I don't know that there is an issue - that was my original point. She seemed to think there was and so did the other person who was "creeped out" by "it." I really didn't get what she was referring to. I shared the article, thats all.

Either way, its better than talking about non-existent death squads... :p

just cuz you can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Erm... that would be awkward. Somehow. I think. If I go and dig through the posts of Nov '08, I can find the exact post, I'm sure.

I thought his speech was quite... Presidential. He spoke much better than Bush ever could. I am not sure it really changed anyone's mind about the issues at hand.

I heard a poll on the radio that showed a dramatic change - 67% supporting him. That won't last, but some amount of improvement probably will.

But I doubt he changed many congressional minds.

I think this is from a partisan site, but I only did a quick google search.

And it was a poll based on 427 Adults. :lol2:

Well that and ...

I'm guessing that you are not familiar with surveys and statistics. For the given sample size the margin of error is ~4.5%. Acceptable for a quick poll.

Major surveys typically use a sample size of ~ 1000. However that only reduces the margin to ~3.2 percent.

Ohhh noooooo - Merc doesn't believe in polls - don't get that started again!

I am quite familar with the statistical strenght of and validity of polling. It is the weakest form of any statistical measure and means absolutely nothing because the majority are not measuring an adequate sample. There are numerous other weaknesses but I will spare you.

I see. You know better than the industry standards. Uh-huh.

lol - told ya that was coming - HAGGIS!

If I want to dig any deeper into polling and statistics, I will walk down the hall and talk to any of the statistics doctorates we have here.

(If that allows any of you to guess where I work, be advised that I do not speak for the company I work for, and my opinions are my own.)

You called it.

Perhaps it comes from Merc's years of professional experience working for political strategy consultants or private sector market research companies....where polling is a proven and effective tool among many such tools to gather and/or assess public opinion.

Oh wait...Merc has never worked in those fields, has he?

Nope, but I know how those who have want to convince others and the masses that they have validity which they do not. Some call it marketing, others call it push advertising or lobbying. But then again I don't deal with trying to manipulate the system for special interest groups either. I treat them all the same, just like shit.

There is a huge difference between push polls (Karl Rove was an expert with those) and statistically sampled public opinion polls, with the questions validated for bias in advance, and accounted for in the results.

When you have experience with using valid public opinions polls created by professionals....and see the value....get back to me.

The only point I would concede is that with most of the media polls, they only share the numbers and not the pages of analysis that accompany those numbers and address the biases in both questions and respondents.

Anyone with a simplistic understanding of statistical measure understand the weakness of polling as having the weakest form of validity. Anyone can study the history of manipulation of media, advertising, or study any miriad of historical examples of the use of polling to sway public opinion and the underbelly of the beast is exposed. So you admit to being part of it, good on you for having the balls to admit that you are part of the BS lies. Congrats.

yep...I just have a simplistic understanding of political polling, having studied the subject, worked in the field and seen its value firsthand..but you are the man who knows better!

Congrats! I aspire to your greatness and your all encompassing knowledge!

I like that line

Thank you.

Some types have been around forever. From the Book of Job:

"Oh yes. All wisdom will die with you." (Job speaking to some other know-it-all)

I would never say I was a "know-it-all". About anything.

:eek: I can't believe you actually said that! :eek:

You think? the fact that they called it "ObamaCare" should have been a clue...

After reading the posts since the last time I time I was here, I stand by my assertion that a LOT of the negative stuff out there is coming from a place of racism. There are a lot of people in this country who are not comfortable having a black man in charge. And they are willing to start a fucking violent revolution and overthrow the government in order to prove it. Anyone who doesn't see it is IMO very naive.

It was reported on the news that Obama has had more death threats than any president, EVER, in the history of this country. That cannot just be a coincidence.

And the sad thing is, some politicians are fueling the flames with their rhetoric, legitimizing the nonsense. All the talk of seccesion, and death panels, and socialism, it is ridiculous coming from politicans. It seems that now it is OK for a politician to talk in such extremes to call the lunatics into play. I wonder how they would feel if the president was assassinated because of their legitimizing the whacko extremists?

http://www.truthout.org/091209E
"...Potok says that beyond the usual backlash against immigration, hate and militia groups have been reenergized by the economic crisis, the ascendancy of a progressive agenda on Capitol Hill, and the election of the first African American president. The day after Obama was elected, activity surged on hate sites across the Web and several prominent white supremacist groups saw a spike in membership requests.

