoric at all.

I submit that the conspicuous lack of criticism of the left here is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals and the rhetoric which ostensibly supports and embraces them get a critical pass here and on many other skeptical message boards. That is only my personal opinion based on what I have witnessed. I see it as a case of selective application of critical thinking, however. I suspect that all of us, being fallible humans, engage in selective critical thinking from time to time, and on various matters, and in varying degrees. I am quite sure that I, too, am guilty of it often.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I submit that the conspicuous lack of criticism of the left here is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals and the rhetoric which ostensibly supports and embraces them get a critical pass here and on many other skeptical message boards. That is only my personal opinion based on what I have witnessed. I see it as a case of selective application of critical thinking, however. I suspect that all of us, being fallible humans, engage in selective critical thinking from time to time, and on various matters, and in varying degrees. I am quite sure that I, too, am guilty of it often.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

The conspicuous lack of criticism of the left is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals represent the ideals of most people in the message boards you mention. Everyone is guilty of selective application of critical thinking, everyone. But, at some point in your life, you and everyone else settled on something they believe is right and just. Very few people will question seriously what they've decided they believe.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Nevertheless, I see far more rabid, biased attacks made here on Republican rhetoric than I do on Democratic rhetoric. Indeed, there seems to be little criticism here, rabid or otherwise, of Democratic rhetoric at all.

True that, and I know for a fact that there are people here who have much contempt for the current Democratic Party, including myself. I think it's just plain ol' horror at the prospect of four more Bush years that drives those of us who thought Clinton was a sell-out and the DNC a collection of unprincipled power-whores to temper our criticism.

IIDB was the second forum I ever read and participated on. The first was the ZNet Sustainer's Forum. Compared to the Znet folks, IIDB's liberal slant was centrist, to say the least, and I was regularly amazed by how hard stark criticism of the Dem Party - very much the order of the day on Z - was to find.

I think many of us uber-lefties are looking forward to the day when we can crap all over the dems again without fearing that it will result in handing power to the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Ashcroft. Should Kerry win, I suspect the "leftist black hole" will turn out to be more of a rainbow of positions, including some seriously hardcore criticism of DP rhetoric, planks, compromises, etc.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by warrenly

The conspicuous lack of criticism of the left is ample evidence that left-leaning ideals represent the ideals of most people in the message boards you mention. Everyone is guilty of selective application of critical thinking, everyone. But, at some point in your life, you and everyone else settled on something they believe is right and just. Very few people will question seriously what they've decided they believe.

I agree, Warren. Very few people seriously question the foundations of their beliefs, and very few of them are capable of analyzing them objectively.

Nevertheless, I submit that it is no excuse for the lack of critical response to political rhetoric used by one's own candidate in the course of a campaign. A skeptical Democrat has no intellectual obligation to tear apart everything his candidate says or implies, but a complete lack of critical analysis is disingenuous. Senator Kerry is not an infallible oracle. Neither, of course, is President Bush.

After reading so many of the political posts here, however, one might conclude that the President is a barely literate, bumbling, incompetent baffoon hellbent on destroying truth, justice, and liberty. One might also conclude that his distinguished opponent is a political savior waiting in the wings to deliver us from all manner of harm, foreign and domestic, and who will make all things right with the world once again. Both portraits are exaggerated nonsense and bear little resemblance to reality.

I don't give the President a pass on his official actions or omissions. You shouldn't give Senator Kerry one either, nor should you portray the world as a huge mess made by the President which will by compounded and allowed to run amok if we don't vote him out of office.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I think many of us uber-lefties are looking forward to the day when we can crap all over the dems...

Oh yeah.

Cool Hand, you assume much. I think this post explains my political leanings.

BTW, after seeing the Kerrys on Dr. Phil and seeing how he handles himself, I am impressed with Kerry. He certainly was not my candidate of choice, and I wasn't particularly happy with his stance in regards to the war in Iraq, but I've decided I'm pretty comfortable with John Kerry. I think he'll make a great president.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

True that, and I know for a fact that there are people here who have much contempt for the current Democratic Party, including myself. I think it's just plain ol' horror at the prospect of four more Bush years that drives those of us who thought Clinton was a sell-out and the DNC a collection of unprincipled power-whores to temper our criticism.

