PDA

View Full Version : Republican Voter Surge



paul oman
09-19-2010, 08:43 AM
The strong desire for republicans to vote this year, compared to democrats, has come up from time to time.

Now, a few number...
New Hampshire is a state with about equal numbers of registered democrats and republicans. However, in the primary elections last week, 141,000 republicans voted compared to only 61,000 democrats.

You can read all sorts of things into this, but NH is sort of an average state. It was red for many years, but has become more and more blue. Voted for obama in 08 and dems in control here.

Milo Christensen
09-19-2010, 08:51 AM
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn,Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears,And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remarkHe squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt.""We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain;From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain.
"They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry."The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass;There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak -"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week."
A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark;And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark.
"We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last;But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought,We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoonOn iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elvesOn dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work,Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop;"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to foldA mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense,And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lassThrough grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark,And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt;We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

ljb5
09-19-2010, 09:27 AM
New Hampshire is a state with about equal numbers of registered democrats and republicans. However, in the primary elections last week, 141,000 republicans voted compared to only 61,000 democrats.

It's really quite simple, Paul: Uncontested races result in low voter turnout.

See Results Here. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/primaries/new-hampshire)

The Senator (Gregg) is retiring. The Democrats put up only one candidate (Paul Hodes), so he was uncontested. The Republicans had seven in their primary.

For Governor, the incumbent, (Lynch) is a Democrat and virtually uncontested in his primary. (He received 87% of the primary votes). The Republicans had to choose between four different candidates for governor.

In House District 1, Shea-Porter is the incumbent, a Democrat and running uncontested. The Republicans put up 8 candidates, three of which got over 25% each.

House District 2, is the only race that could have been considered even remotely competitive on the Democrats' side. There were two candidates. Kuster won in a landslide (71%). On the Republican side, there were five candidates and not one got more than 50%.

David G
09-19-2010, 11:39 AM
Paul,

What these fine gentlemen are telling you is that - once again - your partisan blinders have led you to perverse conclusions.

Of course, you're welcome to hold any opinions (no matter how ill-informed) and reach any conclusion (regardless of how carelessly considered) that you wish. However - I, for one, get weary of you carpeting the bilge with this low-grade fertilizer.

paul oman
09-19-2010, 05:55 PM
I tried to just post some numbers without putting my bias spin on it. Granted the dem races here were less interesting but - 141K vs 61K is still a vast difference.
Perhaps more importantly, heard on the news this afternoon - nationally, 4 million more republicans voted in the primaries than democrats. That is a huge difference. The polls all show the republicans ahead, and that doesn't even take into account how many more republicans are voting. - Boy, the nov elections will be VERY interesting! One side bragging away, the other making all sorts of excuses. It will all be fun to listen to.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-19-2010, 06:22 PM
I tried to just post some numbers without putting my bias spin on it. Granted the dem races here were less interesting but - 141K vs 61K is still a vast difference.
Perhaps more importantly, heard on the news this afternoon - nationally, 4 million more republicans voted in the primaries than democrats. That is a huge difference. The polls all show the republicans ahead, and that doesn't even take into account how many more republicans are voting. - Boy, the nov elections will be VERY interesting! One side bragging away, the other making all sorts of excuses. It will all be fun to listen to.

The primaries are only the preliminaries. What will happen in the actual election can only be guessed at because a lot of campaigning is yet to occure.
What you reported may be a good for your side or it may be wishful conjecture.

oznabrag
09-19-2010, 06:26 PM
Paul,

What these fine gentlemen are telling you is that - once again - your partisan blinders have led you to perverse conclusions.

Of course, you're welcome to hold any opinions (no matter how ill-informed) and reach any conclusion (regardless of how carelessly considered) that you wish. However - I, for one, get weary of you carpeting the bilge with this low-grade fertilizer.

I gotta say, David, you've just about nailed this one down as tight as a...well, tight.

Paul is like a case study in denial, or something!

James McMullen
09-19-2010, 06:52 PM
This message is now hidden because paul oman is on the ignorant list.

:D.

