Pitting The Republican for no reason whatsoever

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Dumbguy *
That sounds like a cop out to me. If your comment wasn’t meant to suggest that conservatives are more likely than liberals to have a stock portfolio, then what was it meant to say?

Don’t come in swinging and then get all cuddly and PC. elucidator isn’t backing off his suggestion that liberals are better thinkers. If you think conservatives are more likely to be successful, then spill it.

Well it wasn’t meant to say they are more likely to have a stock portfolio - only that they are more likely to be into it.

You seem to be changing your tune somewhat here. Earlier you suggested that I had denigrated liberal by suggesting that their interests were not as important as those of conservatives. Now you are saying that I’m denigrating them by saying they are not as successful. You are reaching.

FWIW, I’ll grant that conservatives are more likely to have a stock portfolio as well. I believe it is a well established fact that higher income (& education) levels are correlated with conservative views. ( If you don’t believe that the views of the average businessman or stock market honcho are going to be more conservative than the public at large, you are detached from reality.) But I wouldn’t bring this up as a factor in debates like this, because it may be the result of self-interest.

Frankly my point was not exactly revolutionary, and if you’ve been around at all you must have encountered the underlying concept. That being that liberal philosophy is bigger on government intervention than conservative philosophy, which tends to emphasize self-reliance. Therefore, liberals are more apt to focus on government policy while conservatives tend to focus on business and the like.

In any event, no insult was intended. If you insist on being insulted for this or that reason, be my guest.

minty,

OK, so you don’t know how many international Dopers there are, or whether there would be enough to significantly alter the results. So we’re back to where we started.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
Considering the quote you pulled to respond to this…would it be your contention then that the people who believed that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 were * not * ignorant?

Of course people who think that are ignorant. About that particular subject. It doesn’t mean we should no consider the views of 45% of Americans.

However, lets spell out the argument that Sofa King started.

1. 45 % of Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11.
2. This means that 45 % of Americans are “ignorant fools”.
3. Many of the 72-80% of the people in favor of the war in mid-march are these same “ignorant fools”.
4. We here are the SDMB are not ignorant fools.
5. Therefore, the SDMB is not biased. It is perfectly aligned with the views of the majority of Americans. (Except for them ignorant fool pubbies).

Geez, with thinking like this maybe I will learn that secret handshake after all.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
Considering the quote you pulled to respond to this…would it be your contention then that the people who believed that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 were * not * ignorant?

Of course people who think that are ignorant. About that particular subject. It doesn’t mean we should no consider the views of 45% of Americans.

However, lets spell out the argument that Sofa King started.

1. 45 % of Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11.
2. This means that 45 % of Americans are “ignorant fools”.
3. Many of the 72-80% of the people in favor of the war in mid-march are these same “ignorant fools”.
4. We here are the SDMB are not ignorant fools.
5. Therefore, the SDMB is not biased. It is perfectly aligned with the views of the majority of Americans. (Except for them ignorant fool pubbies).

Geez, with thinking like this maybe I will learn that secret handshake after all.

[minty_green]

Debaser, the IMHO poll started on March 16, and the great majority of the responses were in within the next two days. Your polls are all from several days AFTER the war started on March 20. Apples and oranges, man.
Izzy, are you really that desperate to see yourself as a persecuted minority on an anti-conservative board? 'Cause that’s the only way I can possibly understand your claim that the international Dopers did not skew the results of that IMHO poll. If page 1 is representative of the thread (a quick look through page 2 shows similar numbers), at least 15% of the respondents were from foreign countries . . . and that’s not even counting the posters whose origins can’t be identified at all.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
Is the SDMB representative of the US population as a whole and the notion of myself, Scylla and other conservatives that there is a liberal bias total bunk?

Or, is are the intellectually superior liberal thinkers naturally attracted to a message board devoted to fighting ignorance?

Just speaking for myself, my theory is that the SDMB representative of the worldwide population as a whole, and the resident conservatives feel like they’re in a minority only because they’ve got such extreme viewpoints. At least, I can’t recall hearing moderate-minded conservatives like sailor or SimonX whining about bias…

[Debaser]

minty:

The IMHO poll was running up until March 20th. You are saying that any poll after March 20th doesn’t apply at all? Give me a fucking break.