Precisely. I crapped all over Clinton when he was in office, and there's plenty I don't like about Kerry (or nearly any Democrat, for that matter) but, relative to the alternative, these guys are the best I'm going to get right now. Not only do I disagree strongly with the Republicans on just about everything (as opposed to disagreeing strongly with the Democrats on only some things), but they've built a much more effective political machine, and have a pretty good shot at holding onto control of all three branches of government, which scares me immensely. Under the circumstances, the best I can do tactically is to support the Deomcrats, and I've made a conscious decision to be a bona fide DNC partisan until such time as the Republicans stranglehold on Washington is relaxed.

[Dingfod]

It's all about balance. It is also my view that most Americans are somewhere in the middle between the core philosophies of the Republicans and Democrats. I think the scale has tipped too far one way. I want to restore that balance.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

A skeptical Democrat has no intellectual obligation to tear apart everything his candidate says or implies, but a complete lack of critical analysis is disingenuous. Senator Kerry is not an infallible oracle. Neither, of course, is President Bush.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for your position on this, Cool Hand. However I lean toward agreement with Godless Dave when he said something to the effect of election season not being the time for the moral high ground. If the Bush supporters are willing to lie, cheat and steal (somewhat figuratively) to win the election, then they will win the election unless the opposition is willing to fight back. If I thought everyone in America might actually vote based on a critical analysis of all the information then my view would be different. But as it is (or so it seems to me) people vote based on soundbites and visceral reactions to a small handful of issues. So it strikes me that there's a war on for the short attention-span of the average voter, and acknowledging any chinks in your candidates armor is just very bad strategy.

I will now qualify this by reminding you and the readers that I have never voted in my life, and with the exception of a very brief interest in politics in the months leading up to the first Gulf War I have been largely apolitical all my life. In my family (who are mostly fundamentalist Christians) the norm seems to be to figure out which candidate opposes abortion most vehemently and vote for them. I never once heard any talk of International affairs, economics, or anything else political in my house as I was growing up. However we were also were on welfare and my parents were uneducated.

All of which I add just to illuminate the fact that my political bias is a strong dislike for the moralizing of the Republicans and a strong appreciation for welfare and other typically Democratic social policies. And to point out that I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

If I thought everyone in America might actually vote based on a critical analysis of all the information then my view would be different. But as it is (or so it seems to me) people vote based on soundbites and visceral reactions to a small handful of issues. So it strikes me that there's a war on for the short attention-span of the average voter, and acknowledging any chinks in your candidates armor is just very bad strategy.

I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point.

livius, this opinion gets the official ApostateAbe stamp of approval.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I agree that this explains the the value of bullshit propaganda to both the DP and RP, but we're not the parties themselves here; we're just people having a discussion. Our conversations aren't soundbites, nor do I think any of us is likely to be persuaded to vote for X based on nonsense about Y.

Are we just people having a discussion here, though? Or are we the next random Kerry supporter posting on an Internet discussion board who might be quoted in an AP news article as agreeing with such and such? Which isn't to say that I think it's likely that any one of us here is going to be quoted elsewhere, but it just strikes me as unsound strategy to give any ammunition to your opponents, however insubstantial it might seem on the micro level. If you have weighed all the evidence to your satisfaction and have concluded that you support Kerry for President, then I just see no benefit in conceding to any criticisms of him at this juncture. After he wins, sure. But during the election it just strikes me as entirely counterproductive.

We should treat each other better, I think, and have discussions on the merits rather than rely on the rhetorical devices of PR machines which assume the gullibility of their target audience.

Not that I think you disagree with me on this, mind you. I just wanted to clarify the point.

Yep, on that I definitely do agree.

