Slashdot Mirror


Daily Kos Pollster Made Up Numbers

jamie found a story up on Daily Kos revealing that the polling firm they had contracted with for 18 months, Research 2000 or R2K, apparently made up or at least manually tweaked its polling results. The blog published a preliminary report by a team of statistics gurus (Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman), and it is an exemplar of clarity and concision. The team reports, "We do not know exactly how the weekly R2K results were created, but we are confident they could not accurately describe random polls." Daily Kos will be filing a lawsuit against its former pollster. "For the past year and a half, Daily Kos has been featuring weekly poll results from the Research 2000 (R2K) organization. These polls were often praised for their 'transparency,' since they included detailed cross-tabs on sub-populations and a clear description of the random dialing technique. However, on June 6, 2010, FiveThirtyEight.com rated R2K as among the least accurate pollsters in predicting election results. Daily Kos then terminated the relationship. One of us (MG) wondered if odd patterns he had noticed in R2K's reports might be connected with R2K's mediocre track record, prompting our investigation of whether the reports could represent proper random polling. ... This posting is a careful initial report of our findings, not intended to be a full formal analysis but rather to alert people not to rely on R2K's results."

546 comments

  1. To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate.

    It would be like trusting Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or anything ever aired on "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

    1. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate.

      Only if you're fond of false equivalencies, or an Obama fanboy. Of which there definitely are some on Dkos, but you'll also find liberals complaining about Obama placing U.S. citizens on CIA hitlists - something you wont find from the teabaggers.

    2. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Who marked the parent troll? There are a glut of self serving, biased, and (imo) worthless news outlets in the US, and every one mentioned in the parent post should be on it. It's incomplete, but hardly a 'troll'.

    3. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ..."Air America" before it went bankrupt.

      Financially or intellectually bankrupt?

    4. Re:To be fair... by RingDev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      [quote]or anything ever aired on "Air America" before it went bankrupt.[/quote]

      I actually liked Rachel Meadow on Air America. Every night she would give the daily death tolls from Iraq and Afghanistan. Something that no other news/talking head program that I have been able to find on my radio dial does. The rest of the line up was pretty 'meh' though.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    5. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They started with the second, the first was only a matter of time.

      Any more billionaires in line to pay for an industry that can't to support itself... Uhh, disregard the reports from France.

    6. Re:To be fair... by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is also a glut of self serving, biased, and unqualified people with mod points at Slashdot. The troll mods around these parts are out of fucking control There really needs to be a more effective check on that, or Slashdot will continue its long slow slide toward a Usenet / Digg / YouTubeComments quality of discussion.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    7. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps you misread the summary? The Daily Kos is not at fault here.

    8. Re:To be fair... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I do. And now They're suing the pants off of R2K.

      If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up and blame the "liberal media"(whatever the hell THAT is) for any accusations that they did something wrong.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    9. Re:To be fair... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Somebody really fucked up the metamoderation. I used to metamoderate all the time when you had to rate moderations as fair, unfair, or neutral. I thought that worked pretty well, but now metamoderation is an up or down vote, and worst of all, by doing so you have tagged the post and it shows up on your damn profile page! I only made that mistake once, and I'm not metamoderating again until that goes away. I don't want my profile page cluttered with random posts from other people.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    10. Re:To be fair... by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First one, then the other.

    11. Re:To be fair... by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      /. moderation is srsbzns XD

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:To be fair... by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I do. And now They're suing the pants off of R2K.

      If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up and blame the "liberal media"(whatever the hell THAT is) for any accusations that they did something wrong.

      I doubt they would have questioned the results to begin with, much less investigated...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re:To be fair... by ccarson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if she still does that at the beginning of her program? It seemed that when Bush was in office, the left screamed bloody murder when it came to the war(s). Now that their guy is in office, you can hear chirping from crickets.

    14. Re:To be fair... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Since even Slashdot carries a cross-section of population we probably have our share of murderers, religious fanatics, spammers, hardrockers, hells angels, priests and shamans here too. And some of them doesn't like truth so they try to gain cred and then mod down the truth.

      That's why there is this "browse at -1" recommendation when you do the moderation.

      As for polls - you will always get a flawed poll since some people aren't truthful or are just hanging up on the pollers. And then there are some people that are answering truthfully but then never goes to the election.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      teabaggers

      And thus you lose all credibility. Try again next time.

    16. Re:To be fair... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      This, exactly.

      Daily Kos' response to this was to post exactly how they knew that R2K was making stuff up, retract anything based on their numbers, and send the lawyers after R2K for fraud.

    17. Re:To be fair... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      As for polls - you will always get a flawed poll since some people aren't truthful or are just hanging up on the pollers. And then there are some people that are answering truthfully but then never goes to the election.

      Of course, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is R2K's survey data appears to have been altered or fabricated by the pollster themselves.

    18. Re:To be fair... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They hired the pollsters,put their imprimatur on the results, and published them, so yes they are at least partially at fault.

    19. Re:To be fair... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate. It would be like trusting Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or anything ever aired on "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

      On matters of fact, they're pretty scrupulous, especially when it comes to owning up to their own mistakes, like hiring R2K.

      On matters of opinion and ideology, well, it's a political blog. What exactly is an "accurate" opinion?

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    20. Re:To be fair... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Since even Slashdot carries a cross-section of population we probably have our share of murderers, religious fanatics, spammers, hardrockers, hells angels, priests and shamans here too. And some of them doesn't like truth so they try to gain cred and then mod down the truth.

      Murderers? Yup.

      I'll leave the rest of the scavenger hunt for others. ;)

    21. Re:To be fair... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      I guess the PBS News Hour doesnt count?

      They do it every single day at the end of the program.

    22. Re:To be fair... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Funny

      On matters of opinion and ideology, well, it's a political blog. What exactly is an "accurate" opinion?

      "Mine."

    23. Re:To be fair... by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Only if you're fond of false equivalencies, or an Obama fanboy. Of which there definitely are some on Dkos..."

