Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of all of Buckley's positions.

Points? Shirley you jest. There are more points on pair of old golf spikes than there are on this board in a year. At best, I see partisan rhetoric and furiously cobbled together google cites offered as "points".

The best you'll get here is the occasional accurate fact, and if thats the measure of the "winner", then I call it for Ty this year. I've seen him lay down the most unbiased (sorry, NR is not an unbiased source) facts of anyone on this board during tis election run-up.

You are obviously biased. I'll admit Ty got in some good shots, but hello edged him out in the end by kicking your ass around the block with all that God stuff.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's exactly the point. You mau-mau Rather and Wilson and pretend that they are the story, rather than (respectively) Bush's blowing off of his service, and the missing WMD. Outside of movement conservatives, no one in this country gives a shit about what Dan Rather and Joe Wilson think.

Its called diversion and/or deflection. And its a reflection of just how stupid this country is that it works so well to just shoot the messenger.

I don't mind that the GOP does it to the masses of imbeciles who eat their debate tricks up and suspend disbelief as to facts. I just mind that they expect it to work on me.

The GOP is like deer guts on a doorknob. Its impossible to grasp them on any issue and stick the knife in because they'll change the debate focus every time. They know that there's no moderator in the sky to knuckle down on them and make them address the exact issue raised, so they'll pull fourth grade level tricks like making Wilson, instead of the outing of Plame, the focus. Its childish, but their audience is children. So I guess you'd have to re-label it "cynically brilliant."

Is that enough of a point? Because that describes just about every single response, or non-response, the GOP and its adherents have offered in every fact-based debate here and elsewhere throughout this election run-up. Just.... change... the.... focus...

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The GOP is like deer guts on a doorknob. Its impossible to grasp them on any issue and stick the knife in because they'll change the debate focus every time.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They know that there's no moderator in the sky to knuckle down on them and make them address the exact issue raised, so they'll pull fiourth grade level tricks like making Wilson, insetad of the outing of Plame, the focus.

This is like a triple flippa reversal slamma dunka jamma. Seriously, in the context of the source, this is freakin genius writing, and I view the source less than favorably. Good job, pal.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tom Oliphant in the Boston Globe sez:

• GOP politicians believe Bush is not his own best supporter down the stretch. The guy who campaigned four years ago as a uniter is clearly a divider this year, and in several of the most closely contested states he is being kept away because his appearances tend to gin up the local Democrats as much as they do Republicans. In the so-called Red states Bush carried in 2000 that he is most in danger of losing to Kerry -- New Hampshire, Ohio, and Nevada most prominently -- Bush's absences since the debates have been noteworthy. There are exceptions (Florida, above all), but the pattern has been clear, as witness recent forays into longshot and Kerry-leaning territories like New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
  
  Bush campaign officials believe his relentlessly negative advertising against Kerry as a terrorist coddler and weakling are much more effective than the man himself. Bush will be back one more time to rally the troops, but during the final persuasion period, he has been absent. The campaign also prefers surrogates, especially those who can soften Bush's ideological image.

I wonder if the same is true with Kerry anywhere.

eta: I always thought the phrase "gin up" meant something different.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 0
Because that describes just about every single response, or non-response, the GOP and its adherents have offered in every fact-based debate here and elsewhere throughout this election run-up. Just.... change... the.... focus...

1. Rather has unproven, preconcieved notions about Bush's NG service;

2. He uses forged docs as his only evidence to go on national TV to make his case;

3. Repubs point out that the docs are . . . er . . . forgeries.

4. We've cravenly changed the focus.

--------------

1. Wilson says, Bush lied about that Niger stuff;

2. In his testimony concerning his "proof" of that assertion, it turns out, instead, that he's been lying to the public.

3. For pointing this out, we've cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------------

1. Ty and the rest of the Dem world (well, okay, maybe not Ty) claim that Bush lied to us all and said that SH was an imminent danger.