Taken together, the factors amount to what experts call a "perfect storm" for extremism to blossom. Meanwhile, Potok says the barrier between the white nationalist movement and traditionally less racist elements of the radical right is beginning to recede, leading to more collaboration between the groups.

"In a sense there are distinct aspects of the radical right and the more nonracial part of the radical right, the patriot movement or militia movement, you couldn't fairly describe it as a white supremacist or white nationalist movement," said Potok. "Yet the militia movement as it is reemerging is more racialized than it used to be."

Potok says the radicalization of the health-care debate, characterized by widely exaggerated claims and attempts to paint the president as a socialist, is only making things worse.

"These kind of ideas are getting mainstreamed in many cases by people in positions of real authority," he said. "I think that mainstream politicians and cable news commentators have contributed in a really vile and shameful way."

Bull shit. I don't believe that one minute. Some? Sure. The majority? Hell no. It is about the issues. I think he is very presidential and doing a great job of representing the office. I just don't agree with many of his socialist ideals. I could care less if he was a Martian.

IT will for ever be known as ObamaCare. Forever, failure or success. So far I see nothing but complete failure in the plan.

I never used the word polls.

Then I guess I also have to stand by my thought when you were here before: you are fucking koolaid drinking imbecile. It is quite possible for a large number of Americans to have a variety of reasons (some valid, some pretty stupid) for disliking the President and/or his policies without racism being a major factor.

NPR did a race story this morning. There is a racial component but the ugly rhetoric is in line with what Clinton and Bush got. NPR mentioned the showing up armed at Presidential events thing which is a huge increase in the threatening posture but failed to mention that one of the best armed nutters was a black man. It is more party politics than race but both sides will use race to hold the creepy base. The part that to me seems most racially focused is the kooky citizenship nonsense.

Race is the most easy to grasp tool the politicians use to separate us from each other. Some people are more susceptible to the idiocy than others.

A fair statement. The Race Card being thrown is nothing more than a Strawman by those who support the changes. Nice try, but that dog "Won't Hunt" (Bill Clinton).

He is not a socialist. People throw that word around without any regard for what it really means.

The fact that so many people believe he isn't American (the birthers), or that he is Muslim, just proves that people will say and believe anything, no matter how much it is disproved. Do you honestly think people would be reacting the same way if Hillary had won? I doubt it. But all the ridiculous talk, by supposed "legitimate" people, is not helping. They should be debating what is actually IN THE BILLS they disagree with, instead of being completely disrespectful and spreading lies and fear and talking about secession and invoking the tenth ammendment, if they want to be taken seriously. Oh, and they should be telling people to STOP showing up with GUNS where the President is speaking.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former President Jimmy Carter said he has been extremely bothered by the heightened climate of racial and other hate speech since the election of President Barack Obama. Go to following link to watch.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...nst_obama.html

I know what it means, many of his policy proposals reflect it.


I don't believe any of that.

No, and I could give a shit because that bitch lost and I am glad for that much. I would take Obama over her anyday.

Yea, that IS what I am trying to do.

I could care less about that BS.

Yea, tell those black men to stop showing up with their guns.


I could give a shit about what Carter says about anything. I mean really. He is just supporting his base. Feeling bad for his ancestors who owned slaves. I have very little interest in much of what he has to say.

ftr, I did not say ALL OF IT was racially motivated, I said I thought A LOT OF IT was. I stand by that. If we had a white man doing the same things, I feel quite certain the temperament would not be as bad as it is.

My brother (the conservative one) has been sending me emails about all the bailouts Obama started. But most of the bailouts were started by Bush, something that is lost on many people who are crying about Obama's socialism. In addition, many of them are now claiming the recession is Obama's fault, even though it began BEFORE he was even elected! And this brother of mine is not stupid, even though it he is acting stupid by sending this crap out and thereby helping to facilitate the nonsense. I do believe he is racist, even though I don't believe he knows he is. He is a "polite" racist. He has racist tendencies, but he isn't aware of them.

In addition, Obama is doing exactly what he campaigned on. He campaigned on health care reform, green energy and education reform. He tied health care to the economy, as he should. He won by a huge majority. Because he won with such a large majority, I think he is caving in WAY too much to the right. He should be trying to get single payer, but instead, it looks like we might not even get a public option now. He is trying WAY too hard to please the people who will never vote with him, and who LOST. *sigh*

And you, sir, are a complete asshole.

More BS. Very little of it is. It is fearmongering by the Left to make associations that don't exist and to demonize the opposition.

Not important to the greater discussion. Sorry you think your brother is a racist for opposing Obama.