      Some? Get real. The agenda on DKos is Liberalism, pure and simple. Its says so right on the front page. If you want a politically left view point, then DKos is for you. If want a right, then its Limbaugh. If you want pure news with out a slant... well, I guess you're SOL.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    24. Re:To be fair... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if she still does that at the beginning of her program? It seemed that when Bush was in office, the left screamed bloody murder when it came to the war(s). Now that their guy is in office, you can hear chirping from crickets.

      She doesn't do that on her tv show on MSNBC, but she goes after Obama all the time on lots of other stuff, as does Keither Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. To think that 'the left' doesn't go after Obama for anything is to completely ignore some of the biggest names of the left media. Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election.

    25. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are disappointed by liars.

      No, the difference between liberals and conservatives is which liars disappoint them. They're both disappointed by somebody they're paying to get an accurate snapshot of the zeitgeist lies to them. But which politicians lying piss them off depends on which side of the aisle they sit on.

    26. Re:To be fair... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Just saying that polls are crap regardless of if they are fabricated or real.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    27. Re:To be fair... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, Rush is pretty accurate. He's just (admittedly) biased. It's the bias that gets you - what he's typically saying is not factually inaccurate.

      If he were publishing statistics, on the other hand, the bias would be a problem. Thus the Daily Kos credibility comes into question...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    28. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Some? Get real.

      The subject was accuracy, remember? Get reading comprehension.

    29. Re:To be fair... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      She doesn't give death counts every show, but if you think she's giving Obama a pass on the wars, you clearly don't watch her show.

      For example, she's constantly berating the administration for escalating in Afghanistan. Heck, she has a "This way out???" graphic she slaps up over every Afghanistan story.

    30. Re:To be fair... by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      Or Fox News:

      Worst Chart I've Seen All Day

      I'm proud of myself. I managed to resist calling it Faux News!

    31. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Olbermann continued to close his show with the number of days since "Mission Accomplished" right up until a month or so ago, when he switched to the number of days since the deepwater horizon leak started. Much of the left does not pull punches against Obama for taking his time extracting us from these debacles.

      The far left idealists can get quite heated against Obama. Me, all I have to do is imagine how McCain would have responded, then after I've wiped off all the cold sweat and stopped gritting my teeth, I have no regrets about 08.

    32. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up and blame the "liberal media"(whatever the hell THAT is) for any accusations that they did something wrong.

      Instead, there will be no need to cover it up because it will barely be reported at all anyway (except perhaps on Fox). THAT is the definition of the "liberal media". It's all about selective reporting and tone. If you didn't even KNOW that most news organizations lean left (some blatantly so)... you need to widen your political horizons.

    33. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They explain the criteria by which they selected R2K, and it seemed fine. (RTFA)

      That they caught R2K at this, and were willing to expose it, while other polls have also exhibited some of these patterns and continued to be used by their clients, says more good things about dkos than bad.

    34. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    35. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      If you had an educated mind, you would have noticed I didn't make any.

    36. Re:To be fair... by swalker42 · · Score: 1

      well.. +2 for informative, thanks for the lead

      --
      You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
    37. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      ...but you'll also find liberals complaining about Obama placing U.S. citizens on CIA hitlists - something you wont find from the teabaggers.

      Isn't Obama going all Hitler-style on U.S. citizens all you hear from the teabaggers? Besides taxes, taxes, taxes, of course.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    38. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Obama is certainly a liberal. He's simply not doing all the things the liberals who supported and elected him want. As to why, my guesses boil down to:
      • He got into the Oval office and realized that things aren't as simple as he previously thought. A lot of his foreign policy falls into this one. Eg, what to do with Gitmo detainees, or how to pull out of a war zone without making things worse. How to "engage" with ass-backwards countries like Iran.
      • He hasn't gotten around to it yet. Spending enormous amounts of political capital passing a kludged-together, loophole-filled healthcare bill has drained his ability to push other agenda items he wants. The situation in the Gulf of Mexico isn't helping either.
      • He liked how some things sounded during the election, but has since changed his mind.
      • He's a politician; of course he said what people wanted to hear in order to get elected.
      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    39. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      The agenda on DKos is Liberalism, pure and simple...If you want a politically left view point, then DKos is for you. If want a right, then its Limbaugh. If you want pure news with out a slant... well, I guess you're SOL.

      So nobody with a point of view has any accuracy? Automatically?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    40. Re:To be fair... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A+++ will agree again. My current hypothesis is that there is a bug in slashcode that just gives people the ability to mod 'troll'. Either that or everyone getting mod points is just extraordinarily sensitive about fucking everything.

      Maybe we need some sort of 'abuse bot' to check on the emotional stability of potential moderators.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    41. Re:To be fair... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol you have to admit it's still pretty hilarious.....DailyKos is always ragging on Rasmussen for being inaccurate, and it turns out Rasmussen is far more accurate than their polls. Arrogance returned FTFW!

      --
      Qxe4
    42. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, there is a HUGE fight ongoing at dkos between the Obamabots and the haters, as they refer to each other. It's hilarious. All the real liberals are pissed as fuck at Obama, because he's a conservative in lib clothing, and we all see that now. But on dkos, we see the equivalent of the Bushtards who approved of the dolt until the end. They can not own up to the fact that they were scammed, and so they will defend Obama to the death even as he bends them over the fence for his corporate masters.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    43. Re:To be fair... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Plus, now you are meta-moderating random comments. Before it was a list of comments that someone found interesting enough to give a mod point, either up or down. I used it as a way to read some interesting comments I might have missed in my normal reading pattern.

      Now I can't even make it through a single metamod session without dying of boredom.

      --
      Qxe4
    44. Re:To be fair... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I know 2/3 of the discretionary federal spending is on the military -- so who's wasting my tax money, again?

    45. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      If this was the National Review Online, or Free Republic, or what have you, there would be a huge push to cover this up

      So let me get your argument straight: You are using your own personal bias and speculation to invent a fictional situation; and then in that hypothetical, fictional situation, the news outlets that you disagree with would do something bad? And that excuses any culpability that DKos might have? Wow. That's all the proof I need ... (rolls eyes)

      Genius. There can be no defense against that, since you are making it up as you go.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    46. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to travel. What passes for centrist in this country, and much of what is called liberal by know-nothings, is considered rather right wing in most of the rest of the western world.

