Thanks for sharing Sam Stone. I get where you’re coming from better (not that I nessessarily agree).
And now, the moment nobody has been waiting for. The 2009 rehashing of the Sam Stone Bush Commitment to NASA Misinformation post!
The date: 2004
The historical context: The campaign between incumbent George W. Bush and John F. Kerry
The doper context: A thread entitled “Is anyone seriously considering voting for John F. Kerry?” (my gosh it must have been hard to be a conservative on these boards back then)
The poster: Sam Stone
The purpose: Convince people to vote for George W. Bush through an appeal to their desire for NASA funding. (I know, I know, but nevertheless a false assertion is a false assertion.)
Okay, I bolded the two key assertions regarding NASA funding there. The first is that the two Bushes stand out from the crowd in their funding for NASA. It’s because they’re just nuts about space. These guys love space – it’s genetic with this crowd. (Why such crazy language? Remember, he’s trying to convince us as to how Bush will act in the future, so he has to invoke some sort of characterological thing with these guys. And why the past 30 years? Because if you go back just a little bit further you get to administrations with guys who have space centers named after them.)
The second assertion, not really necessary given the first, but in the spirit of characterological matters probably unavoidable, the Clinton years saw “constant erosion” of the NASA budget.
Assertion 1: “Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years. If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second.”
Okay, what does this mean? From the wording, it kind of sounds like two occasions of individual budgets reflecting a marked increase in NASA funding. Thanks to Wikipedia, we have the annual budgets for NASA, along with a constant dollar (2007) conversion. I’ll use the figures for Bush through 2004 because that is when Sam made his assertion (although the results don’t change meaningfully if GW. Bush’s later numbers are included as well.)
Let’s look at a rank ordering of presidents by their largest proportional increase in NASA funding (I’m going to include the guys at the beginning of the space program, but in the constricted spirit of the original assertion, I’ll asterisk them):
*Kennedy 99%
*Johnson 37%
Reagan 32%
Clinton 21% (Oopsie!)
GHW Bush 16%
Ford 5%
GW Bush 3%
…
(Just for grins, guess who had the single biggest annual budget CUT for NASA during this time frame: GHW Bush, at -22.2%! He’s cuckoo for space! It’s in his bones!)
Okay, so that data does not fit the assertion, and it looks too good for Clinton. It must be that “two times” means that the two overall administrations will be far above the crowd in terms of NASA funding. Lets look at the rank order of administrations by average NASA funding levels (in billions - 2007 constant dollars):
*Johnson 29.3
GHW Bush 17.4
Clinton 16.5
GW Bush 15.7
Nixon 15.1
*Kennedy 14.3
Reagan 13.6
…
Well, that makes things look better for the elder Bush, but the data still fail to support the assertion of the two Bushes standing out dramatically due to their space insanity.
Perhaps we could look at average percentage change from year to year for each administration.
*Kennedy 96.6%
Reagan 3.6%
GHW Bush 2.6%
HW Bush 1.1%
Ford 0.7%
Carter 0.1%
Clinton 0.0%
*Johnson -0.8%
Nixon -11.5%
Unfortunately, even these data do not support the hypothesis of the nutty Bush boys and their extraordinary commitment to space. Even if we set aside Kennedy, Reagan still showed a higher year to year increase in the NASA budget.
Assertion 2: “…look at what happened under Clinton - NASA saw constant budget erosions…”
And these last data also give the best test of the second assertion: Clinton’s “constant erosion” averages out to a 0.0% annual change. My friends, that’s not constant erosion you can believe in.
Jesus Christ, it was five years ago, guys. Countries get over wars faster than that.
Ah, RickJay, always the voice of calm and reason and maturity. :rolleyes:
The thread topic, since it has obviously eluded you, is Sam’s habitual dishonesty. The reason for bringing that up was to show it’s a chronic problem, not an occasional lapse. Got it, pal?
If he had “gotten over that” problem in the intervening time, you’d have a point. But as he hasn’t, you don’t, no more than Shodan does.
As a disinterested observer (and a progressive liberal), I must say that Sam comes off much more reasonable and persuasive than his attackers in this thread.
Thanks for sharing. You do prove a point. As I said, people will persist in feeling this way of Sam no matter how wrong he is. To some people, facts are irrelevant, and they are easily persuaded by things said in an authoritative manner. It doesn’t matter that they are flat out incorrect.
Why is it that you find such nice but false assertions persuasive? Do you recommend that practice for everyone?
Ah yes, the Woody Allen fallacy. (Read the whole bit, it’s classic).And the Lord said, “It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice.”
I don’t believe that you or his other detractors have shown his basic premise to be false in this thread.
Interesting. What is it that you consider to be his basic premise in this thread?
Sam and Hentor at least seem sincere, even if they don’t seem to trust each other and may get things wrong from time to time. I’ve called Sam on facts from time to time. I think he just rushes to conclusions at times.
You’re a proven liar, so you can’t be trusted and your opinions are no value.
I think there is a considerable gap between habitual dishonesty and a few prominent examples of factual errors. I venture to guess that most posters who participate in as many debates as **Sam Stone **have made objective factual errors. I don’t think Sam is habitually dishonest. I don’t believe he deliberately fudged the Clinton unemployment number or that he deliberately lied about NASA funding.