You pulled numbers from February, but I am the liar because I pulled numbers from 4 days after the poll?

Look, the numbers of folks in favor of the war did go up a little as the war actually started. That’s why I posted figures showing that on March 11-12th there were 71% in favor of the war and later on March 25-26 there were 78% in favor of the war.

So, the IMHO poll occurred between the first and second set of numbers. It’s clear that you will simply attempt to discredit any poll that doesn’t say what you want it to. The range of 71-78% is nearly 80%.

Besides, another poll on the 24th showed 80%.

My original statement of “nearly 80%” stands.
And, as to your 15% of the respondants being from other countries:

Lets estimate it high and say that is 25%. So out of total responses of 187, there are 47 foreign posters.

Lets also assume that all of these 47 international dopers said “No” to the war.

So the total of 109 “No” votes falls to 62. The “Yes” votes remain 78. This means that there is still only 56% of the SDMB in favor of the war. Still not close to the 71-80% of the US population that was in favor of it.

This is all assuming that there are 47 international dopers in that thread who all voted “No”. Big assumptions, and even with them your argument still doesn’t hold up.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Izzy, are you really that desperate to see yourself as a persecuted minority on an anti-conservative board? 'Cause that’s the only way I can possibly understand your claim that the international Dopers did not skew the results of that IMHO poll. If page 1 is representative of the thread (a quick look through page 2 shows similar numbers), at least 15% of the respondents were from foreign countries . . . and that’s not even counting the posters whose origins can’t be identified at all.

I never said it did not skew it at all - only that it did not skew it significantly (i.e. enough to account for most or all of the observed discrepancy). 15% does not cut it in this regard, particularly as some of these foreign posters actually supported the war. I gave a quick glance at the poll, and it seems to me that about 25 posters were not American, of whom 6 were in favor of the war and 19 opposed. That is not nearly enough to account for the discrepancy.

I understand your point that many posters did not post a location, but without quantifying this, you are merely speculating. (And FWIW, I would guess that foreign posters are more likely to post a location than Americans, because, as a predominantly American board, location is a bigger issue for foreigners. So it is really impossible to know the true percentage ).

But by way of illustration, lets assume that 25% of the posters to this board - and that thread - are foreign, or about 47 responses. And assume that the ratio of support among these foreigners is the same as the 25 that I counted, or 11-36. Subtract these posters from the total (78-109) and you get 67-73 or about 48% support - not much different than the original 42% and far removed from the overwhelming support among the public at large.

As for your opening suggestion, I personally don’t see myself being a persecuted minority, and in fact I actually prefer being a minority viewpoint on the board. Unlike all the high-minded and noble ignorance-fighters that infest this board, my primary purpose in being here is for my own amusement - to knock things around with ideological opponents. Some people are like that. So I would have little use for a board where everyone agreed with me - what I need is sparring partners.

Still, I do believe that in fact the board is skewed to the left (particularly in comparing the far left vs. the far right) and to the extent that the board’s composition impacts issues being discussed (generally WRT the collective board judgment on various individual posters) I uphold my position. As noted previously this is a highly subjective issue, but we argue about a lot of highly subjective issues and I call them as I see them, as do you and everyone else.

[elucidator]

I don’t get the relevence here. Does it matter that the SDMB does not reflect American society as a whole. Well, of course not!

Lets just sketch out a thought experiment. The Average American is plopped into the cage, he will be there for three hours, and is so informed. He may choose one of two sources of reading material. One is a glossy, flashy poutourri of celebrity gossip, tips on better sex, field testing the new .50 calibre HippyWhacker, that sort of thing.

Or any of the Sacred Writings, any of the paperbacks, which advertise precisely thier content: nuggets of crunchy intellectual nourishment, stuff you wanna know, but don’t!

The Doper is a pervert. The Doper picks door number two.

[IzzyR]

Here’s a cite that seems to support minty. According to Zogby, on March 14-15 support for the war was 54%-42%.