James McMullen
09-19-2010, 08:30 PM
But then there's this. I just don't see much evidence of overwhelming Republican surging here.
As unpopular as Democrats are these days, Republicans are even less popular:



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/18/opinion/18opchart_blow/18opchart_blow-popup.gif

paul oman
09-19-2010, 09:38 PM
Boy, I report a few hard numbers and you guys go ballistic. Lighten up. This is the bilge. Of course there are background reasons behind one party pulling in 150% more votes than the other party in the primaries (4 million more nationally). Still an interesting factoid.... Why are you into personal attacks when some numbers suggest something you don't want to acknowledge?

You guys take the bilge thing way to seriously and personally. It is a fun place to yank a few chains. For serious political debate you don't hang out in a boating forum, especially in 'the bilge'.
After all, your views on things are as useless and meaningless as mine. They just stroke one's own ego. In 10 years probably 1/3 - 1/2 of us will be dead - so get your priorities in order - and it ain't the bilge and it ain't in personal attacks. Ain't you guys old enough to figure that out yet?

David G
09-19-2010, 10:26 PM
Boy, I report a few hard numbers and you guys go ballistic. Lighten up. This is the bilge. Of course there are background reasons behind one party pulling in 150% more votes than the other party in the primaries (4 million more nationally). Still an interesting factoid.... Why are you into personal attacks when some numbers suggest something you don't want to acknowledge?

You guys take the bilge thing way to seriously and personally. It is a fun place to yank a few chains. For serious political debate you don't hang out in a boating forum, especially in 'the bilge'.
After all, your views on things are as useless and meaningless as mine. They just stroke one's own ego. In 10 years probably 1/3 - 1/2 of us will be dead - so get your priorities in order - and it ain't the bilge and it ain't in personal attacks. Ain't you guys old enough to figure that out yet?


Boy, you and I certainly have a different view of what's appropriate behavior in the Bilge. I regard it as the place where boat-oriented folks can have discussions about things that are not boat related.

Some of the topics here are simply entertainment. WBF scrabble, anyone? Maybe some college football? Some topics are just silliness. Memphis Mike's wicked weasel threads, perhaps?

Some topics, however, are grown-up discussions of serious topics. When someone comes in and asks for advice about how to cope with a job loss, or a divorce, or a troublesome neighbor - those are NOT opportunities to "...yank a few chains." Unless it's done very carefully: gently; sympathetically. When someone wants advice about money or investing - it's not a time for offhand frivolity.

I would regard politics and religion as grown-up topics. By their nature - they are both likely to elicit heartfelt, sometimes even emotional responses.

Given the state of our nation, politics in particular is a topic that begs for careful thought and a serious approach. Given the state of polarization we have achieved, it's not the least bit helpful to engage in endless partisan propagandizing.

By propagandizing, I do not mean the presentation of clearly partisan arguments that have some basis in fact, and can be supported thru thoughtful argument and presentation of data. I mean, instead, the mindless, baseless, unsupportable talking points that you seem to take joy in echoing. This despite being shot down and chided, again and again, by posters ranging from left to center to right.

In our fast-moving, fractured society today - we all too seldom get a chance to talk in depth with our friends and family about matters of seriousness. This forum provides a rather marvelous mechanism for people of diverse opinions to engage in discourse about civic matters. What I, and others, are saying is this - if this is the best contribution you have to offer to the civic discourse, it'd be better if you just kept it to yourself.

Don't get me wrong... I don't take your posts personally, and I don't object on partisan grounds. I don't lean strongly toward either left or right. On balance I tend toward the left, but lean right on more than a few topics as well. I object to your fouling and muddying the waters. Discussions on potentially heated topics are most fruitful if one approaches the opinions of others with respect and curiosity. This is - as is often illustrated here - tricky to accomplish. When you persistently float such inflammatory, unsupportable spin, it makes it that much harder to maintain a civil discourse. It certainly makes it nigh onto impossible for most folks to respect you. And, by extension, it becomes harder to respect those who share your ideological beliefs.

I don't know if you're 'happy'... but you certainly behaving like a 'moron'. A loudmouth, gormless fool, in fact. I'm hoping this post will contribute to a general rethinking of your approach. If not, I suppose I could try the ignore function. That'd save me the unpleasantness, but you'd still be pissin' in the public water hole.

ljb5
09-19-2010, 10:38 PM
Paul' just sore because he realized how dumb his first post was.