    47. Re:To be fair... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's basically the definition of "bias"
       
      You probably think Fox News' tagline "fair and accurate" is complete truth as well ;)
       
      .
       
      /I make no claim that the liberal media is any less biased

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    48. Re:To be fair... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see another poll, of both Fox News watchers and Daily Kos readers, with one question:

      "Do you know what a Gaussian is?"*

      Fox watchers don't even have the resources /to/ question the polling data.

    49. Re:To be fair... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Only Fox has a preconceived political narrative in mind when formulating stories.

      The rest of the media outlets are simply too lazy.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    50. Re:To be fair... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Left compared to what?

      Compared to most of the world CNN is center-right. Compared to the US as a whole they seem moderate. Compared to you they probably seem left.

    51. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I haven't had such a good laugh in ages. Limbaugh "factually accurate." Oh man I almost split my sides.

    52. Re:To be fair... by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Tea Party people use the term "Tea Partiers" to describe themselves. It was liberals in some media outlets that started to use the term "teabagger" as a snarky, derogatory comment. If you're going to try to sound smart, at least get your own facts straight first.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    53. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election.

      ...and as many others on the left knew long before the election.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    54. Re:To be fair... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Have you considered writing for The Daily Show? Or how can I subscribe to your newsletter?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    55. Re:To be fair... by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaha!! If I had mod points, you would certainly get some. Funniest post of the day.

    56. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who marked the parent troll?

      Probably somebody paying attention to Daily Kos' record. You show me the times and places they've been inaccurate. Note I didn't say biased, I said inaccurate. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make things up, they literally lie on air and in print, so throwing them together with Daily Kos, which at worst selectively covers stories that illustrate its world-view, is a troll-worthy attempt to muddy the waters for the benefit of right-wing hacks at the detriment of honest left-wing news outlets.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    57. Re:To be fair... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that is an inaccurate opinion.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    58. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong. Now that teabaggers know what the term means, they call themselves tea partiers. But back in the day, they carried teabags around and called themselves teabaggers.

      Here's an article backing up that fact, but I warn you, it is from that den of liberal iniquity, Billy Buckley's The National Review, so take it with the grain of salt that any reading of The National Review requires.

      http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    59. Re:To be fair... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election. ...and as many others on the left knew long before the election.

      True, and I knew that, too, but I didn't know he was going to go all 'Bush Lite' on so MANY issues.

    60. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Informative

      The snarky ad hominem bit was "teabagger". And don't pretend you didn't mean it that way.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    61. Re:To be fair... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not what he said. He didn't say 'Daily Kos is just as bad as tea-partiers.' He said, 'nobody expects the Daily Kos to be accurate.' Just as no one comes to Slashdot expecting good legal advice, no one goes to the Daily Kos expecting clear-minding political analysis. You go there because you want to see the liberal viewpoint, or for community. At least, that's why I go there. It is a liberal echo-chamber, much the same way Slashdot is an anti-copyright eco-chamber.

      Incidentally, if anyone is looking for the most hilariously brain-dead knee-jerk defensive post, check this out. He finds it easier to believe that the entire electoral system is wrong, rather than give up his faith in his favorite website. This despite the fact that that website has admitted it's a problem, and it's obviously not even the website's fault.

      --
      Qxe4
    62. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Those in the Tea Party never chose the name "teabagger". It was an ad-hominem smear by their opponents. Sort of like if Tea Party members called Democrats jackasses. (Hey, not their fault the Dems have a donkey for a symbol ...)

      The Tea Party is made up of lots of people who aren't well represented by the platforms of the two major parties. As such, it has become a place for people to gravitate to if they disagree with the establishment, which means that you have Intelligent Design wackos and Obama birth truthers lumped in with average joes who want good things like smaller government and lower taxes. "Teabagger" is a convenient derogatory term that lets the Tea Party's opponents pretend that they have nothing worth listening to.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    63. Re:To be fair... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, one of the first major actions of the movement was to send tea bags to congressmen as a stunt to try to claim lineage to the original tea party. They, actually, took the name "teabaggers" themselves. Some of them may have been too stupid to know what it really meant, but many knew and wanted it because they intended to "teabag them damn liberals" (I know, classy group of people aren't they). Now, the part of the movement with slightly more class/brains wants to act offended when they get called teabaggers. Sorry, you don't get to associate yourself with those kinds of people and then not have your credibility tarnished by their actions.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    64. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong.

      The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

      --
      http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    65. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of CAPTCHA we should have Freudian tests or something? It can't be any harder than some of the CAPTCHA I've seen lately. I had one a few months ago that took me 6 tries before I finally got one I could read well enough to pass.

    66. Re:To be fair... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You can't argue with an ideologue, and remember that than an ideologue says "educated" what they mean is "agrees with my ideology", and if you don't you're "uneducated". Personally I respect a lot of the tea party movement, because when you look at it objectively, and not through t the eyes of CNN, Fox, etc, there are a lot of libertarian concepts which I can get behind. If the parent wants to make fun of people who care enough to try to change things so be it. But as you said, snarky, snide comments only hurt his credibility.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    67. Re:To be fair... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Wow, I bet that was a controversial article at National Review to put up, I know some of the folks there absolutely despise the teabagger phrase.

      He is absolutely right, I remember watching the Teabagger movement's start on TV and wondered why the hell they were calling themselves that.

      I absolutely will keep referring to them as the Teabaggers.

    68. Re:To be fair... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you just stick to bantering about terminology and calling names while we prepare to slaughter and gut the Big Government incumbents in November. You can camp out on the articles on Wikipedia and spend your time that way, I guess. Enjoy your broken-winged Chicago thug, by the way. He's your albatross for awhile longer. Shoulda picked Hillary, I guess.

    69. Re:To be fair... by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the FY2009, the federal budget was approximately 3.1 trillion dollars. Of that, 1.89 (~61%) trillion was mandatory (entitlement) spending - Social Security, Medicare, National Debt service, Unemployment, welfare, and the like. The remaining 1.21 trillion (~39%) was discretionary spending.