[ApostateAbe]

viscous, if you think that it is unlikely that any of us will be quoted, then I can't see why you are worried that we might be giving ammunition to the enemy. Is it just because of the slight chance that one of us will be quoted in an AP article? I don't get it. According to the way I normally think, no time is a good time to suspend one's skeptical discipline, but if we have got to do it during election time, at least this forum can be an oasis where we don't have to do that.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

viscous, if you think that it is unlikely that any of us will be quoted, then I can't see why you are worried that we might be giving ammunition to the enemy. Is it just because of the slight chance that one of us will be quoted in an AP article? I don't get it. According to the way I normally think, no time is a good time to suspend one's skeptical discipline, but if we have got to do it during election time, at least this forum can be an oasis where we don't have to do that.

I'm not really sure what I'm saying.

Basically I guess my main point is that - sad as it is - national elections in America appear to be won on the strength and proliferation of partisan rhetoric. So every candidate X supporter is essentially a foot-soldier in his campaign, and since we all have limited time and resources, it seems reasonable (during an election season) to expend that effort on dialogue that supports candidate X rather than taking an oppositional or even neutral stance.

Which isn't to say that I believe in suspending skeptical thought either, but though I may be skeptical (and even disapproving) of some of the things some are saying and/or doing in support of candidate X, I suspect it isn't in the best interests of his campaign for me to give it any significant "air-time", even on an obscure public forum such as this.

[Cool Hand]

Liv and Abe,

I agree. I don't regard this board as a platform for either party, or for any independent party. This is an informal group of persons who identify with approaching matters in life with a skeptical eye and who enjoy open discussion and debate. Our discussions here are not unlike late night dorm talks or barroom discussions after a few drinks.

This isn't about keeping one's cards close to the vest or winning a campaign. This is about free and open discussion and debate, hopefully with a healthy dose of critical thought and analysis.

Cool Hand

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

... If you have weighed all the evidence to your satisfaction and have concluded that you support Kerry for President, then I just see no benefit in conceding to any criticisms of him at this juncture. After he wins, sure. But during the election it just strikes me as entirely counterproductive.

Shame on you, vm. That's not free thoughtTM is it?

Seriously, I don't see debate among decided definite voters (on the same side or arguing between sides) as having any effect on the outcome of the election. Nor is it really about convincing the undecided "swing" voters. It's all about getting people who couldn't be bothered to vote, but would vote for your choice of prez if they got out there, to do it. (And I don't mean 20 people campaigning to one person, and I don't mean people who have decided not to vote (Bree): that campaigning would be a waste of effort.) What was the turnout in 2000? 67.5% of registered voters (97% in Wyoming!) ... plenty of room for an enormous swing if you go out and persuade all your like-minded buddies, colleagues, relatives etc to vote (and make your opposite-minded colleagues etc think the election is sure to go their way ).

[Dingfod]

The voter turnout is 97% in Wyoming is because there isn't anything else to do there on election day, the liquor store is closed and sheep fucking gets a little old by November. I think if they'd allow the sheep to vote* there, the demographic would look a lot more balanced instead of 69% Republican.


*There was an old man that used to drive around Rock Springs with sheep in his Cadillac. When queried about the strange sight, he'd say "The damn sheep paid for the car, they ought to be able to ride in it."

[Blake]

All right, at last, here's my response and analysis. Numbered points correspond to the numbers of disputed or disputable asserted facts in the cited piece.

The notion of the theory-ladenness of observation or perception has become a commonplace in science of all kinds and is always relevant in discussions of purported facts. Are The Nation's facts pointed? Yes. But they are facts nonetheless. Most of what Cool Hand and others have called spin or bias is instead explanatory context.

1. "war of choice"; is this phrase really controversial? Substitute whatever phrase you like: optional war, nonnecessary war, unforced war. This war is fundamentally different from the Second World War, when Germany declared war on the United States, leaving it no choice but to fight, or even the Gulf War, when Iraq had absorbed a sovereign country whose existence the United Nations felt obliged to uphold. It didn't have to happen by any measuring stick.

5. This is, if anything, a vast understatement. The Marines have released none of their casualty figures and the numbers of wounded are known to be seriously underreported.

7. As livius has already alluded, this is only one of several assertions Cheney has made explicitly linking Iraq and al Qaeda, far from his strongest.