OTOH, USA Today says that support for the war “jumped to 66% by Monday after diplomatic efforts were scrapped and Bush gave Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country or face a U.S.-led attack.” ISTM that the Monday they refer to was March 17, which is during the IMHO poll.

elucidator, as mentioned earlier, the significance of whether the SDMB reflects society is in whether the negative judgment of the SDMB about various conservatives is a result of the make-up of the board, or reflects the judgment of a cross section of society. As you may have observed, a liberal will tend to judge a conservative more harshly than he would a fellow liberal (the reverse is true for conservatives). As a matter of fact, there are actually some liberals who are so blindly partisan that they go about claiming that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives - you may be familiar with some people like that. Obviously the judgment of such people has to be severely discounted.

[elucidator]

On that basis, all Dopers opinions are to be discounted, because we’re all pervs, as demonstrated above. If the general public becomes aware of our existence they will begin arguing over whether or not we should be permitted to marry. Or breed, for that matter.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Here’s a cite that seems to support minty. According to Zogby, on March 14-15 support for the war was 54%-42%.

OTOH, USA Today says that support for the war “jumped to 66% by Monday after diplomatic efforts were scrapped and Bush gave Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country or face a U.S.-led attack.” ISTM that the Monday they refer to was March 17, which is during the IMHO poll.

Told ya so–nowhere near 80% until after the war started. Note also that roughly 3/4 of the responses in the IMHO poll were registered March 16-18. Only a few were on March 20.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
I never said it did not skew it at all - only that it did not skew it significantly (i.e. enough to account for most or all of the observed discrepancy). 15% does not cut it in this regard, particularly as some of these foreign posters actually supported the war. I gave a quick glance at the poll, and it seems to me that about 25 posters were not American, of whom 6 were in favor of the war and 19 opposed. That is not nearly enough to account for the discrepancy.

Au contraire. Debaser reported that the thread showed 78 posters in favor of the war, and 109 opposed. If you subtract the foreign votes you just reported, that makes it 72 for and 90 against, i.e., 44.4% support for the war. That’s much closer to the pre-war split in the American public, and that’s not even counting any foreign posters we can’t identify as such.

Gosh, it must be tough having a mere 44.4% of the American Dopers on your side.

[Debaser]

Fucking wow. Statistics simulpost!

by Debaser
And, as to your 15% of the respondants being from other countries:

Lets estimate it high and say that is 25%. So out of total responses of 187, there are 47 foreign posters.

Lets also assume that all of these 47 international dopers said “No” to the war.

So the total of 109 “No” votes falls to 62. The “Yes” votes remain 78. This means that there is still only 56% of the SDMB in favor of the war. Still not close to the 71-80% of the US population that was in favor of it.

This is all assuming that there are 47 international dopers in that thread who all voted “No”. Big assumptions, and even with them your argument still doesn’t hold up.

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
But by way of illustration, lets assume that 25% of the posters to this board - and that thread - are foreign, or about 47 responses. And assume that the ratio of support among these foreigners is the same as the 25 that I counted, or 11-36. Subtract these posters from the total (78-109) and you get 67-73 or about 48% support - not much different than the original 42% and far removed from the overwhelming support among the public at large.

I like the way you think.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Told ya so–nowhere near 80% until after the war started. Note also that roughly 3/4 of the responses in the IMHO poll were registered March 16-18. Only a few were on March 20.

Ya, I posted on the 20th. My “Yes” vote to the war must’ve been because of the date. If you asked me two days earlier you would get a totally different response. :rolleyes:

minty, you can be so full of shit it still shocks me.

Notice how you still haven’t come up with a cite for even close to the right dates. It’s fine for you to pick my numbers apart because some of them (not all) were 4 days after the SDMB poll. Meanwhile the only cite you scraped up was from February and another that was off by more than a week.

All the bitching you have done would have been better used looking for cites. IzzyR comes to the rescue with a Zogby poll and a USA today poll to counter mine from ABC News, NBC News and FOX News.

What a shocker: you believe his numbers over mine. Not quite shocking really, when one considers you were calling me a liar without even having any proof to the contrary before IzzyR provided those links.