      Of that 1.21 trillion, about 515 billion (~42%) was spent on the Department of Defense.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

      For FY2010, the planned budget is ~3.55 trillion dollars. Of that, 2.184 trillion (~61%) is mandatory spending. The remaining 1.368 trillion (~39%) is discretionary spending.

      Of that 1.368 trillion, 663.7 billion (~49%) is slated for the DoD.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

      While these numbers are big, they are nowhere near the 66% of discretionary spending you're asserting is being spent on the military.

      And frankly, we should be scared shitless about the way "mandatory" spending is ballooning, and expected to balloon, over the coming years - that's stuff we "don't have a choice" about because NO politician is going to get elected on a promise of "Vote for me and I'll slash your Social Security payouts." These entitlement programs have serious funding problems, and no politician is seriously (credibly) attempting to address them, we're simply kicking the can down the road for our kids to pay the bill later.

    70. Re:To be fair... by z-j-y · · Score: 1

      once Obama took the office, obviously no soldier had died. He really is God.

    71. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Troll

      Using a derogatory term to refer to someone else is still a form of ad hominem attack, and therefore tacky. Like Eddie Pinder said about the word "nigger": "it has no place is polite conversation".

      At the end of the day, the word "teabagger" comes to represent the rancor and resentment that liberals feel against their opponents. One need look no further than the fact that the term has been popularized by left-leaning media outlets (I'm looking at you, Olberman) to realize that its original intent has been perverted (please excuse the intentional pun).

      Personally, I thought it was a hell of a lot better when they were just called "Libertarians".

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    72. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's basically the definition of "bias"

      No it's not. Bias is letting your point of view get in the way of your accuracy, not lacking a point of view altogether.

      ... /I make no claim that the liberal media is any less biased

      You don't need to. You're already letting Fox win by letting them get away with far more truth bending and even outright lies that the "liberal media" could ever get away, and then calling it a wash.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    73. Re:To be fair... by Americano · · Score: 1

      So a veiled reference to "how badly Bush bungled" -- the Mission Accomplished fiasco was his, not Obama's -- has been replaced by a "Big nasty oil company probably one of Bush's friends!" counter?

      Or is Olbermann being clear and referring to it as a counter of "how many days Pres. Obama has shown almost no leadership or sense of urgency about an issue that could fuck over the economy (and people) of an entire region of America for several generations"?

      Would McCain be any better? Likely not. Does that mean Obama is doing a "good job" of handling it? Not in the least. It's possible to be disappointed & upset with the behavior of your leaders in circumstances like this. Obama rightly deserves criticism for some of what he's done, regardless of whether you believe McCain would have been worse.

    74. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Haha. You guys still haven't figured out that "progressive" is a term we've been using for a deviant sexual act. LOL! That's why we guffaw when you call yourself a "progressive". I mean, the only thing we can thing to ourselves is, "well, yea, somebody tried to progressivize me in college, but I just wasn't drunk and horny enough to get into it."

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    75. Re:To be fair... by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'd lay pretty good money on a vast majority of both those groups being unable to explain what a Gaussian is, honestly.

      But don't let the fact that a Gaussian is a fairly involved piece of mathetmatics get in the way of your conservative-bashing - of course D.KOS is full of incredibly bright technocrats who all aced their university level mathematics classes, while no conservative who watches Fox could have more than a 6th grade education.

    76. Re:To be fair... by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's true - he's the most moderate secret Islamofascist communist that I know!

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    77. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.

      Here's some insight from some of the progenitor tea parties.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    78. Re:To be fair... by porges · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the things they're talking about are either ludicrously false, or they're bizarre overreactions to trivia, or combinations thereof. Whereas the "US citizens on CIA hitlists" thing is a war-on-terror move, involving people (who are indeed American citizens) with foreign-sounding names, who are currently in foreign countries, so the right is totally down with it.

    79. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice (second attempt) at this revisionist history, but you are the one that has it wrong.

      Nope, that proves nothing other than some people are as ignorant as yourself. That article was written in December, 2009. And the author apparently didn't know anything about the Tea Parties that had been happening for almost three years - he seems under the (mistaken, or intentionally misleading) assumption it had something to do with Obama's election.

      Here's an article, and a video from an early tea party where nobody called themselves "teabaggers" (yea, it came from the snarky left, apparently in fear of a grass-roots conservative movement).

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    80. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      The ones using the phrase knew what it meant and wanted to imply they would be dipping their balls in Democratic faces. And then, when the phrase was turned on them, they cried little hurt princess tears.

      But I will also add this caveat. The Tea Party movement was around well before Fox News launched it into the national consciousness on a wave of coverage and outright sponsorship. From what I've read, the original movement was not so crazy. Maybe not what I agree with, but nothing worthy of ridicule. So, I will allow for 'original tea partiers' and 'the rest of those crazy teabaggers.'

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    81. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, puh-lease. You guys have no fucking chance. Puff and strut now, big boy, but know going into this election cycle your team's major talking points are cutting off unemployment benefits and gutting social security. That's going to play well in this economy, don't you think?

      Idiots like you blame the Democrats, but the real Americans know who got them in this mess, and who is trying to keep them there to score points against 'the other guys.' It won't work, in fact, this next election is going to be a slaughter. The southern regional minority party of hate and fear is dead. Its corpse is still shambling around looking for brains, but we'll put it down soon, don't you fear.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    82. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      The tea partiers thought it would be funny to say they would dip their balls in Democratic faces, but when the term they started using is turned on them, they whine like a little princess. If they don't want derogatory terms being used, they shouldn't have started using them in the first place, don't you agree? Or does 'justice' mean 'just us?'

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    83. Re:To be fair... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That they caught R2K at this, and were willing to expose it

      Except - they neither caught R2K nor exposed them, FiveThirtyEight.com did. Going public was an act of damage control, not and act of contrition.

    84. Re:To be fair... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the real liberals are pissed as fuck at Obama, because he's a conservative in lib clothing, and we all see that now

      Obama is the antithesis to Conservatism, as was Carter. And NO, liberals do NOT get to define what conservatism is.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    85. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like I said, it has no place in polite conversation, regardless of who uses it. Plus, many who are being tarred with this brush had no part in its origins.