If he thought the facts were on his side, he'd accuse us of not taking the bilge seriously enough!

bobbys
09-19-2010, 10:41 PM
It Appears Paul hit a nerve here.

LOL

David G
09-19-2010, 10:46 PM
It Appears Paul hit a nerve here.

LOL

bs,

He did, indeed. For me, he's been hitting the same nerve - and leaving the same bad taste in my mouth - for a long while.

Now... based upon my lengthy rant... what do you think my objection is?

Paul Girouard
09-19-2010, 10:54 PM
Now... based upon my lengthy rant... what do you think my objection is?



He disagrees with your positions / opinions. Therefore he's wrong and forever will be in your opinion. End of story.

David G
09-19-2010, 11:05 PM
Paul and Rip,

You couldn't be more incorrect. From my rant:

Don't get me wrong... I don't take your posts personally, and I don't object on partisan grounds. I don't lean strongly toward either left or right. On balance I tend toward the left, but lean right on more than a few topics as well. I object to your fouling and muddying the waters. Discussions on potentially heated topics are most fruitful if one approaches the opinions of others with respect and curiosity. This is - as is often illustrated here - tricky to accomplish. When you persistently float such inflammatory, unsupportable spin, it makes it that much harder to maintain a civil discourse. It certainly makes it nigh onto impossible for most folks to respect you. And, by extension, it becomes harder to respect those who share your ideological beliefs.

Given this explicit comment, I have to wonder how both of you reached the conclusion that my objections are partisan. Can you enlighten me?

Paul Girouard
09-19-2010, 11:51 PM
Your fooling only yourself.

David G
09-20-2010, 12:10 AM
Your fooling only yourself.

You are saying that you see me as more left-wing than I see myself? That I'm more of a lefty than I think? Can you tell me what you base that impression on?

Paul Girouard
09-20-2010, 12:21 AM
You are saying that you see me as more left-wing than I see myself?

That I'm more of a lefty than I think?

Can you tell me what you base that impression on?



Yes.

Yes.

Your posts / what you've written here on WBF.

I mean , really, what else would I have to base my opinion on? We've never met , we've shared what 10 maybe 15 emails , maybe tops /in total. And maybe that many PM's. So I mean you REALLY had to ask question #3?? Really!

David G
09-20-2010, 12:24 AM
Paul,

You know - you made me curious. I don't know how legit this quiz is, but I found an online quicky quiz to tell you if you're liberal or conservative:

http://gotoquiz.com/results/conservative_or_liberal

I went through it several times to make sure I answered all questions as honestly as I could. Here's my results:

You scored 44% which means you are

moderately liberal. You believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all but not at the expense of the rights of others and you're cautious of that. You believe its the duty of the state to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.

Paul Girouard
09-20-2010, 12:26 AM
Hey there's nothing wrong with being a liberal . You don't have to distance yourself from it. It's not like having the clap ;-))) Er,,, well ,,, OK maybe it is :-)) a lil bit!

BrianW
09-20-2010, 12:28 AM
You scored 44% which means you are

moderately liberal.[/I]

Damn, and I liked you. ;)

purri
09-20-2010, 12:51 AM
Most eloquent post Milo! I had never heard it in full for many years.

David G
09-20-2010, 01:17 AM
Paul,

So... I'm moderately liberal. I can live with that. Truth is, though, it depends upon the issue. On some things (gay marriage) I'm quite liberal. On others (death penalty), I'm quite conservative. I do think those tests are not nuanced enough.

I looked at several quizzes trying to find the best one, and most are even worse than that one. One of them had two opposing statements and you were supposed to either agree or strongly agree with one side, or the other. Iffy methodology. For example - one question had to do with combating terrorism. One side said "Overwhelming force is the best way to fight terrorism". The other side said "Diplomacy is the best way to fight terrorism". How the heck does one choose just one? I think any person with a lick of sense would agree that a strong military and a savvy diplomatic corps are both critical tools in any international conflict.

BUT, and BUT, and BUT --

Back to the topic. Whatever my political leanings, it is my contention (and my firmly held belief) that my objections to Mr. Oman's nonsense have very little to do with the ideology, and much to do with the incessant nonsense he broadcasts and the damage it does to the potential for constructive interaction between people of differing beliefs here in the Bilge.