I do think, like all of his, he is less scrutinizing of facts that support his opinion. And I do think Sam has very strong political opinions that sometimes color his view of the facts. That phenomenon is a constant for all humans (including those judging Sam). He is neither the best nor the worst poster on this board in that regard. In fact, I wouldn’t even put him in the bottom half.
Already you’ve basically accused me of being a mindless dupe. I’m not going down this road any further. I’ve told you what I thought, I don’t see any reason to continue justifying my opinion.
Richard, that’s fine, except that the numbers and facts you acknowledge he’s so cavalier about are typically not just sidebar trivia; they are the very basis of the argument he is trying to make, an argument which typically includes a categorical dismissal of the hypocrisy and ignorance of anyone who can’t see that it therefore proves The Truth.
And that’s where his fundamental dishonesty lies - he is typically not starting from the facts and working from them toward anything that can be honestly called Knowledge; he is starting from a cherished ideology and looking for things that can be twisted into supporting it. That is not fighting ignorance but spreading it.
As I said 
Sam:
Yeesh. Which “guys”, Sam? Which specific “liberals” made these claims? Are you at all capable of debating a single opponent, or is everyone who disagrees with you a representative of some sort of vast, left-wing liberal ideology? Just because Hentor and I share a similar political perspective, does that make me responsible for everything he posts?
This is a good example of how utterly contemptuous and disrespectful you are towards your debating opponents. People take time out to respond to your posts with researched counter-arguments, facts, etc. You call it “yowling.” This from a man who apparently can’t add up a series of numbers and divide it to get the average. And strange how these little “mistakes” and “oversights” you make always seem to turn out in your favor, to support your point. Yet you sit there with a straight face and accuse us “liberals” of bias, of seeing issues distorted by our own filters.
Here’s a news flash fer ya, Sammy: everybody always sees the world through their own set of filters. Even you. That’s the whole reason why I seek out people with a different view – to help me see past my biases. Of course, the person on the other side of the debate should come armed with logical arguments and matters of fact – not Sam Stone-style hooey. Cause that shit don’t fly.
Oy.
Looks like I touched a nerve.
Oh. Was it a draw? Or did it backfire in my face? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Again.
Yes, god forbid you actually offer something of substance in Sam’s defense.
Look, you said you thought he was doing better than his opponents in this thread. As his opponents have already shown some holes in the arguments Sam has made in this thread, Hentor thought you were referring to that and offered a supposition as to why you would think Sam’s still getting the upper hand. You replied that Sam is still right regarding his basic premise, and Hentor asked you what that was. Then you dropped the ball.
In my experience, if Hentor asks a question, he actually is interested in an answer and not trying to play gotcha. That you balk at a request to offer more than vague assertions is no reflection on him.
It’s a matter of degree. No poster is capable of forming a blank slate in his mind to be filled with objectively viewed factual information, suspending any opinion until the facts are all in. That is an inhuman standard. The most we can ask, I think, is that people be open to changing their minds and that they present reasonable evidence to back their opinions. A great poster–a true rarity–will always avoid any cherry-picked evidence, will seek only the most objective available sources, and will approach every issue from a position of humility and skepticism until met with very strong evidence. She still makes the occasional mistake, but she is sometimes the one that catches it and she is quick to own up to the mistake if someone else does. A middling poster will occasionally cherry-pick some evidence, has made more than a few false factual assertions, and infrequently changes his mind or deviates from what ideology would predict (but it does happen). He usually leaves it to others to check the content of his posts, but will begrudgingly admit mistakes, even if it takes awhile. A contempt-worthy poster will almost always cherry pick evidence, if he has any at all, and never changes his mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I would be the last to say Sam is in the first category. But I see no reason to think Sam is in that last category.
No reason? How about his Sarah Palin OP, still on Page 1 of this forum? Just for instance.
Or the numerous examples (chosen only for their prominence and his vehemence) brought up by others in this very thread?
This shit’s been going for way too long for such a forgiving attitude as you are trying here, however admirably. Remember, we’re here to *fight *ignorance.
Well, you said that you were persuaded by his arguments, and it seems to me the only arguments of his here have been fraught with error. I was honestly curious as to why you would find such arguments “persuasive.”
When you said that you didn’t feel that his detractors had done anything to show his basic premise to be false, I was honestly intrigued, since I don’t know that he has offered a basic premise in this thread. I remain quite curious as to what you think this would be.
Being wrong, even when you’re wrong about facts instead of opinions, doesn’t make you dishonest. It makes you sloppy. And in the context of, say, declaring war on a country, it is contemptible. But in the context of casual posting on a message board, I think sloppiness is about what it rises to. Of course, there is also a difference between making mistakes and dishonestly making up facts. The question is whether he’s making up facts, or simply miscalculating or misremembering. It is this question on which I think there is insufficient evidence.
Lots of examples of factual mistakes would be circumstantial evidence that a poster is just pulling shit out of his ass. But I don’t think that has been shown. We have this thread, which is pretty obviously just a math error, albeit an egregious one. We have a thread dragged up from god knows when. And then the Palin thread. I haven’t seen him say anything objectively, factually wrong in the Palin thread (even though I think his opinion is wrong).
And I don’t think I’m being overly charitable. Saying someone isn’t worthy of contempt is pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise.
Missed the edit, but I wanted to correct the sentence about the Palin thread. Obviously at the outset he relied on the group’s characterization of the candidates in the article, which seems suspect. But I think that is different from making things up.