12. If the President didn't read the memo, he should have; that possible scenario is no excuse. To bolster the relevance of this fact to judging this Administration, a number of lower-level ex-administration figures (such as Richard Clarke) have said that they were on red alert for an attack that whole summer, but were unable to get administration higher-ups to take them seriously. It also does not imply all the things that Cool Hand thinks it implies; at least, I see none of those implications. I do see it implying that Bush continued to take it easy while pondering stem cells when he should have lit a fire under the government's ass to see what more could be done about this threat. He couldn't necessarily have taken specific measures to prevent it, but he could have done something rather than nothing.

15. By the Constitution, bills that spend money originate in the House of Representatives and must also pass the Senate to become law. In practice, the President draws up a budget and submits it to Congress; when the same party occupies the White House and the Congress, the House leadership are the President's tools. The bills might have Hastert's name on them, but they're actually Bush's. (Well, actually, Rove's.) When this President (to an extent, any recent President) wants or doesn't want a bill, he pretty much always gets his way, so it's appropriate to lay the responsibility at his door. When he doesn't (such as Clinton on health care in 1994), it's an unusual exception and a massive blow to his power and prestige.

And yes, the "rhetorical buzzwords" are factual. Nuclear proliferation out of the Commonwealth of Independent States is one of the top world security concerns; again, the phrases supply context, not spin.

18. This phrase may be fuzzy, "did not devote the resources necessary"; but the fact is that poppy production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since the fall of the Taliban, during a period when the United States bore (and continues to bear) responsibility for that territory.

26. Something suspected is by definition not a fact; nonetheless, it's the best information we have, and it's very disturbing.

28. This assertion to be fully substantiated needs a few more sources to cover the history of missile defense testing, but it's not hard.

32. "relentlessly" may be a tendentious word; in fairness, though, is it inappropriate? Take it out, if you like; the fact remains egregious.

40. The economic downturn was one of the factors turning the surplus into a deficit. Far more immediate a factor, however, was Bush's first round of tax cuts. Qualify the statement slightly, and it's dead on.

42. Here also, the statement should read "has helped cripple," since there are other causes.

68. Substitute your word of choice for "bragged"; how about "promoted"? The hypocrisy remains.

72. When a President signs a bill putting more toxins in the air, more people die, especially the very old, the very young, and the sick (notably those with respiratory diseases). It's a plain matter of statistics and public health. Yes, the President is responsible, just as he's responsible for the more than 1000 soldiers dead in Iraq and the uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians as a result of his order for war.

77. Similarly, substitute "top executives" for "big shots"; the fact stands.

90. Bush also said "I know we'll get him sooner or later," putting his lack of concern in context--but the fact is, we haven't, have we? Maybe if he'd been a bit more concerned (not to mention not a bloody incompetent), we'd have him.

*****

In summary, I find some mild hyperbole in this piece, but not much. I would also note that objectivity is not an essential quality of journalism (in fact, the often-touted standard of objectivity is in many ways badly flawed, but that's another conversation). The Nation is part of a strong American tradition of news conveyed from a particular strong point of view. That this news comes from the left does not make it nonfactual.

Mr. Legum is not synonymous with The Center for American Progress; it's a large organization. Sourcing to the CAP's information, or to the other news articles he used, isn't as convincing as going to the ultimate primary sources; however, if he had, he would have had to link to a lot of them for each one, defeating what I presume to have been his purpose, showing his readers quickly that he isn't full of shit. Essentially, he has linked to reputable summaries; the news organizations and thinktanks he's used subscribe to rigorous verification. Citing his own organization creates a "perception problem" for his credibility, but that's all it is.

The difference between Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut the intelligence budget and other facts about his record and these facts about Bush are that if one digs further concerning Kerry's facts, one finds things like former Representative Porter Goss (Republican), now Director of Central Intelligence, making essentially the same sort of proposal--but when one digs further around Bush's facts, one finds more and more damning evidence of the same. Had The Nation been so inclined, it could have devoted an entire issue to 1000 such facts, or published a special supplement of 10,000. Thus, the opinion is entirely substantiated and justified; frankly, I think it's understated.