      And none of that changes my original point, which was that it is used as a pejorative term to attack people rather than engage in debate, and therefore is usually used by people whose ability to engage in an interesting discussion is less developed than their desire to mock those who think differently.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    86. Re:To be fair... by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The grandparent thinks that sucking the corporate master's pecker = "conservative"

      Most liberals seem to think that supporting corporations is "conservative" .. I think its due to the fact that both words begin with a C and since they arent well educated beyond their anti-capitalism brainwashing.. well.. you know...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    87. Re:To be fair... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Obama is certainly a liberal.

      Only in the messed up American political landscape. Most Democrats are moderate right-wing, they only appear to be liberal because most Republicans are so much farther to the right. From the point of view of the rest of the world, the US has very few liberals, only conservatives and ultra-conservatives.

    88. Re:To be fair... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      They seemed moderate if not a little paleocon when they started, but rapidly caught a case of the crazies.

      Now they are even having Neocons speak at their rallies and total nutjobs like this Sharron Angle run as a teabagger.

    89. Re:To be fair... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      That one is standard pattern #5 in the Rorschach series to test obsessive compulsiveness.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    90. Re:To be fair... by maxume · · Score: 1

      The kids aren't going to pay the bill, they are going to fight over who gets to eat the can.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    91. Re:To be fair... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is "leadership or sense of urgency"?

      Should he be down there trying to clean the gulf with his fucking kidneys? Shutting down other drilling was a pretty big step, and anybody who thinks that there is something more that could be done is ignoring the enormous scope of the problem (there are lots of dumb-shit PR things that could be done, but not much that would really do anything about the oil, the biggest problem is that there were not enough resources to deal with it in place before it happened, not that the response has been tepid relative to the available resources).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    92. Re:To be fair... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Just imagine what sort of atrocities and terrible things you can let our leaders get away with, just by putting an even worse guy up as the alternative! It's BRILLIANT!

    93. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is not a liberal, as many on the left have discovered to their consternation since the election.

      It was obvious to me before the election that Obama was a DLC Democrat, but what choice did we have? Elect McCain/Palin? The thought of having Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency makes me want to curl up into a fetal ball!

      riverat

    94. Re:To be fair... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fundamental problem with the Tea Party movement is that, the libertarian (economically), interventionist (with regard to foreign policy), and xenophobic (with respect to our relationship with the rest of the civilized) ideas that are underlying their platform are demonstrably awful for any society that adopts them. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong answer, all opinions are not equally valid and worthy of debate - yet we will tolerate all of them. The Tea Party movement is wrong, plain and simple. They do not have a legitimate contribution to make to the debate of how to govern society because their answer to that question is, "Don't."

      That's not an ideology, it's an emotional response. It is essentially fear based isolationism taken to the extreme and applying it as far down as it will go; to the individual person. That, mixed with religious zealotry, and a sub-culture that worships guns and violence has the potential to set the US back 50-100 years in terms of social progress, equality, and the expansion of rights (as is understood by the ability to actually make life choices and have the MEANS to carry them out).

      We have to tolerate them, as Americans they are within their right to express themselves, but anyone who does not stand up and say, scream, "NO!" to their hateful, backward, intolerant, reactionary rhetoric is the very antithesis of patriotic.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    95. Re:To be fair... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Of course, of course. My side cares so much about truth and accuracy, it's their side that's full of lying liars! I can tell my favorie politician is honest; why, he says only things I agree with!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    96. Re:To be fair... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The snarky ad hominem bit was "teabagger". And don't pretend you didn't mean it that way.

      He might have meant it as a compliment - after all, I'm sure some people enjoy being teabagged. To each his own, I say.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    97. Re:To be fair... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then by your metric, the Republican party is not conservative. We should think up a new word for them then, how about just 'Wrong'?

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    98. Re:To be fair... by TheEyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who modded this Troll? He's absolutely correct: the apathy of the middle is why the extremists have taken over the airwaves. We've got "Tea Party" candidates on one side of the aisle talking about using guns to overthrow the government so we can abolish historically low taxes, and we've got crazy utopianists on the other side saying we've got to close all the banks and give the money to the people who pissed their money away in the first place. And what are the rational, facts-based people in the middle doing? Throwing up their hands and ignoring the whole process.

      You want things to change, fine: get off your butt and make a change. If you always do what you've always done, you'll always have what you have right now.

    99. Re:To be fair... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What made you post? The brainwashing?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    100. Re:To be fair... by bartwol · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the News Hour's main purpose is to inform, not to opine/entertain.

      So who really cares what the News Hour does (except for the few people who are looking to be better informed)?

      Look at the postings here...almost all spun beyond the issue at hand to drive an outcome rooted in plain old canned partisan preference. Years ago, the masses were aghast at the audacity of the political spinsters. But now, the masses _are_ the spinsters, shamelessly twisting every potential truth to their partisan preferences, and yet laughably, bitching about the scourge of partisan politics. Ahh...to hear the cries of the contempt of the masses...their attitudes have become no less than contemptuous.

      Me? I fight with all but the moderates (not many of 'em around these days).

    101. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , "well, yea, somebody tried to progressivize me in college, but I just wasn't drunk and horny enough to get into it."

      doesn't exactly spill from the tongue the way santorum does!

    102. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Unfair comparison to Daily Kos. Disclaimer: I post comments there quite a bit. But Daily Kos, however partisan they are, tend to source their facts pretty well. Unlike Rush, Hannity or Coulter, who pull facts out of dark orifices and respond to any criticism with ad hominem attacks.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    103. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be happy with any definition of conservatism.

      Right now it seems to be:
      - against big government, but for the Patriot Act
      - against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem
      - for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws
      - against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House
      - against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here
      - against abortion, but for the death penalty

      I mean, what ties all that together?

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    104. Re:To be fair... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      That they caught R2K at this, and were willing to expose it

      Except - they neither caught R2K nor exposed them, FiveThirtyEight.com did. Going public was an act of damage control, not and act of contrition.