So, if some of y'all want to write off my criticism as mere partisan spin... go right ahead. It's easy, it's convenient, it fits your pre-conceived notions. And it's incorrect.

You want to argue about the content. I'm talking about the process. Both components are important to any sort of group dynamics (like conversation in the Bilge).

So you can see where my objections are coming from - here's an article about decision making that draws the distinction between content and process.

http://www.asamra.army.mil/eo/eo_docs/whattoobserveinagroup.htm

Probably more info than most want. The point is, though, that process matters.

We might be in a church committee meeting talking about how we are going to organize a fund-raiser to help do a new roof for the sanctuary. Contractors, costs, arranging volunteers to do the tear-off, food for the volunteers, etc. are all 'content'. That's the obvious part of group tasks. The ways we interact with each other - as outlined in the article - are less obvious, but no less important. We can do things in such a way as to improve or degrade the quality of our decisions. We can interact with each other in ways that alienate people, or that fill them with energy for the task at hand. We can stifle expression in various perverse ways (and risk losing the contributions of those less willing to swim in the murky waters we've created), or we can engage as many people as possible creating a vibrant give and take.

The same is true to some degree in our interactions here in the Bilge. Therefore, I'd be making the same objections if Mr. Oman was mindlessly carpet-bombing the Bilge with easily disproved, and carelessly considered liberal claptrap.

ljb5
09-20-2010, 02:28 AM
It Appears Paul hit a nerve here.

LOL

It appears I really hit a nerve by pointing out what an uncontested primary is.

It's too bad Paul didn't spend thirty seconds researching this before he posted. He could have saved himself so much embarrassment.

TomF
09-20-2010, 07:02 AM
David,

Casting someone's complaint about approach/behaviour as simple partisanship gives license to ignore the complaint. It's inaccurate, but convenient. The same dynamic happens in other genres of bilge discussion.

If I might be so bold - remember the thread a little while back about how a researcher found that correcting someone's facts didn't often lead to a changed opinion ... but instead to a hardening of their position? IMO that's operative too.

Best,

t

Milo Christensen
09-20-2010, 08:44 AM
. . . I'd be making the same objections if Mr. Oman was mindlessly carpet-bombing the Bilge with easily disproved, and carelessly considered liberal claptrap.

Paul Oman - 1,302 posts.
Norman Bernstein - 24,076 posts. After all his partisan claptrap, he now has to go to some effort to indicate he's posting "non-politically." Well over half of Norman's posts are to point out some of the more idiotic members of the Republican party, and we have, so unfortunately for conservatives, our fair share of idiots. Paul may throw out a "carpet bomb" but Norman is salting the earth with radioactive poisoning after nuclear carpet bombing. But that's O.K., isn't it?

I won't even get into ljb5's 14,564 posts dripping with ugly sarcasm disparaging any attempt by conservatives to join the dialogue. But that's O.K., isn't it?

Phillip Allen
09-20-2010, 08:50 AM
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn,Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears,And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remarkHe squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt.""We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain;From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain.
"They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry."The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass;There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak -"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week."
A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark;And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark.
"We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last;But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought,We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoonOn iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elvesOn dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work,Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop;"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to foldA mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense,And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lassThrough grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark,And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt;We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

Is that Patterson?

David G
09-20-2010, 09:20 AM
David,

Casting someone's complaint about approach/behaviour as simple partisanship gives license to ignore the complaint. It's inaccurate, but convenient. The same dynamic happens in other genres of bilge discussion.

If I might be so bold - remember the thread a little while back about how a researcher found that correcting someone's facts didn't often lead to a changed opinion ... but instead to a hardening of their position? IMO that's operative too.

Best,

t

Tom,

Thanks for the reminder. I think it was me that posted the research about facts not trumping ideology.

I just keep thinking that I can have reasonable conversations with all sides. The more extreme conservatives here don't seem to be interested. There don't seem to be comparably rigid ideologues from the left HERE for some reason (I wonder why that is), but I certainly have a couple in my local circle of friends. They are every bit as quick to bend facts to their pre-conceived interpretations. They are every bit as black-and-white on the issues. They too long to categorize. You're either with 'em or against 'em. If you don't agree totally, on all issues, you must be a conservative.

