I don’t know about that. If the SDMB tells us anything it’s that when you insert Bush’s name into an otherwise boring subject, it can inflame people to all sorts of emotion.
But, if it pleases you I’ll reword it: “It was more about Bush’s proposals than it was about private accounts.”
Better?
The error still remains. That poll isn’t directly addressing whether or not young people would prefer private accounts. It’s addressing whether people like Bush’s plan. Two very different things.
Bush’s proposals, dammit. Not plan. Proposals.
As I’ve already stated, Bush doesn’t have a plan. He’s got some ideas. But, right now he’s just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
“Bush’s plan” is kind of like the “Social Security Lockbox”. It’s easy to start falling for these terms and using them, but we should resist doing so since these things don’t actually exist.
First, y’all conservatives normally never miss an opportunity to remind us pointy-headed ivory-tower liberals that the Straight Dope community has nothing to do with the Real World. What gives?
Second, given that Bush’s pre-eminent proposal is the whole “private accounts” thang, I think that’s one hair that won’t split. Dismissing these poll results because Bush’s name got mentioned in this seems really, really partisan to me. (So it’s clear, I’m not dismissing Fox’s results; I’m saying that looking at them in context, they’re an outlying data point.)
Daniel
OK. Forget about the straight dope. Look at bumper stickers on any highway. Do I really need to sell you on the notion that Bush is a controversial president that inspires a lot of emotion from people?
Not to me. Asking if someone is in favor of private accounts is different than asking if they like Bush’s proposal. Just because Bush’s proposal happens to involve private accounts doesn’t mean you can use the two interchangably.
You don’t like that other question just because it includes the word “rights”. That’s certainly less of an well poisoner than asking an entirely different question that relates to the president, rather than the idea of privatization.
I’m not dismissing those poll results. They are valuable if you want to know what people think of Bush’s plan. I’m just pointing out that they are not to be used to see if younger workers are in favor of private accounts in general.
We should probably move on from here. I don’t think we’re going to agree on this nitpick, and the issue has been covered fully.
Yes, he does: both positive and negative. I’m not convinced that his public standing is so disproportionately negative that his name will skew a poll question’s answers in a disproportionately negative direction. I wish that were true, but I don’t think it is.
You’re probably right–as long as you’ll not claim that “young people want private accounts for their SS contributions” without qualification (e.g., “some polls show that young people…”) I’m happy to drop it.
Daniel
Does the irony that only Fox News can find that desired result escape you? Would you also offer up an Al-Jazeera poll as evidence of Iraqi attitudes about the occupation?
It is not bullshit to point out that no recent polls with any credibility support his position. If you care to insist that there is other bullshit around that does, go right ahead - but it shouldn’t be necessary to note that even in passing.
It is not a nitpick, btw, to point it out in the context of this thread, either. Recall that the OP takes it as given that young people ought to support the “proposal”, and goes on to blame simple poor leadership rather than substance. Perhaps you both could give young people credit for a little thought instead?
Obviously not, since I’ve pointed this out several times in this thread. Nor does the irony of you accusing Debaser of dishonest debating escape me.
Absolutely I would, and I think it’s insulting to Al-Jazeera to compare them to Fox.
If that’s what you’re claiming, go ahead and prove it. But that’s not what you were claiming before–that’s not the claim i called bullshit on.
What’s that supposed to mean? Does it mean that any young person that disagrees with you (or with me, for that matter) on this issue is incapable of thought?
I think that anyone, young or old, who likes Bush’s (vague, nonspecific, whatever) proposal for private accounts is evaluating information incorrectly. That doesn’t mean they’re incapable of thought. I have the hubris to think I’m right, but I lack the sheer arrogance to claim it’s impossible that I’m wrong.
Sheesh.
Daniel
Okay, let me be more direct: Does it not give you pause that no other organization, reputable or otherwise, confirms this finding? What does that tell you about what is most likely the reality?
Sigh. If you can point out any dishonesty of mine, please do so, or Pit it.
You just lost.
Sigh. Read what I just said about it not being necessary to point out that other bullshit exists. But if you’d like to stamp your little feet and scream instead of admitting you’re supporting an outlier against the mass of data, go right ahead. :rolleyes:
No, it means that anyone who takes the view that others whom they themselves have lumped together “should” think something or other is already lost. That meant John in specific, but it can be you too.
Try reading what you’re responding to first, and you’d have less sheesh in your life.
