2009-4-6 16:21:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group.]
JJ:
Richard Nourse repeats hearsay propaganda that Limbaugh and Republicans want Obama to fail. Rush qualified this saying that he wanted Obama to fail at establishing a socialist government. Anyone who supports the founding principles of this country does not want the creation of a socialistic all-powerful state so this is far from an extreme position.
On the other hand, a poll taken in August 2006 showed that 51% of Democrats wanted Bush to fail. This was not qualified as was Rush's statement. The majority of Democrats wanted Bush to just point blank fail, but they had no problem with that because Bush was a Republican. It's all right to want Republicans to fail all around, but it is not all right to want Obama to fail in a specific area that will weaken the country.
Do I smell hypocrisy here?
Also Bush's spending on Iraq of around $140 billion a year is peanuts compared to $3.7 trillion in Obama's first term. Bush was just "Obama-light," or you could say Obama is Bush on steroids as far as spending is concerned?
"Grandjester" wrote:
"He said it. His own words. 'I WANT him to fail,' that emphasis is not mine, it's his. Not his polices, not his programs, not his philosophy. In the original interview that is what Limbaugh said. His later qualifiers are just more spin..."
JJ:
First, Rush did not say "WANT" in capital letters. How do you do that in an interview anyway?
I saw the original interview and he qualified that statement in that interview. Rush has clearly explained what he means every time he has said this so why do the Democrats insist on purporting something that is blatantly false? In doing so they are either dishonest or just brain dead.
I like a good argument, but I like to stick to the facts, logic and reason. It's the difference between enjoying a fair fight and one that is rigged.
The fact that the poll mentioned was taken during a period that our troops were in danger makes the 51% Democratic wish for failure even more disgusting.
"Btr929" wrote:
"Let's see -- the source of that so-called poll was Fox -- not exactly a neutral or reliable source."
JJ:
Typical emotional reaction. Reject data because of pure lower emotional reaction rather than examine the data. Fox News polls are conducted by an independent company and are as reliable as that of any other network. They often favor the liberal slant.
If a conservative were to reject a CNN or New York Times poll just because it came from them they would be joining the unthinking who are asleep while their eyes are open staring at a computer screen.
I am sure they exist somewhere, but I have never seen someone on the Right reject data just because it comes from CNN.
Data is data, but to the Left only "feel good" data is data.
A Democrat is a Democrat whether asked a question by Fox News or Mickey Mouse.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"Actually, 'data' is plural, but data are data, provided they actually ARE data as opposed to made up or misrepresented 'facts.'"
JJ:
Grammatically, if the word "data" can be replaced with the word "information," it is correct to use a singular verb. You say "information is" not "information are." Therefore, I was correct is saying "data is." You are stuck in 19th century grammar here.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Polls show that the American people overwhelming support and trust our President, that the polls have jumped 20% in approval for congressional Democrats and that polls indicate that both that legalization of pot and Chinese Communists are more popular than ANY top Republican, including Jabba Limbaugh, perhaps you need to re-think your position. Since 'data is data' after all."
JJ:
What an illogical argument. A poll does not tell us if opinion is right or wrong. It merely reflects opinion, which can be right or wrong.
Duh...
"Grandjester" wrote:
"You can't have it both ways, either polls are true reflections of reality and we must accept them all OR polls are products of their creators with the inherent biases based on the line of questioning."
JJ:
Any logical person will accept a poll within the margin or error. Of course, one must examine the questions to see what was actually polled.
You seem to think that if a poll gives an opinion then that opinion is true.
So before the war in Iraq Bush had over 80% approval rating and over 70% of Americans thought it was right to go to war.
By your reasoning then you should be thinking Bush was right to do this.
Before we entered World War Two, 90% of the public thought we should not take out Hitler. By your reasoning we should have left Hitler alone.
Obama's current poll ratings are the same as was that of Bush this far into the presidency. By your reasoning then the two men are of equal quality as presidents.
Can you not see the flaw in your reasoning here? The data involved in formulating what is public opinion does not make public opinion correct.
If you cannot see this then I cannot help you.
Sigh...