2. It's pointed out that, no, Bush said that we shouldn't wait for it to be an imminent danger.

3. By doing so, he cravenly changed the focus.

---------------

1. Kerry says, he has a plan.

2. Repubs say, what plan?

3. Kerry says, well, a secret plan.

4. We say, again, what plan. In doing so, we have cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------

1. The NYT claims, in P1 headlines, that Bush allowed huge weaponry to be looted while we watched.

2. Evidence shows, um, no, we weren't there yet.

3. You say, nothing's proven yet, and you make this claim?

4. By pointing out that, um, the Times went first and made this national news on incomplete evidence, we've cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------

A theme is developing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What color is the sky on your planet?

Originally posted by bilmore
1. Rather has unproven, preconcieved notions about Bush's NG service;

2. He uses forged docs as his only evidence to go on national TV to make his case;

3. Repubs point out that the docs are . . . er . . . forgeries.

4. We've cravenly changed the focus.

The facts reported by Rather -- apart from those in the forged documents -- are consistent with those reported elsewhere. When you say that he has "unproven notions" for which the forged documents are the "only evidence," you are simply wrong.

1. Wilson says, Bush lied about that Niger stuff;

2. In his testimony concerning his "proof" of that assertion, it turns out, instead, that he's been lying to the public.

3. For pointing this out, we've cravenly changed the focus.

You've dumbed down 1. beyond all recognition. And the key to understand why your 2. is wrong is the word "instead." Wilson's credibility has been challenged on some peripheral issues that have nothing to do with what matters about WMD or Niger. It only matters if you are trying to beat up Wilson and distract attention from the bogusness of the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for the nuclear program we now know it did not have.

1. Ty and the rest of the Dem world (well, okay, maybe not Ty) claim that Bush lied to us all and said that SH was an imminent danger.

2. It's pointed out that, no, Bush said that we shouldn't wait for it to be an imminent danger.

3. By doing so, he cravenly changed the focus.

Bush and many of his top subordinates suggested that Iraq posed a threat to us, imminent or otherwise. I'm not putting quotes around that word, BTW. Everyone and everyone's mother knows this. Here, at least, you're not changing the focus -- you are just engaging in blatant revisionism.

1. Kerry says, he has a plan.

2. Repubs say, what plan?

3. Kerry says, well, a secret plan.

4. We say, again, what plan. In doing so, we have cravenly changed the focus.

No change of focus here. But maybe you can point me to where it is that Kerry said he had a secret plan. 'Cause now you just sound like you're making shit up.

1. The NYT claims, in P1 headlines, that Bush allowed huge weaponry to be looted while we watched.

2. Evidence shows, um, no, we weren't there yet.

3. You say, nothing's proven yet, and you make this claim?

4. By pointing out that, um, the Times went first and made this national news on incomplete evidence, we've cravenly changed the focus.

Quote the NYT article on your 1., please, because I have another browser open to today's NYT, and that's not what it says.

In the very best case, invading Iraq caused many tons of the sort of explosives that the IAEA worries about to fall into terrorist hands, and yet you somehow think Bush has been vindicated.

Unclear what many of these instances have to do with what sebby and I were talking about. Or, as Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
---------------

1. Kerry says, he has a plan.

2. Repubs say, what plan?

3. Kerry says, well, a secret plan.

4. We say, again, what plan. In doing so, we have cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------

W has a plan? If so, it's not working.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I must say, my good man, that I suspect that the odds are roughly +10,000,000. (HI, Less!)

Kerry holding at +130, with the "count the electoral college" websites all over the map.