Neither of my ultra-liberal friends regard me as a Right Wing Wacko... but they harbor suspicions that I might be more that way than I let on. Interesting to see the same dynamic play out here... from the other side.

Milo Christensen
09-20-2010, 09:25 AM
Paul's OP was the truth. Every single word of it. But look what responses he's gotten from your fellow travelers.

Many of my 6,274 posts (plus all the deleted ones, plus the ones I never got to post) are some form of rebuttal to some of the worst of your partisan claptrap. The best lie is to tell the truth, just be extremely selective and don't tell the whole truth. So, we have some idiots on our side. This is true, but to seek out, selectively and to go on incessantly about the weakest on our side just somehow infuriates me. The thread about the raving idiot who ran and lost in a Republican primary for a county treasurer's seat was the most blinding example of your selective partisanship.

David G
09-20-2010, 09:45 AM
Paul Oman - 1,302 posts.
Norman Bernstein - 24,076 posts. After all his partisan claptrap, he now has to go to some effort to indicate he's posting "non-politically." Well over half of Norman's posts are to point out some of the more idiotic members of the Republican party, and we have, so unfortunately for conservatives, our fair share of idiots. Paul may throw out a "carpet bomb" but Norman is salting the earth with radioactive poisoning after nuclear carpet bombing. But that's O.K., isn't it?

I won't even get into ljb5's 14,564 posts dripping with ugly sarcasm disparaging any attempt by conservatives to join the dialogue. But that's O.K., isn't it?

Milo,

You may have noticed along the way that I sometimes correct Norm, sometimes question Norm, sometimes argue with Norm, and have even chastised him when it seemed he was going hyperbolic (as he does at times). But comparing Norm to Oman is laughable.

While Norm is fairly consistently partisan, he is usually on target with the facts... or within close reaching distance. He thinks about what he writes. He often allows as how there might be other interpretations. Oman is fairly consistent in posting a steady diet of misinformation and disinformation. He doesn't appear to think about what he posts. There have been a number of times that I'm not sure he even read the original article or whatever he is referring to.

Paul Girouard
09-20-2010, 09:52 AM
Typical. Yawn.

Paul Girouard
09-20-2010, 10:02 AM
I find Paul O. somewhat distressing at times, and while your mileage obviously varies I don't see much difference between him and some of our left leaning bomb throwers except a little less luster and polish on Paul's part.



Give-um a 20K or so more posts and he might equal Norm's proficiency! Norm has proven a turd can be polished!

David G
09-20-2010, 10:19 AM
Give-um a 20K or so more posts and he might equal Norm's proficiency! Norm has proven a turd can be polished!

Now that's funny. Rude AND incisive. You might just have a point. Part of my perceptions of Norm and Oman might have to do with the more 'polished' presentation by Norm. I'm not convinced, but at least you're offering a plausible argument. Something the Oman seems incapable of. The facts really DO matter.

Phillip Allen
09-20-2010, 10:25 AM
I used to work for a guy who sat down and wrote a 32 bit operating system while DOS was still in widespread use. He liked to say that if you had an infinite number of monkeys attempting to hump an infinite number of footballs, one of them would succeed. But all you get out of that exercise is a monkey humped football..... :)

The only time Paul O has really distressed me was something about some poster having a heart attack. Uncool in my book, his mileage obviously varied on that one.

I don't know how you can say Norm is so much closer to the truth when we are talking about opinions. They are beliefs, true to those who hold them. I am sure that Norm believes what he says he believes, are we to believe that Mr. Oman doesn't?

Highly confusing if you ponder it long enough, or crystal clear when you realise that folks may tend to be intolerably tied to their beliefs even to the point of displaying animus to those who hold different beliefs ( which under the classic definition of the word means you can't possibly be a liberal under those conditions... irony abounds) .

We may have uncovered yet another truth here, even a polished turd is still fecal in nature. :)

sometimes there are some really entertaining comments down here in the reek :)

David G
09-20-2010, 10:41 AM
David, I see Norman posting lots and lost of c&p, that's parroting, not being thoughtful. I have caught him dead wrong on facts, he'll just attack the messenger, being mature enough to admit being dead wrong? Not so much..