BTW, about this bit:

by IzzyR
OTOH, USA Today says that support for the war “jumped to 66% by Monday after diplomatic efforts were scrapped and Bush gave Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave the country or face a U.S.-led attack.” ISTM that the Monday they refer to was March 17, which is during the IMHO poll.

The USA today poll that you linked to also shows that on March 20th the numbers in favor had jumped further to 76%. March 20th was when that poll in IMHO was still active.

[Sofa_King]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**However, lets spell out the argument that Sofa King started.

1. 45 % of Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11.
2. This means that 45 % of Americans are “ignorant fools”.
3. Many of the 72-80% of the people in favor of the war in mid-march are these same “ignorant fools”.
4. We here are the SDMB are not ignorant fools.
5. Therefore, the SDMB is not biased. It is perfectly aligned with the views of the majority of Americans. (Except for them ignorant fool pubbies).

Geez, with thinking like this maybe I will learn that secret handshake after all. **

I’m sorry, Debaser. Sometimes I leave my point up in the air or don’t properly emphasize it, and it gets lost.

The point was that the SDMB self-selects against ignorance. Damn near half of the United States that week apparently “believed” that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of 9/11. Yet at the exact same time news sources were essentially repeating the same fact over and over: no such evidence for such a connection existed.

I didn’t say the SDMB wasn’t biased; in fact, I was trying to say that the SDMB is highly biased in favor of facts over “belief.” There were plenty of people right here who “believed” that bullshit (and it is still bullshit until the magic bullet falls back to the ground in the form of evidence), but when they made their bullshit-supporting arguments based solely on belief they were rightly skewered for it by a hell of a lot of the rest of us.

Many people here made better circumstantial and inferential arguments in favor of the Hussein-9/11 connection than I’ve seen anywhere else, uncluding coming from our own fearless leader. Still, nobody who was reading these boards at that time produced any new evidence.

We’re here to fight ignorance. Believing Hussein was connected with 9/11 was (and in my opinion, still is) ignorant. Ignorant people don’t last very long here, with some notable exceptions, which is why the SDMB poll is skewed.

Therefore your point number 5 is erroneous. In fact, I was trying to point out that the SDMB is nothing like a cross-section of average America, because unlike America, we consist of only a small minority of uninformed people.

And most of us not-uninformed people are liberals, according to some of you guys.

Well, that’s just like, your opinion… man.

[John_Mace]

Just to resurrect the Coulter issue, I just noticed that she’s going to be on Maher’s HBO show tonight. That should be fun.

I’m still waiting for Maher and [Dennis] Miller to replace Hannity and Colmes, though.

[elucidator]

Two trends:

The rise to ubiquity of The CoulterBeast’s image, voice, and opinion.

The upsurge of young men enlisting in the Homosexual Agenda.

Coincidence? I wonder…

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
Ya, I posted on the 20th. My “Yes” vote to the war must’ve been because of the date. If you asked me two days earlier you would get a totally different response. :rolleyes:

And yet the fact remains that a substantial percentage of the American public did change their minds in as soon as the war began. The absence of cognitive function in your own brain is entirely irrelevant to that point.

Notice how you still haven’t come up with a cite for even close to the right dates.

Sorry, but clients were simply dying to be billed this morning. I searched CNN, found a couple polls that supported my general proposition, and left it at that. And note that one of my cites was dated March 6, a mere 10 days before the start of that IMHO thread. Izzy later proved my point with polls that were even closer to the date of that IMHO thread you thing proves so much. So fuck you sideways with your bitching about not being “even close to the right dates.”

But for what it’s worth, here’s a CBS poll that directly compares responses on March 15-16 with responses on March 20-21. The results show significantly higher support after the war began.

[quote]

The USA today poll that you linked to also shows that on March 20th the numbers in favor had jumped further to 76%. March 20th was when that poll in IMHO was still active.

Yeah, you and like three other people chimed in on the 20th. Pretty weak for a 5-page thread where 75% of the responses were entered within the first 48 hours.