Edited to note that I take that back - both sites currently have the probability of a Bush victory at 30% or less - http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html . The market is out of touch with the polling data. Get your bets down!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
1. Rather has unproven, preconcieved notions about Bush's NG service;

2. He uses forged docs as his only evidence to go on national TV to make his case;

3. Repubs point out that the docs are . . . er . . . forgeries.

4. We've cravenly changed the focus.

--------------

1. Wilson says, Bush lied about that Niger stuff;

2. In his testimony concerning his "proof" of that assertion, it turns out, instead, that he's been lying to the public.

3. For pointing this out, we've cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------------

1. Ty and the rest of the Dem world (well, okay, maybe not Ty) claim that Bush lied to us all and said that SH was an imminent danger.

2. It's pointed out that, no, Bush said that we shouldn't wait for it to be an imminent danger.

3. By doing so, he cravenly changed the focus.

---------------

1. Kerry says, he has a plan.

2. Repubs say, what plan?

3. Kerry says, well, a secret plan.

4. We say, again, what plan. In doing so, we have cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------

1. The NYT claims, in P1 headlines, that Bush allowed huge weaponry to be looted while we watched.

2. Evidence shows, um, no, we weren't there yet.

3. You say, nothing's proven yet, and you make this claim?

4. By pointing out that, um, the Times went first and made this national news on incomplete evidence, we've cravenly changed the focus.

----------------------

A theme is developing.

Ty was way ahead of me, so consider this a short addition to his points:

RATHER:

OK. Where was Bush during his "lost" time in Alabama? That was the question. I'll stipulate that the messenger was flawed and that Rather got what he deserved. Now, address the issue raised.

WILSON:

WHAT has Wilson been allegedly lying to the public about? You carefully say "Wilson was lying in his testimony". Did any of those lies have any bearing on the issue raised, which was whether Bush lied? Or were they peripheral lies which allow to you to generally call Wilson a liar and then claim that the rest of his story is therefore false?

Again, just because the messenger has a bias and might have exaggerated his case does not mean all of his evidence should be thrown out.

The GOP has done a great job of exploiting the 30 second soundbite. They catch a Dem on one exagerration or mis-step ("global test"), take it out of context and then use it as a basis to disregard the rest of the speaker's story. You know this trick well. Its where the defense attorney catches the cop in a lie about whether he ate a cruller or a boston cream on his way to the robbery scene and then jumps up and down about how the rest of the cop's testimony is lies.

I tip my hat to them - its really smart politically. But for the rest of us who spot the cheap tactic, it really leaves us kind of squicked out. Mind you, I hate Kerry, but I will say that he has been more intellectually honest in his approach to the issues.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Kerry holding at +130, with the "count the electoral college" websites all over the map.

Edited to note that I take that back - both sites currently have the probability of a Bush victory at 30% or less - http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html . The market is out of touch with the polling data. Get your bets down!

Less, it's all about the weekly reader. Makes Bush -105 a smart bet.

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
Kerry holding at +130, with the "count the electoral college" websites all over the map.

Edited to note that I take that back - both sites currently have the probability of a Bush victory at 30% or less - http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html . The market is out of touch with the polling data. Get your bets down!

Market theory clearly states then, that the polls are wrong.

History also would suggest that Hillary has some futures in play.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

History also would suggest that Hillary has some futures in play.

Please, George Soros will just giver her 10M and later on they will claim that they lost the records for her futures activity that day. She just had an unbroken string of 100 great trades in one day as a newbie, and whoa, ole Gov. C's wifes a millionaire!

Hello

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Market theory clearly states then, that the polls are wrong.

History also would suggest that Hillary has some futures in play.

One of the many reasons I am not an "efficient" market theorist. If market theory were always right, how could Plated's picks be so good?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The best you'll get here is the occasional accurate fact, and if thats the measure of the "winner", then I call it for Ty this year. I've seen him lay down the most unbiased (sorry, NR is not an unbiased source) facts of anyone on this board during tis election run-up.

You must have missed my insightful and informative posts re: Gorelick's Wall and Polygamy.

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
One of the many reasons I am not an "efficient" market theorist. If market theory were always right, how could Plated's picks be so good?

Because he cheats.