Sometimes, like in his recent thread "The Delaware Dillema" Norm does his own thinking and a good job of it, but endless C&P does not equal thoughtful writing.

I find Paul O. somewhat distressing at times, and while your mileage obviously varies I don't see much difference between him and some of our left leaning bomb throwers except a little less luster and polish on Paul's part.

p'dog,

I've seen Norm cornered and defensive too. It's not a pretty sight. It's a negligible proportion of his contribution, though - unlike the Oman posts I was objecting to, which comprise the bulk of his Bilge work.

We really don't have any left-wing 'bomb throwers' here in the Bilge. As I mentioned above, I'm acquainted with a few in other venues, and engage them in political discourse on occasion. We have nothing here that is comparable.

Again... I ask you to hearken back to the facts. The lefties here are not so demented as to post a constant stream of misinformation and disinformation. This is what the Oman does. This is what the lefties I mention above also do. They can twist any bit of information, and sift it swiftly to glean the nuggets that support their world-view. We really don't seem to have any such True Believers - on the liberal side - here in the Bilge. Very partisan... yes. But very partisan is not what I'm objecting to.

I'm not gonna call out anyone on either side just for holding strong beliefs. If you're a Socialist, I can still converse with you. If you're a Libertarian, there's no reason we can't discuss the issues reasonably. But... if you're a True Believer of any stripe, if you're incapable judging the factual nature of something - whether it fits your bias or not, if you're too busy trying to defend your illogical and incoherent arguments to listen to your opponent, and if you can't welcome new information and adjust your world-view accordingly... then I'm not gonna have much patience for you. I might eventually even get irritated enough to call you out in public.

Seeing your reply to Norm - I'll add a bit more. You're trying to hang your hat on the notion of interpretation. You're right, as far as it goes. We can certainly take the same set of FACTS and come to different conclusions. But I'm not objecting to a simple interpretation. I'm objecting to the presentation of information that is incorrect. I'm objecting to the deliberate reporting of (as discussed above) carefully selected bits of fact so as to mislead. Mr. Oman has been outed multiple times attempting this thinly veiled manipulation. If he were wrong on occasion - as we all are - I would have no beef. When he is so frequently wrong, and so obviously trying to propagandize, and so idiotically unrepentant - I say BS.

David G
09-20-2010, 11:15 AM
Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting that selective facts are false. I DO suggest they are disingenuous, if they, intentionally or not, would lead someone to a false conclusion. That's not the same as a lie... but it's not the full truth, either.

I would call that a lie. It may not be a Bald Faced lie, but lying by omission is still a lie. The distinction that is more important to me is intent. You can be incorrect because you made a mistake. I might, then, point out what I see as a mistake. You can be incorrect because you're trying to deceive me. I might, then, call you a liar. You might be the sort of fool that somehow manages to incorporate both modes into your repertoire. I might, then, call you an Oman. BTW - that last insult was not completely gratuitous. It was a hint that I'm pretty disgusted with his act, and less than impressed with his various apologists.

PhaseLockedLoop
09-20-2010, 12:09 PM
Again, I dunno. I found Oman's post interesting, because I, and lots of the democrats I know, am so disgusted with Obama that we wouldn't vote for him again--or so we think at the moment. On this not-so-vast sampling, Oman's post was plausible to me--a careless and thoroughly uninformed reading on my part. The corrective action of his detractors tamped down my initial lazy reaction, and I find that useful. What I really hate is the claptrap ladled out by TV people and lecturers, where blatant idiocies are not subject to response. So I'm all for exposing popular but witless twists of meaning to corrective action. Granted, my exposure to Oman's posts is relatively recent. I suppose I could get exasperated eventually.

oznabrag
09-20-2010, 06:57 PM
Now... based upon my lengthy rant... what do you think my objection is?

Prolly the same thing it has always been: the Right wing are ignorant and it is too bad they are not smart enough to REALLY understand what WE smart people of he left know...Oh ,if only the right wing folks could only comprehend that which we ,the truly brilliant know... That is what you think


Psssst... Don't look now, but your low self-esteem is showing.