Let me respond with a quesiton of my own: when I refer to Fox’s results as an “outlying data point,” what does that mean to you?
Here you go:
“Bullshit. Your only cite for that is from 1999. All recent ones presented to you here show exactly the opposite.”
I’m not supporting it. This little detail seems to have escaped you.
Irony, thy name is Elvis. I’m done with you here.
Daniel
Perhaps a bit of semantic nit-pick is in order. What do we mean “leadership”? Is that like the first lemming over the cliff is the leader?
Do we mean persuasion to an end? Well, GeeDubya has certainly given us an example of that, big time, downtown. He led us into this combination quagmire/septic pit we are currently flailing about helplessly within. Is that leadership? Napoleon led his armies into Russia, and led them back out again. Hitler reprised this collossal blunder. Alexander led his armies and spread Hellenism from Egypt to India. Are they all equally “leaders” because they were followed?
Are disastrous consequences to be considered seperately from the quality “leadership”?
Elvis, Lefty, it annoys me when people I like fight. Don’t make me come back there.
It should mean that it must be ignored. I did ignore it. Now you’re trying to take me to task for doing so.
The broader point ought to be that Debaser is full of shit for insisting on obsolete and outlying data while ignoring current and mainstream data. Why are you trying to give him cover?
Don’t mean to annoy you, but it annoys me worse when people are making my side look bad; and when they start impugning all sorts of impure motives to me when I call them on their inaccuracies, it positively irritates me. It’s possible to debate in an honest fashion, in which an opponent’s points are acknowledged respectfully. When I’m trying to do that, and when someone comes in and distorts my opponent’s positions instead of engaging them in a civil fashion, it just creates noise and distraction.
Daniel
No, it shouldn’t. It should mean that it must be explained. The scientist who ignores outlying data points risks his entire reputation for committing scientific fraud.
Daniel
The short answer is: Yes. The longer answer is: Nice little cherry picking, but if you’re going to Godwinize the discussion, please open another thread titled: Is a comparison of Bush and Hitler appropriate?
But you actually bring up a very good point. In Bush’s first term, he was able to pretty much get his entire agenda thru Congress. Now, that may be to a rally 'round the flag mentality of the aftermath of 9/11. Be that as it may, the contrast between the way Bush worked with Congress in his first and second term is striking. He’s got a more solidly Republican Congress (both houses) this time, yet doesn’t seem to be able to get things going.
Perhaps it’s just a matter of power corrupting. The Dems were similarly leadership challenged in Clinton’s second term, which is when the Pubs started their ascent to power. This editorial in the SJ Merc, Elephants apparently can forget, did a good job outlining the similarities.
It’s the agenda.
Bush wasn’t trying to reform the sixty year old, largest ever government entitlement program which is defended by the strongest lobby in the country during his first term. By winning a second term, he’s free to take on a more aggressive agenda. Bush said it himself. He’s got the political capital, and he intends on using it. Social Security is a challenging goal politically, much more so than his first term agenda.
Would you consider Bush’s presidency more of a success if he did achieve all of his objectives, but those objectives were meaningless and easy? That’s what a lot of people’s take on Clinton is (Chris Matthews for instance). Clinton had all of this power and charisma. He stocked it all up and had a soaring approval rating, but never really cashed it in to do anything.
There are millions of unemployed, underemployed, uninsured and unalive in this country who would gladly trade Bush’s record for a few more years of Clinton’s “meaningless and easy” record.
From here
Clinton’s was hardly a failed presidency and will go down I believe in the top 5 20th century presidents.
What has Bush done that compares?
And there are a few thousand grieving families of dead and maimed military personnel who would have liked to have Clinton still running our foreign policy, too.
[quote=LHOD}No, it shouldn’t. It should mean that it must be explained. The scientist who ignores outlying data points risks his entire reputation for committing scientific fraud.[/quote]
Great. Got an explanation for Fox’s data being so far out, then? Got one for why everything else from this century says the opposite? Gonna tell us it’s all wrong and one single source is right? What, no, Mr. Occam? :rolleyes:
I’d still like to know why you’re persisting in trying to undermine the use of fact here. You’re making all of us look a little foolish by mere association.
I’m going to present you with an extraordinary proposition: it is entirely possible to mention…a certain German asswipe/despot…without Godwinizing. Let the idea soak in before you respond. Take your time, digest it carefully. There’s a good fellow.