I don't think he's racist for opposing Obama, I think he's racist for other reasons. And as I said, I don't think he believes he is. But, he is.

[quote=sugarpop;595099]


At least you admit to the socialist agenda. I will give you that much.


It proves nothing of the sort.


But yet you want to make a big deal out of 2 incidents from all of his numerous speaking events. This ain't Disney Land.


Sure, just like he knows Porn when he sees it. He is still a dick.

[quote=TheMercenary;595104]I find it hard to believe that you think it is OK to go where the president, ANY PRESIDENT, is going to be while carrying a weapon. I can only imagine what would have happened if a liberal had tried to do that when Bush was president. Really. People were being arrested for their fucking T-SHIRTS when Bush was prez.


whateveh. So are you. (I still love you though. *smooch*)

Here here! and to legitimatize the "Race Card" or to disregard any criticisms simply because of race is dishonest, disrespectful and pure partisan politics. Who is it that keeps bringing up race again? Oh thats right, the D's. and Rachael Maddow. :vomit:
Example ... sugarpop
IS this something new? Were there changes in the laws? Did Obama or the house suddenly allow people to carry guns to Presidential events? ... whats that? no? Oh, then shut up.

I knew sooner or later he would say something that wasn't completely obtuse.

As far as I know, it IS something new. Just because there isn't a law against it doesn't make it less disturbing. Considering the range of modern handguns, having them that close is tempting fate.

I agree with Sugarpop that during the last administration there were crackdowns on protesters based on the signs/t-shirts they had with them. Why do we feel safe to put time and place restrictions on the First Amendment and have none on the Second Amendment? I we can have 'free speech' zones miles away from events, why can't we have 'open carry' zones out of gunshot? Noone ever got killed by being yelled at, but we've 3 attempts on presidents since Kennedy.

Well, he also said Kanye West is a jackass. :lol2: I thought that was GREAT!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_286623.html

Oh yeah.... I forgot about that one.

I like it that he's willing to criticize his supporters when they deserve it. I'm looking at the Republicans kissing Beck's and Limbaugh's asses when they step over the line. Kissing? It's more like licking.

It's funny that the coverage has moved to Beck since Limbaugh is not extreme enough anymore. If the progression moves any farther forward, the eventual GOP spokesperson will be covered in shit and speaking in tongues.

Boy and those attempts were by who? The radical right? :headshake

Thats only the extreme right and that is certainly not most R's.

The coverage is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. I didn't realize you were that gullible.

Its how all the Republicans I know are. They're still dangerous and have influence, you can't dismiss them because "its only the extreme right." Because either it isn't, or they have a disproportional amount of pull.

Anti-Americanism: Alive and Well in the Age of Obama

Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. What's going on?

http://www.american.com/archive/2009...e-age-of-obama

Uh OH...a poll?

I posted the same Pew study elsewhere.

The image of the US as a whole has not changed much (marginally more favorable) in Muslim countries in the last year. Perhaps the lack of change in the US favorability ratings as a whole (as opposed to the ratings of the president) is due, to some degree, to such things as deeply held resentments still lingering from the invasion/occupation of Iraq and the treatment of detainees, anti-Muslim signs during and after the campaign, and anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed on Beck/Limbaugh, etc. that are still a staple of some (not all) on the far right. But it probably stems more from the fact that across the US, the public has always (and will continue to) strongly support Israel's right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors.

What the AEI article failed to mention was the other poll that was part of the same Pew study....the perception and confidence of the US president as a world leader:

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1289-2.gif

Significantly higher confidence in Obama among the Muslim nations - Egypt (+31), Jordan (+24), Lebanon (+13), Palestinian Territories (+15), Pakistan (+6), Indonesia (+48)

:lol:

:mock:

You obviously failed to read to the end of the article, and hence the point of it. This is like shooting Redux Fish in a barrel.:rolleyes:

:mock:

:p

I read it and recognize that the American Enterprise Institute has a neo-con agenda that runs counter to the Pew study...and that many AEI scholars and fellows had formal roles in the Bush administration, including guys like Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowicz (who were principle architects of Bush's Iraq policy) and others like Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton and Lynn Chaney.
Is it any wonder that they might want to defend the Bush foreign policy (ie their own policy advice) and the Bush/Cheney legacy...right or wrong?

You made it clear in other discussions that you dont really care what others outside our border think about the US ("not one fucking bit") I think its important as long as it does not adversely impact the policy making process and the US national interests.

Again, we have different perspectives. I can accept that without making it personal. Can you?