JJ:
Concerning the Fairness Doctrine -- We should either do nothing, or pass clarifying legislation preventing it from ever being thought of again.
The first Amendment of free speech is our most sacred right and those who support tyranny always want to meddle with it.
Pelosi and Reed are not happy that the Left dominates all television, but Fox. In addition they dominate 90% of newspapers, Hollywood and indoctrination through college professors and many teachers. The Right dominates in one single medium -- radio; and this infuriates them for they do not want both sides discussed, but one view only.
The Fairness Doctrine will bring such hassles and fear of prosecution or lawsuits to station owners that they most likely will shut down "talk" altogether.
Our tax dollars are already financing liberal radio by paying for NPR (National Public Radio). If that is not enough advantage for Democrats then they should read some books, feed their minds and become more interesting as talk radio hosts. There's more to talk than declaring they hate Bush.
JJ:
Good letter on the salmon recovery Mr. Howard. I wish the Statesman had published your full views on the matter.
It is so ironical that the same ones who cry that we should breach the dams, and refuse to consider other available solutions for saving the salmon, are demanding we cut carbon dioxide emissions to save, not the salmon, but the planet.
These misled environmentalists want to destroy our two viable sources of carbon free energy -- dams and nuclear. These two sources have saved many times more carbon dioxide emissions than all other sources of clean energy put together.
Do the environmentalists really want to cut carbon dioxide emissions or is there another agenda?
Quoting JJ, "TWall" wrote:
"'The first Amendment of free speech is our most sacred right and those who support tyranny always want to meddle with it.'"
"TWall" then continued with:
"Did you happen to read the story about Cheney's memo's yesterday Joe? He says in them that it's okay for the government to suppress 1st Amendment rights, it's okay to detain US citizens for no reason, and it's okay to illegally tap phones."
JJ:
Why don't you give the quote rather than a complete distortion that doesn't resemble the original?
I've never heard Cheney say anything about suppressing 1st Amendment rights.
There and many times more US citizens retained and suffering unjustly for traffic violations than through Bush's war on terror. Even though thousands of times more people suffer because of traffic cops -- this is fine with you while much higher things are at stake in dealing with potential terrorists.
In the Bush administration the phone tapping was to look for terrorists through tapping suspected international calls. If you are a citizen your chances of being overheard is one in many millions. Oh-h-h-h-h -- that's so scary...
Is my free speech restricted? No.
I'm not sure we can say the same for the Obama administration though. And to say that Rush takes away free speech because he wants Republicans to win elections is warped thinking beyond belief. Flash! -- Obama also wants to win elections.
"Brt929" wrote:
"Look at you Joseph, you have memorized those Rumbaugh talking points- ever have an original thought?"
JJ:
I have thousands of original thoughts and ideas not related to Rush posted at my web site in over 4300 original articles and a number of books. (http://www.freeread.com)
How many original thoughts do you have where you are not attacking conservatives?
"Brt929":
"Did you know this Joseph? That exit polls reveal that liberals are better educated than conservatives? Only 46% of Republicans have a college degree, while 53% of Democrats have a college degree or higher."
JJ:
That's not saying much. Ever watch those Jay Leno "man on the street" interviews? Most of them are Democrats who have a college education and they don't know who the Vice President is or who controls Congress and many other simple pieces of knowledge.
According to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and "more knowledgeable about politics and social issues" than the average voter.
Democrat pollster John Zogby obtained some interesting results from Obama voters:
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls Congress (50/50 shot just by guessing).
And yet...
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey from "Saturday Night Live" who said that!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 of 12 questions correct.
See full results at:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
"TWall" says:
"Rush said his idea of bipartisanship is FORCING the other side to his way of thinking by winning elections. That suppresses the 1st amendment rights of dissenters because their opinion is worth nothing to him."
JJ:
Whoever wins the elections forces the other side to do things their way. That's always been the American way. This doesn't take away free speech. Where do you get such insane ideas that have no basis in reality?
You can't find one statement in his millions of words spoken in over 20 years that indicate any desire to take away free speech.
I know you hate Rush, but you should hate him for what he believes -- not for what he does not believe.
"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest."
-- Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved