You aren’t going to get those cites. You’ve attempted to set up a false position, a “strawman”, that Sam has been accused of being impolite. He hasn’t been accused of that. You’ve also made a false assertion that Sam was being “unnecessarily attacked”.
When come back, bring debating skills.
You know what? On further examination I see that no one has indicated or inferred that Sam was impolite. I suppose when I see others being so unnecessarily venomous in their replies to his posts, I assume he must have been rude rather than just having a different opinion. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I was wrong. It’s not that Sam is polite; it’s that people like you are just dicks. At least I can admit when I’m wrong.
Here’s what I like:
[ul]
[li]The better educated and smarter a person is, the more likely he is to be a liberal. This translates, for the whiny right, as a liberal bias in academia.[/li][li]The more closely an individual investigates the way things are–the closer he looks at things and tries to explain them to others–the more likely he is to be a liberal. This translates as a liberal bias in the media.[/li][li]The more a person trusts other individuals to use the truth to make important decisions–the more he insists on openness in government and honesty to the electorate–the more he’s branded a liberal.[/li][li]The larger the scope of a person’s vision–an artist, a scientist, a filmmaker, a musician, a writer, etc.–the more likely he is to be a liberal. This translates to a liberal bias in the arts.[/li][li]And now, the better a person is able to frame an argument, and the more likely he is to come out on top in an open debate, the more likely he is to be a liberal. This translates to a liberal bias in the GD forum.[/li][/ul]
The whinier a person is about the market share of the opposition’s ideas, the more likely he is to be a conservative.
Step up to the debate, Sam, and win it if you can. If you can’t, shut up and go home.
Thanks Sam for the link to that thread. Although I am somewhat loathe to get into it again, it does show your methods pretty well. First Sam made a claim:
So, you go to the numbers, expecting to see something consistent with Sam’s depiction of a dramatic disinterest or antagonism of NASA under Clinton, right? Well, you don’t. You see that in real dollars, he kept the budget about the same every year, ending up with an overall net change of -0.2%. Even using constant dollars, the net annual change was something about -2.0%. Again, the initial statement from Sam appears to be a vast overstatement of the facts.
So, you point this out to Sam. You use his data to point out that Kennedy, Reagan and Carter all showed higher average real dollar annual increases in NASA budgets than Bush I or Bush II.
But, after a time, you get this variation of the original claim.
Of course, gone are the “constant budget erosions and antagonism of the NASA mission,” replaced with “declined.” The” two times when it received larger than average budget increases” in the past 30 years are gone.
In the interim, he makes arguments that are all over the board. He uses faulty methods to determine “average annual increase.” He says something is 16.5 billion, but you look, and it turns out it was 15.08 billion. He claims that there would be no difference if you adjusted real 1996 dollar figures and real 2004 dollar figures.
Ultimately, you get this:
This is the fact! Never mind that it is not really close to the original statement. Then he has the temerity to present it here as he has.
Fucking nitwit.
The funny thing is, reports since then have found massive budgetary mismanagement within NASA during Bush’s term. If the republicans want to pour our tax dollars into a terribly mismanaged federal program, well, that is their choice. However, that is not the way of the Democrats! We must put this to the voters!
I suspect this is the problem, or part of it.
Hentor makes the following characterization of a Sam Stone post:
First two problems. Hentor characterizes Sam’s point as saying that NASA suffered “dramatic disinterest or antagonism”. The actual quote was “erosion, lack of focus, no vision…” Sam makes a claim of gradual decline; Hentor changes this to a claim of something “dramatic”.
Here’s where the dishonesty pays off. Sam’s statement was nothing resembling an overstatement. Hentor’s characterization was. 2.00% net annual decline in funding is a reasonable example of a gradual change for the worse. But Hentor distorts the quote, and then accuses Sam of dishonesty.
And, since the original quote had nothing whatever to do with Kennedy, Reagan, or Carter, and since none of them cut the NASA budget as Clinton did, this is an irrelevant point.
Which is not a variation or the original claim, but a restatement of it.
Notice that what Hentor is objecting to is Sam’s refusal to accept his (Hentor’s) mischaracterization of the original point. Sam makes a point, and backs it up with a cite. Hentor misrepresents the point, and attempts to set up a strawman. Sam refuses to play along, and restates his original, demonstrated point. And for that, Hentor calls him:
This kind of shit happens all the time. It constitutes 90% of what has been called “the december treatment”, and it seems usually to be happening to conservatives.
Actually, “conservatives” is probably the wrong term. It happens to anybody who refuses to join in the constant, repetitive, circular Bush-bashing that makes up 90% of what many of the more hysterical Dopers have to offer.
If you make a point, it is mocked. If you argue a position, it is distorted. If you offer evidence, it is ignored. And if you completely refute one poster, another fatuous far-left fat head will be along to post “Oh yeah? Well, Bush sucks and he lied about WMD and Karl Rove is running the country and the election machines are being rigged and Republicans are racist and anyone who isn’t a big stupid head agrees with us. So there.”
Not all the time. SentientMeat has started a series of valuable and interesting threads about the Political Compass, and it is reasonably possible to have civilized debate about some topics. But non-Bush bashers have to accept a background level of drive-by sniping from the usual suspects in every fucking thread.
Sam is getting the treatment right now. Maybe it is because of the election. Whether or not we can go back to reasonable debate in 2005 remains to be seen. I am not sure the genie is going back into the incivility bottle, regardless of who wins.
Regards,
Shodan
Also note that less than an hour in the middle of the night passed before you posted that no one had decried this.
And, also note that in less than an hour in the middle of the night, someone did evoke comparisons to McCarthyism.
Ah, my subjective opinion!
I’m glad it’s just my subjective opinion that no WMDs have been found in Iraq. My subjective opinion that no significant Saddam - bin Laden ties have been uncovered. My subjective opinion that the Iraqi people regard us as occupiers, not liberators. My subjective opinion that a country divided into Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, all of whom don’t like each other, might have problems becoming a viable democracy. My subjective opinion that the Bush Administration has never proposed a plan to cope with that difficulty. My subjective opinion that we’ve imprisoned thousands of Iraqis indefinitely without charges, without adequate personnel to sort through them and free them, and without a system to even notify their kin that they were in captivity. My subjective opinion that the exiles on the IGC and their friends have done quite well in the interim government. My subjective opinion that the Iraqis had little regard for the IGC in general, and the exile contingent in particular. My subjective opinion that Iraq is not a safe place these days. My subjective opinion that three of the last four CENTCOM chiefs have said we’ve really made a hash of things in Iraq.
Damn, I have an active imagination. And what’s impressive is that George Will and a passel of other big-name conservatives have fallen under the spell of my imagination. Who’d’a thunk it?
Well, it isn’t easy to be a brick wall with conservative slogans spray-painted on it. Sam’s gotten more abuse than he deserves here; he debates fairly and acknowledges error. I’ve never been in a debate with him where he hasn’t fairly acknowledged and responded to my points. With you, your ‘rebuttal’ usually consists on saying the same thing again.
AQA:
I’d love to see even one “perfectly odious” post for which the above statement is true. Do you happen to have an example? If anything, it seems to me that using “Bushco” or similar inflammatory/juvenile terms makes it more likely that a post or poster will be ridiculed, notwithstanding any validity to their general point.
Well, if you want to try to suggest that:
is not dramatic, then we are at an impasse. At the very least, you should see “constant erosions” right? The truth is that Clinton’s NASA budgets were roughly half the time increases from the previous year.
Who were the presidents “during the past 30 years,” Shodan? Is this a dishonest mischaracterization of my post?