[Scylla]

Sofa King:

Actually my apologies are in order for painting with too broad a stroke. Thanks for taking the time to give me the opportunity to correct it.

Polycarp:

Thanks for the kind words

Minty and Hentor (regarding Kerry:)

All right, I will open my mind. It seems to me that the core message of Kerry’s campaign is that Bush Sucks and he is a Vietnam Veteran. You have suggested that I am being foolish, blind, and/or willfully ignorant, maybe even seeing things through a conservative fog to reach this conclusion.

Surely that is a possibility. I am pretty tempted to dismiss it, because these two themes are the dominant, prevailing and overriding threads that tie both his public persona and his website together.

But I may be wrong. Perhaps there is a large dominant and positive theme that runs over over through his speeches and website with such total ubiquity that it completely overrides the twin themes of Vietnam Veteranship, and Bush suckitude.

Perhaps I am not seeing it due to dittohead indoctrination, obtuseness, or sheer stupidity.

I’ve already asked you to show me this theme a couple of times. Perhaps you answered me clearly and succinctly, and I missed it in my chagrin over how stupid I was not to see it.

Perhaps you just didn’t show it to me.

So, I’ll ask again. Nicely.

Pretty please, with sugar on top will you show me the central theme of Kerry’s campaign if it is not as I’ve said?

Please don’t give me a general link, because I am slow. Please spell it out for me.

And because I’m having trouble finding this overwhelming positive theme to which you refer, coul you also please show me how it dominates the “I am a Veteran,” “Bush sucks” theme?

Hentor (regarding your defense of your actions:)

Ok, you didn’t like my grandfather story and you think it makes me a bigot.

Fair enough. It was not a mechanical argument that I was making there, and with something like that you are free to interpret as you choose.

There is room for interpretation, and things are not spelled out. If I wrote that the way I wanted to, then the reader is free to interpret and choose what it means… if it means anything.

You’re interpretation was very different from most people’s, and indeed it was different from my intentions.

You just didn’t get it. That’s cool. It doesn’t even mean your wrong.

It’s your interpretation and it’s what it means to you. I feel complimented that it was memorable enough and powerful enough to make such an impact… …even if it wasn’t the one I was looking to make.

Whatever it means to you, is truly what it means.

That’s as nice as I can say that. Now I come to the harsh part.

Your interpretation of that is not a legitimate weapon. It is not an argument against. Shame on you, and again, Fuck you, for trying to use it as such.

And, lastly, fuck you for demonstrating the shallow cowardice to use it as a justification for your own behavior.

How you choose to behave is not my doing. It’s your own choice.

I may be an asshole (in fact I am,) but I’m not such a flaky twit that I’ll blame you for it.

---

That’s that. let me review where I stand here as issues evolve.

1. TR - Treated harshy and unkindly in relation to his sins.

2. As a general fair statement of truth there are more liberals than conservatives on this board, and as a rule in political threads Conservatives tend to be outnumbered [Stuart Smalley] but that’s… okay.[/Stuart Smalley]

   2 a.  I suppose that with the vagueness inherent in those terms, different methodologies, and some deconstructive hacking we could reduce that statement to meaningless, or show it to be true false or indifferent.   Nevertheless, stepping back, looking at it, after all that is said, I feel it represents a simple truth that probably most will acknowledge.
   
    2 b.  That the makeup of the board tends towards liberallness might be because of the Chicago Reader.  I offer that as a hypothesis.  Alternate hypothesis might be:  Liberals are ignorance fighteres, hence they congregate here.  Or.  Liberals are very ignorant and they congregate here to have their ignorance fought.  Or.  Liberals laying around all day, suching on the Federal tit need to do something to fill their day.  Or.  Conservatives are to busy oppressing people to hang out on message boards.  Or.  Whatever else you choose.
   

3. John Kerry’s central message is that Bush sucks and he, Kerry, is a Vietnam vet.

[Sofa_King]

Well, as far as answer number 3. goes, it wouldn’t be the first time a candidate ran on his image rather than his platform. If I may offer a recent quotation widely attributed to a former First Lady:

“Son, I love your strategy, but don’t let them get to know you.”

And he didn’t.