      If you read what either Kos or Nate Silver have said, it was independent researchers working with Kos (who gave them the needed data) who exposed it, and Kos who first published it. What 538 did a few weeks ago was rank R2K low on their pollster rankings. Combined with shoddy polling in a few straight elections, this caused Kos to sack R2K before any accusations of impropriety were made.

    105. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      He got into the Oval office and realized that things aren't as simple as he previously thought. A lot of his foreign policy falls into this one. Eg, what to do with Gitmo detainees, or how to pull out of a war zone without making things worse. How to "engage" with ass-backwards countries like Iran.

      ...therefore he's no longer pursuing these policies, which means he is a centrist.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    106. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I post there. But that's not quite accurate. They fired R2K on their own, and then found this out.

      They are taking this public with a lawsuit, when they could have just left it go. That speaks rather well to how much Daily Kos cares about the facts and factual reporting.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    107. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod above "+5 Ironic."

    108. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Was this in San Francisco?

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    109. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      I agree that when Rush makes statements like "and", "the" or "of", he technically isn't lying.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    110. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      This notion is actually disproven by DailyKos' reaction to the pollsters they hired.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    111. Re:To be fair... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rush is highly factually accurate. That doesn't mean he's right.

      He, like many people educated in a day and age where truth is no longer held to the rigorous standards it once was, simply begins his line of thinking with his beliefs, and find the facts that best support those beliefs. Even if that means extracting them from their surrounding context entirely.

      But, oh yes, many of the facts he uses are technically true. He's downright wrong on occasion, for sure, the point is that he's not wrong because his facts are wrong, rather, he's wrong because a comprehensive, holistic look at the facts does not influence his opinion at all. They're just a tool to him to propagate his beliefs.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    112. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.

      Sometimes. However since the teabaggers already lack any credit to an educated mind, I doubt that observation applies here.

    113. Re:To be fair... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Now that teabaggers know what the term means, they call themselves tea partiers.

      I'm reading that link, reading "One of the exhortations was 'Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.' A protester was spotted with a sign saying, 'Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.'", and thinking that whoever wrote that exhortation and sign knew what the term meant which is at odds with your statement.

    114. Re:To be fair... by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is "leadership or sense of urgency"?

      Should he be down there trying to clean the gulf with his fucking kidneys?

      I think there are a lot of people who forget that Obama wasn't facing off in the last election against Aquaman, but for the record John McCain wouldn't be using telekinetic powers to summon a posse of dolphins to plug the leak in the gulf either. It's either that or else we've somehow come to think that knee-jerk, blustery statements/actions that don't address the real problem (like the Patriot act or the invasion of Iraq) are a good thing.

    115. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, most conservatives wrongly think that oppressive government = "liberal." It's something both sides are guilty of.

    116. Re:To be fair... by Knitebane · · Score: 1

      In 1913 the top marginal tax rate was 7%. Today it's around 35%.

      The "progressive" talking point of "historically low tax rates" is a flat out lie. Please stop repeating this falsehood.

      kthxbai

         

      --
      "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
    117. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is the antithesis to Conservatism, as was Carter. And NO, liberals do NOT get to define what conservatism is.

      Deal, as long as we agree that conservatives don't get to define what liberal is, either.

      Oh, and we all have to start using the word "socialist" properly again. Until then, "conservative" means "sock-sniffer."

    118. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Obama is "the antithesis to Conservatism," then you lack imagination.

    119. Re:To be fair... by coredog64 · · Score: 1

      Kos hired R2K to poll the "scary Republican base" and got numbers that: 1) Reinforced his belief that Republicans were scary, scary, crazy people 2) Didn't match up all that well with other polls (e.g. gays in the military) Kos then turned said poll results into a book. At one point he crowed about how much data R2K had given him, and now that the cat's out, he's done nothing more than scrub their name from the book because "the index is already done."

    120. Re:To be fair... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Puff and strut now, big boy, but know going into this election cycle your team's major talking points are cutting off unemployment benefits and gutting social security.

      Also blowjobs! At least in Texas, Republicans plan to really bring out the vote as the no-blowjob party. Democrats must be shivering in their boots over this!

    121. Re:To be fair... by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually no. They carried the very signs that started all of this:

      http://washingtonindependent.com/69660/correcting-jay-nordlinger

      In January of 09, they had a Facebook page that had some back and forth discussion about the 'alternate' meaning of teabag with some surprised disdain when they were informed as to what the term meant. They were apparently unaware at that point.

      This is from the rally in DC on April 15th of 2009:
      http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party

      One final little tidbit...the debate by conservatives as to whether or not to wear the title with pride ;)

      http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/to-teabag-or-not-thats-still-the-question-for-conservatives.php

    122. Re:To be fair... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be smart than educated though, and to me the smart thing would seem to ignore ad-hominems, and evaluate the remaining arguments independently of them?

      "what you said is false because you said teabaggers" is also an ad-hominem.

    123. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 1

      When you figure out how to get a better candidate to a major party nomination, or a 3rd party or indie with a shot of doing more than acting as a spoiler for the better of the major party candidates, then come forward.

      In the meantime, I think I'll opt for turning out to the polls to do damage control, as opposed to just sitting at home and letting the worst possible scenarios unfold.

    124. Re:To be fair... by skids · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should watch Olbermann's show so you can see his opinions about Obama for yourself. He's hardly a reliable cheerleader.

      Obama's far from my ideal President. We'll likely never have that. Nor would it be a cure-all for the country even if we did -- for one, there are still more pricks in the Senate than the country can afford.

    125. Re:To be fair... by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Conservatism is about the protection of individual rights and liberties, freedom. It is about the reduction of government intervention. Let's see what Obama has done and his responses to certain topics:
      1. The lower class needs healthcare: response is to increase government spending with entitlements
      2. The economy is tanking badly: response is to create a slush fund of a trillion of dollars (give or take a billion)
      3. BP screwed up and caused an oil spill: response is to send in the lawyers, SWAT?, setup several more bureaucracies, etc.
      4. A car company is going belly up, Wall Street actually paid back their debts and rewarded themselves: response punish the risk takers by taking over the car company and threaten wall street with excessive taxes.
      5. Government spending is wildly out of control and the coffers need refilling: response let the Bush tax cuts expire (thus causing a tax increase). Which will result in fewer companies hiring, fewer company startups, an even more depressed economy, etc.