It is completely germaine to the point, given that Sam was trying to suggest that the Bush boys were uniquely interested in NASA and space exploration when he said
So I did, and guess what? His assertion was wrong. They were generally in the middle of the pack. Nixon was below Clinton. You are simply engaging in further evasion and misrepresentation here.
This is so much horseshit. If you feel his last and first statements are equivalent, I don’t know what to suggest that you do with yourself. And if I hurt his feelings with my little epithet, I feel bad about that. Sorry, Sam.
He made an assertion without any cite. I cited two sources back to him. I then used the data he cited back for the remainder of the debate. Go read the thread before making up stuff. What you have done here is misstate, misrepresent and dissemble.
As to the rest of your post, all I can say is that if you post an assertion, back it up with facts. If you can’t, eat the original assertion or eat shit. But just stop whining about it. It’s very unbecoming of one professing any semblance of personal responsibility.
Indeed we are. I have no power to force you to be honest.
And yet, somehow or other, the increases and decreases over the 8 years of Clinton do not balance out. Over those eight years, NASA suffered a net cut in real dollars of 2%. Which you wish to characterize as “dramatic”.
No. Your post was a straw man, and irrelevant, as I mentioned.
As you mentioned, we are at an impasse. Apparently you have nothing to add, besides strawmen.
:shrugs:
Fair enough, and about as much as can be expected.
Regards,
Shodan
Seems that way to you only because you’re conservative. Or have you not noticed milum, milroyj, duffer, Brutus, and others I’m surely forgetting about?
There are dumbasses all over the political arena. Watch out for other folks’ oxes, too, and we all benefit.
Daniel
Shodan, I have to admit that I found this statement a bit amusing, given some of the exchanges that you and I have had in GD. Kettle, meet pot.
Do you live in some Bizarro GD world that is different from the one that I inhabit? As but one example, several months ago when you claimed that everyone believed Powell at the time he made his presentation before the U.N. (which we by the time of that thread knew to be largely a crock of shit) and I pointed to a couple of pieces in The Nation from the time of Powell’s speech that most certainly did not find his presentation very compelling, you simply dismissed this because those people would never believe anything short of Saddam holding WMDs in his own hands (or something along those lines)…Never mind that they were absolutely correct. Apparently, the fact that many people on the left did not find Powell convincing is something that can be dismissed completely and it is perfectly acceptable to claim that everyone found Powell’s presentation to be convincing at the time.
I also seem to recall you attacking the source when I cited info from Union of Concerned Scientists. (In fact, on issues like global warming, I try to avoid any sources, like UCS and other environmental groups, that can realistically be accused of being biased, even though UCS has a strong reputation built on accurately presenting the science. But, on issues like missile defense, where there are truly very few independent sources of information / knowledge outside the government, it is necessary to rely on UCS and people like Philip Coyle [who used to work for the Defense Dept but is now at the Center for Defense Information…another liberal organization I believe that you questioned].)
And, I’ll add that you are much more willing to entertain facts and arguments from liberal cites than some of the other conservatives in GD. In some cases, not only do left-leaning cites get questioned, but then everything from NPR to New York Times gets labeled as left-wing by some of those on the right, and thus deemed untrustworthy.
As for right-wing cites, when I have the chance, I often try to debunk those cites but this necessarily takes a lot of time and I can’t always afford to do so. So, occasionally I will be content to point out that the sources involved are hardly unbiased and leave it to others to look more closely and find the actual distortions and such in those cites. In other words, I don’t say that the facts from that cite should be completely disregarded in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but rather that the facts should be understood as coming from a source that has certain strong views on the subject and thus has a potential motivation to present the facts selectively, or even deceptively.
And, indeed, the conclusion that I have arrived at (which I don’t necessarily expect you to agree with, but will state anyway) is that left-wing think-tanks like CBPP etc. seem to be held to a higher standard of factual accuracy (by the media or whatever) than Cato, Heritage, NCPA et al. It actually amazes me the extent to which the right-wing think-tanks are able to distort and deceive with apparent impunity.