*****

I've got plenty to say in response on the subject of the 2000 election, but I'll start a new thread.

[ApostateAbe]

Blake, that is a very sharp-witted and thorough assessment. I hope I don't offend you if my distrust and distaste for the article remains. The way I see it, facts can tell the truth and still mislead. I often differ with many liberals on the honesty of Michael Moore, because they say he doesn't lie, and I say that he deceives even when he doesn't directly lie. That is what the best deceivers do, according to my theory-laden observation.

And that principle seems to be what you meant by this paragraph:

The difference between Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut the intelligence budget and other facts about his record and these facts about Bush are that if one digs further concerning Kerry's facts, one finds things like former Representative Porter Goss (Republican), now Director of Central Intelligence, making essentially the same sort of proposal--but when one digs further around Bush's facts, one finds more and more damning evidence of the same. Had The Nation been so inclined, it could have devoted an entire issue to 1000 such facts, or published a special supplement of 10,000. Thus, the opinion is entirely substantiated and justified; frankly, I think it's understated.

If you can recognize the misleading truths in Bush's assertions, then you should also be able to recognize the misleading truths in Legum's article, such as with number 40. As I said before, a surplus is not nearly the same as a projected surplus--especially when you compare it with a deficit. One is based on wishful thinking, the other isn't. The two are often equated by politicians for the purpose of exaggeration, which was done by the Clinton administration. If there was really a $236 billion surplus, then Clinton would have been heavily criticized for needlessly overtaxing the public. It is admittable that Bush is responsible for a very large deficit, but the exaggeration is dishonest.

I took another look at that list, and I found an item that is even more directly misleading, and it could even be classified as false. It was this one:

30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food. Sources: The Washington Post, The Tapei Times, BBC News

None of those three sources indicate that Cheney is still benefiting from Halliburton. They say only that Cheney used to work for Halliburton. And I can't find any indication anywhere that this "fact" is anymore than a myth from the left.

There is nothing wrong with being biased. Everyone is biased. I have a complaint only when extremely biased people and organizations try to present themselves as unbiased (such as Fox News). A title such as "100 Facts and 1 Opinion" creates the impression that the "Facts" are free from spin, and only the "Opinion" contains any sort of prejudice. But really, the opinions of Legum permeate the presentation of the "Facts." A better title is necessary.

The best source of facts come from those whose biases are concentrated toward neither one candidate nor the other. FactCheck.org is my favorite example.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Blake

The notion of the theory-ladenness of observation or perception has become a commonplace in science of all kinds and is always relevant in discussions of purported facts. Are The Nation's facts pointed? Yes. But they are facts nonetheless. Most of what Cool Hand and others have called spin or bias is instead explanatory context.

Yes, Blake, I agree with and understand that any observation or presentation of facts must come from some context and must necessarily incorporate some theory behind it.

I disagree that what I am calling spin is simply explanatory context. I am calling it spin here because Legum juxtaposes disparate and unconnected facts in order to imply an editorial point. He mislabels the conjunction of unconnected facts and their editorial implication "fact." His doing so is deliberately misleading. He has transformed what would be facts if presented evenly slightly differently into editorializing.

Allow me to illustrate. I hope you will forgive my not analyzing the piece point by point, as it is simply too tedious and time consuming to do so.

"20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban."

The second fact presented has nothing to do with the first. I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is an Al Qaeda manual that suggests doing that. The expiration of the "assault weapons" (a political, not a military term) ban, which was incorporated into the legislation by way of amendment to the bill during Clinton's administration, was independent of Al Qaeda's manual. Congress passed the ban and President Clinton signed it years ago, complete with the automatic term of expiration. The ban expired automatically, and Congress did not pass additional legislation to extend the ban. It wasn't Bush who vetoed it. Congress, not the Bush administration, failed to take any steps to extend the ban.

Another way to write Legum's "fact" above is this.

The federal law banning purchasing or owning so-called "assault weapons" firearms by private citizens expired today. Congress did not extend the ten-year-old ban. As the expiration of the ban grew imminent in the past several weeks, Al Qaeda urged in one of its training manuals that terrorists obtain their weapons in the U.S.