      Obviously, there are more than just these that blatantly expose Obama as a progressive liberal, if not a communist and/or socialist. And I haven't even touched the foreign policy aspects where our allies are our enemies and our enemies are our friends (with a knife aimed at our back).

      It's just that the DKos is SOO far left they think Obama is right. But it's the same people that think Fox News is so far right. I wouldn't call them center, but if you watch O'Reilly, you'll see that he is giving Obama a large amount of leniency that the right is not affording the President. That indicates to me that they are not as far right as the left seem to think (because they've had ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, not to mention the majority of newspapers, movies, and TV shows that have catered to the left for so long.)

    126. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the tea-party folks calling their opponents 'traitors' and 'evil' and 'should be shot' is so much better. At least the left at most gets a bit of a chuckle at their expense. The tea partiers would murder a quarter to a third of their fellow Americans just for having a different opinion.

      You know what? I was about to agree and say that, yeah, calling people like you 'teabaggers' is probably a bit much. It's only fair, after all; promote a national dialogue so we can find a way out of this mess that doesn't put us at each others throats. But then I remembered how much your heroes -- Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and all the rest -- go on and on about killing liberals, endorsing violence against other citizens, and covering their asses and saying it's a joke while they keep saying the same shit. And I decided, fuck it. So, you want to kill Americans, teabagger? 'Cause that's the company you're keeping.

    127. Re:To be fair... by Machtyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me where Rush Limbaugh has lied and I'll show you selective (honest?! haha) left-wing reporting, misinformation, and quoting out of context.

    128. Re:To be fair... by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      It's only because the rest of the world are so far left that they see Obama as not a liberal. But hasn't anyone been paying attention to his world-wide apology tour? No, Obama is as liberal as any European nation, but he wouldn't claim that. He's as socialist as any Russian, but he wouldn't admit that.

    129. Re:To be fair... by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      But that's what makes this country great!

    130. Re:To be fair... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, Informative

      1913 isn't really a fair data point to use, considering that that was the year that federal income taxes were first explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Insight can be had by realizing that by the time that federal income tax was 4 years old, the top rate had grown to 67% (though most of this was to fund WW1).

      However, any discussion of top marginal tax rates is incomplete and even disingenuous without considering how much you had to earn in order to qualify for that top bracket. A graph like the one at http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/ is necessary to accurately convey the change in tax structure over time. The super-rich elite truly have had it easier in recent decades, but during the 90's most of the population was subject to more progressive taxation than during the 60's.

    131. Re:To be fair... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Ironic that even the Tea-Party mainstream couldn't stop their party from being taken over by extremists and Fox News.

    132. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those things blatantly expose Obama as a "progressive liberal," or even a "communist and/or socialist." None of those labels mean what you think they mean.

    133. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To lie is to say something you know is a falsehood. Rush doesn't do that. Ann probably does, I don't listen to the dumb bitch.

    134. Re:To be fair... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      real liberals

      No true Scotsman, eh?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    135. Re:To be fair... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Conservatism is about the protection of individual rights and liberties, freedom. It is about the reduction of government intervention.

      It is? How can that be? Doing that doesn't make you "conservative" in the true meaning of the word. Conservative means conserving what we have now.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    136. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I mean, what ties all that together?

      I don't know, but liberals are just as self-contradictory. Flip around all the positions you listed above - liberals are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion, for example.

      Both conservatives and liberals are against free speech - though they both profess to support free speech - they just want to restrict it for different reasons. Obscenity and anti-patriotic speech (conservatives), any statements-that-might-offend-someone (liberals).

      If I had to define conservatism (as opposed to the platform of the Republican party), I'd say it was, in a nutshell:
      1) Lower taxes
      2) Smaller federal government, except for:
      3) Strong national defense

      Liberals, by contrast are for promoting a European-style democracy, with a large government, high taxes, and strong social programs.

      Libertarians are a strange combination of drug-legalizers and gun nuts, but more or less agree with conservative principles except when it comes to gov't interference in individual liberties.

      The Greens mostly agree with Democrats, except they think that Democrats don't really go far enough. They're the people, for example, that protested the health care bill for not nationalizing the industry. They generally support destroying industry and implementing nonsensical no-growth laws.

    137. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>He is absolutely right, I remember watching the Teabagger movement's start on TV and wondered why the hell they were calling themselves that.

      I was around Tea Partiers when the movement started, and I never once heard the phrase Teabagger used. People would bring tea bags and throw them into the harbor, but that's hardly the same thing.

      Calling someone a teabagger is as good as labeling yourself a dirty leftist hippie.

    138. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make things up, they literally lie on air and in print, so throwing them together with Daily Kos, which at worst selectively covers stories that illustrate its world-view, is a troll-worthy attempt

      Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.

      If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters.
      (From today's article on www.anncoulter.com)

      Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate. :)

    139. Re:To be fair... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      intellectually bankrupt?

      You can't go bankrupt on something you never had.

    140. Re:To be fair... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      To us the Europeans, the USA have only two parties, and both are right-wing. One resembles our traditional right-wing parties, the other is full of mouth-foaming, rabid bible-thumpers that should be in a madhouse.

      I guess the rest of the (democratic) world thinks pretty much the same.

    141. Re:To be fair... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I wonder how someone who can read and write and is not a millionaire can be a Republican. But nevermind, it's the same here in Europe.

      The most fervent right-wingers I know are from the working class. They can go through unbelievable mental contortions to rationalise being against themselves.

    142. Re:To be fair... by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      So a veiled reference to "how badly Bush bungled" -- the Mission Accomplished fiasco was his, not Obama's -- has been replaced by a "Big nasty oil company probably one of Bush's friends!" counter?

      Or is Olbermann being clear and referring to it as a counter of "how many days Pres. Obama has shown almost no leadership or sense of urgency about an issue that could fuck over the economy (and people) of an entire region of America for several generations"?