What I have gotten on your case for is making statements without any cites, which I later find come from right-wing sources like RNC Talking Points. That I do find to be deceptive (whether it is done purposely or just because you can’t remember where it came from) because it hides where the information comes from and can thus result in some “fact” getting more credibility than it deserves. When I get information from The Nation or The American Prospect or whatever, I always try to tell people where it is coming from (although, admittedly, I can’t always recall where a particular factoid I believe I heard actually came from)…And I do expect the same consideration in return.
IIRC, in early 2001 there was a lot of talk about how Bush appointed CEOs to top positions, and how the government was going to be run like a business.
Too bad that business turned out to be Enron.
Not can you make me dishonest. It’s nice how that works, huh?
No, I characterized it as not dramatic. Sam dramatized it. That is entirely the point.
So, rebutting Sam’s claim that over the past 30 years, Bush I and Bush II are the only two times that NASA received “greater than average” increases by actually looking at the budgets of the past 30 years and finding them to be not at all greater than average is a “strawman”? I don’t think you understood his assertion nor my rebuttal.
I am starting to doubt that you know the meaning of the term.
Note that the quoted phrase does not appear in any of my posts. Nor does the word “lying”. I asked a very simple question. Do you, or do you not feel the need to present balanced datapoints when you introduce them to a debate? Do you or do you not feel the need to examine causality and context before pronouncing things like “We could go down the list of environmental indicators, and you’re going to find that the U.S. is better than many industrial nations on most of them.”?
The nationmaster page you linked to is all of one click away from a large collection of datapoints on US environmental status/history. A page which provides a much better picture of the US’s actual results than the single statistic of SO[sup]2[/sup] density in urban areas.
You said a couple things very much like this in the original thread, reposted here because it was these things which sparked my reply.
It may be, it may not be. Context tells us if it is or not, and that is what I am trying to get across. The US is not Belgium, the US is not Canada, the US is not all these other nations and the simple fact is that there are too many variables whose values are not represented in the small amount of raw data you provided. Also missing was definitions to help show causality. The US has a comparitively low rate of production of nuclear waste per capita, much lower than many EU countries(including our guinea pig Belgium). But without the vital context that the US power generated by nuclear power is only about 20% of our energy production. As opposed to Belgium which gets 59% of its energy from nuclear sources Now that we’ve seen that the US produces less waste per capita, but also uses less per capita we’re kind of at a impasse. We can’t tell if the difference is because of the smaller usage or because the US is better at controlling it. But both of these points are important because they provide background necessary to evaluate overall efficiency of nuclear operations in the US versus Belgium. In fact, in a comparison of waste produced per unit of power the US comes out a strong leader. The US is running a much tighter ship than most of the other nations which use nuclear power. If nuclear pollution were the limit of the discussion then statements like the ones you made or the one I made just now could be justified. It still is not safe to assert that “Bush is doing great.” though, we have no data that identifies Presidential actions/policy as the proximate cause of this efficiency.
I will confine most of the rest of my remarks on the environment to that thread.
Bah, you gave one dependant clause to Canada and a paragraph comparing the US to the EU. Do you stand by the part about the comparisons to the EU or not?
So you’re claiming you don’t belittle people who tell you that things in Iraq aren’t as good as your bulleted lists cribbed directly from Bremer’s press releases imply? You’re saying you haven’t derided people who have questioned the quality of the rebuilding of schools, or the ability of the “open” hospitals in Iraq to actually treat patients? Or argued with people that oil production numbers are just ducky when they point out that Iraq is facing real issues with providing for internal need and their exports are still way under target? Is any of this jarring your memory Sam? Do I have to flog the search engine to remind you of these exchanges? It is notoriously unreliable these days. I know you started a thread in the pit about Mr. Svinlesha pasting some of your posts into Collounsbury’s journal and the title was Don’t fucking cut and paste my messages into someone else’s journal, Mr. Svinlesha. but a search for posts by you in the Pit with “journal” in the post comes up with nothing. Again, that thread is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. You harped on about electric production in Iraq and how it was actually above pre-war levels and acted as if that proved the US was doing a good job. This conclusion is emphatically NOT supported by a more complete analysis which includes nagging little details like sustained electric production levels and distribution. Still you felt confident enough in your single-bullet point analysis of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan to post derisions at those who questioned your assertions.