I have managed to incorporate both bits of hard news information in the same paragraph and give it a new meaning. Mine is much less biased and objective writing. There is far less spin in it. Indeed, I submit that determining from it my political leanings regarding private ownership of firearms and my view about whether the President played any role in Al Qaeda's suggestion is very difficult.

I've got plenty to say in response on the subject of the 2000 election, but I'll start a new thread.

Have at it, man. You're right in that it should probably go in its own thread.

Cool Hand

[dave_a]

CH, in regards to your OP I had to look several times because I was wondering if I wrote it myself. I definitely agree with everything you said. Well, I agree with everything I think you said anyway

[godfry n. glad]

I personally have found Cool Hand's position here to be disengenuous....

He has deemed it fit to refer to my opinion on Bush and the Supreme Court to be some kind of marginal extremist point of view. He has compared my viewpoint to that of James Carville and insinuated that I got my opinion from the pages of the Democratic Party propaganda machine, which he somehow refers to as "left-wing"....

I guess it's matter of comparsion. When one sits on the extreme right, the center must look like the left-wing.

I don't follow Mr. Carville or his opinions, but if he's been saying anything similar to my opinions, then he is, in large part, in agreement with the opinions of 673 law professors from 137 law schools in the United States who have declared that the five justices who voted to stop the recount of votes in Florida last December intentionally acted as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as ethical judges.

I began this journey in the development of my opinion with a reading of the opinions of the Court on "Bush v. Gore", which are available online here.

I personally agreed with the assessment of Justice Stevens in his dissent. Cool Hand noted that the dissenting justices dissented largely on the basis of the court even hearing the case...I invite all to see why.

Then, I read Vicent Bugliosi's Betrayal of America, which confirmed my suspicions of the Supreme Court and its actions. I highly recommend it and am curious as to the ad hominim which Cool Hand will throw at Mr. Bugliosi. For a succinct statement of Mr. Bugliosi's opinion, see "None Dare Call It Treason" .

Then, I was impressed with Charles O. Porter's proposed Bill of Impeachement, which can be found here.

And, then, in contradiction to Cool Hand's assertion that the election was not stolen as a result of the Supreme Court actions in Bush v. Gore, I offer up this piece from the Yale Law Journal, v.110, pp. 101-152, May 2001, by Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

So... Cool Hand... Are respectable law professors across the land all "left-wing demogogues"?

I think you slander by innuendo far too glibly and are way too condescending of others' opinions here.

godfry (and case-sensitive about it, too)

[ApostateAbe]

godfry, blake proposed starting a new thread for the "stealing the election" business, and that seems to be a good idea. You could start it yourself, and I would love to be educated about it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Shame on you, vm. That's not free thoughtTM is it?

Seriously, I don't see debate among decided definite voters (on the same side or arguing between sides) as having any effect on the outcome of the election. Nor is it really about convincing the undecided "swing" voters. It's all about getting people who couldn't be bothered to vote, but would vote for your choice of prez if they got out there, to do it.

To be honest I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate. I don't personally approach "friendly" political discussions - election season or not - as battles for the hearts and minds of the participants and lurkers. However it does occur to me that if I were so inclined, doing so would be sound strategy. The more "relaxed and casual" the discussion, the easier it is to catch people with their defenses down and subtly manipulate them to your point of view.

Or so I've heard.

I just think it's naive to ignore the very real possibilty that some people have precisely that aim in mind in favor of believing we're all good, straightforward people trying to have an honest dialogue about issues. As they say, the fact that I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If there was really a $236 billion surplus, then Clinton would have been heavily criticized for needlessly overtaxing the public.

[Self-edited to remove hyperbolic laughter] Returning the surplus to the taxpayers is exactly how Bush framed the need for tax cuts, which were of primacy in his 2000 campaign. Don't you remember "It's your money..." etc.? Well, after he took office, and it turned out there wasn't going to be any surplus because the economy was headed for a recession, he still pushed for the tax cuts with the newly minted "...must have tax cuts to motivate the economy." Hmmm, smells just like the changing reasons for another thing that Bush pushed for.