So tell me how this doesn’t fit
Look, I don’t have an issue with the data. I have an issue with your conclusions. You were spouting statements like “the U.S. is one of the cleanest countries around.” “Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is actually operating quite cleanly.” Your current assertion, from a post after you had read mine, is not objectionable in the least. What I’ve got a problem with is your jumping to conclusions based on factoids instead of analysis.
This is an eminently reasonable statement and is the kind which should be made in debates about complex issues. Statements like “the U.S. is one of the cleanest countries around.” are overbroad, to say the least.
Bullshit. I’ve never had a single problem with providing data. I’ve had a problem with providing incomplete or superficial data and then drawing overborad conclusions. If you don’t understand that then go ahead and claim you’re being “decembered” because that is exactly the kind of bullshit he used to do. He’d post a blog which said some group was anti-semitic and when you looked at the actual source it didn’t support that conclusion at all or if it did it was only through some tortured reasoning which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If you want to claim the US is one of the cleanest countries around then you better be prepared to prove it. Proof of such a broad assertion carries a very heavy burden of providing comprehensive evidence, not a couple bullet points.
Enjoy,
Steven
While the king of the visigoths has no position on your “border dispute”, he is chagrinned that:
“GWB lying sack of shit or brain damaged and demented?”
failed to make the “top ten”…
Um, are you sure you're not mistaking liberalism for sainthood?
Seriously, unless you can back this up with some serious cites, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this.
It's a stretch to claim that liberalism is strictly correlated with education and intelligence; in fact it's a truism that people tend to gravitate towards a more conservative philosophy as they age, although one doesn't expect either intelligence or education to decrease with time
It's absolutely ludicrous to think that liberals are better at argumentation (especially after some of the lame ass muck slinging I've seen on the SDMB).Finagle He said that’s what he likes. Not that it’s true. 
that should be; He said that’s what he likes. Not that it’s true
it’s late, here.
re: Bushco - thanks for the clarification. I often IRL use “& Co” when addressing a larger group (as in “Liz & co” for my sister and her family for example), since that was my only reference for it, it seemed to me like a shorthand for “Bush and company(ie his administration)”.
with the explanation, I agree that it’s a childish gig, similar to “Billary”, “Shrub” etc. Personally, I use “Bush” or “Bush administration” for it allows me to avoid using terms like POTUS etc. w/o getting into childish insults (which I agree tend to detract from one’s point).
RE: the thread - seems like it’s now meandered into a “have Sam defend every post he’s ever made”.
Look - I agree that the point made in teh OP upon examination wasn’t valid. Yes, there is a bit more ‘liberal type’ folks posting here (for any number of reasons that I don’t think we can quantify) and yes, there’s certainly no shortage of idiots on both ends of the spectrum. at this point, however, I don’t see Sam ever acknowledging that his claim in the OP was not valid, and now with the multitude of “you said this here, and that there and here was another example of this” etc. posts it does most closely resemble a group of vultures taking turns.
I fear that would only work to suggest to the conservatives again that 'see, we’re maligned for our stances (not our actions)". and I’m pretty damn tired of the refrain ‘see you can’t be a conservative here w/o getting piled on’ (which of course ignores the real wealth of conservative posters who don’t generally get piled on (including Una, Jodi, Fenris to name a few).
FTR, I don’t see Sam as december jr., but even if you do, please I implore you - remember - jeering taunts, nicknames etc *detract from * your arguement.