      Would McCain be any better? Likely not. Does that mean Obama is doing a "good job" of handling it? Not in the least. It's possible to be disappointed & upset with the behavior of your leaders in circumstances like this. Obama rightly deserves criticism for some of what he's done, regardless of whether you believe McCain would have been worse.

      Hey, the majority of you guys elected the majority of those guys. If I were leader, I wouldn't bother to show leadership or a sense of urgency about anything where the beneficiaries of my largesse were (in the majority) ignorant, short-minded fools. I'd just wait for the next election, and trot out one of the old standards. Gays getting married, Mexicans working or Muslims doing, well, anything.

      But hell, you guys already gave my dream electoral system a run - electing the leader who appears drunker - and 2 wars says that doesn't work, so I'm fresh out of ideas.

    143. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      What part of lower taxes and smaller government bothers you?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    144. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When they started gaining traction, the Republicans, fresh off their '08 defeats, tried co-opting the movement.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    145. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the apathy of the middle is why the extremists have taken over the airwaves.

      You have your cause and effect reversed.

      The increasing extremism on both sides (Which aren't even all that far apart!) is what has driven me to apathy. I tried talking and reasoning, and am just plain tired of hearing talking points shouted back unthinkingly.

      I vote, but that's all I'll do any more. Just leave me the hell alone...

    146. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "what you said is false because you said teabaggers"

      That's not what I said, is it? If you are going to put words in my mouth, try not to put quotes around them.

      What I actually said was:

      To an educated mind, snarky ad-hominem attacks do more to discredit you than your opponent.

      The only thing I did was point out his rhetorical fallacy, and indicate that through it he was damaging himself more than his opponent.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    147. Re:To be fair... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Or is Olbermann being clear and referring to it as a counter of "how many days Pres. Obama has shown almost no leadership or sense of urgency about an issue that could fuck over the economy (and people) of an entire region of America for several generations"?

      Ok, just to be clear, exactly what is it that you think Obama should be doing that he's not doing about the oil pumping into the gulf? I'm just curious because I really haven't heard of any useful suggestions that haven't already been acted on, and you've got a whole group of conservatives that want to downplay the severity of the situation at every opportunity. After all, like Limbaugh said, oil is natural!

      Would McCain be any better? Likely not. Does that mean Obama is doing a "good job" of handling it? Not in the least. It's possible to be disappointed & upset with the behavior of your leaders in circumstances like this. Obama rightly deserves criticism for some of what he's done, regardless of whether you believe McCain would have been worse.

      What actions, or lack thereof, specifically, are you criticizing?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    148. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'd say he has adopted a his current positions on those subjects out of pragmatism. I don't think his position in Iraq is centrist; it is actually the path that GWB laid out with the Iraqi government before Obama was elected. Obama is sticking with it because it works better than anything else he can think of. He tried a few things with the Gitmo detainees before falling back - uncomfortably - to GWB policies. His attempts to engage with Iran have proven his measure of their leadership and concept of the problem there woefully wrong.

      I will say that his attempts to impose UN sanctions on Iran have probably been more successful that GWB would have been, simply because other nations are more eager to work with Obama. But nothing he has done has slowed the bombastic rhetoric from Tehran, delayed their nuclear weapons program, or cut their support of terrorists.

      He is still very liberal at heart, and I'm sure that there are other left-wing initiatives he has that he intends to push as his term moves forward.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    149. Re:To be fair... by HoppQ · · Score: 1
      --
      My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
    150. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I think I've seen that movie.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    151. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They" didn't catch R2K at it - a team of independent researchers did. Kos was perfectly happy accepting Research 2000's ludicrous poll results for his gleefully loaded questions (e.g. "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?") for ages without raising a single question about their results (24% of Republicans said "Yes"). No other pollster I'm aware of gave results as obviously fake as R2K, yet Kos was content to bash Rasmussen and others for 'bias.' 538 (who Kos follows religiously) has been pointing out how unreliable R2K was for a long time.

      The only 'good thing' this says about Kos is that he was willing to come clean and admit that his polls were fake after someone else pointed out that he was being actively defrauded and was willing to go public. You'll note the post where he admits that the poll data was faked doesn't include an apology to the wide swaths of the electorate he's smeared as truthers, racists, and worse - because he doesn't care.

    152. Re:To be fair... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm very liberal, but I often have trouble stomaching dKos. I'm not alone in this. The "I can't take it anymore" diary by respected participants is a regular feature of the site. At one point the admins threatened permanent bans on users who post GBCW (GoodBye Cruel World) diaries ... at least ones that make the rec list. That's stupid. Sometimes people need a hiatus from the overheated emotionalism.

      I started participating on the site in around 2003. It was nice to have an outlet where people weren't bamboozled by GWB's War on Terror.

      The problem is that DKos ecame too big and too prominent. To get any notice you have to be loud and emotional. It's become one big noisy echo chamber. There were and remain some posters there who are worth paying attention to, but a random sampling of posts, even high rated posts, would yield very little of value.

      It was a much better site when it was small and obscure. Possibly as much good stuff is posted there as ever, but the site suffers from really crappy moderation. In fact, crappy moderation is encouraged. From the DKos FAQ:

      Recommend: Good comment. Also usually a shorthand for 'I agree', or also 'good job'.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    153. Re:To be fair... by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      I'll (probably foolishly) take the bait: What bothers me is insufficient funds for the government to 1) monitor product safety, especially food and drugs, 2) protect the environment, and 3) fund scientific research for which there is no immediate commercial application. Simply put, I think there are activities that can only be accomplished (effectively) in aggregate. I don't want to rely on Consumer Reports to determine if my milk contains a slow-acting neurotoxin. The other two issues are even thornier in that they run counter to any economic optimization obtained through a free market. Ooh, there's #4) prosecute businesses that engage in anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.

    154. Re:To be fair... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Idiots like you blame the Democrats, but the real Americans know who got them in this mess

      It's a simple cause-and-effect correlation:

      Democrats took the majority in Congress in 2006. Economy quickly slid into the shitter.

      It's just a matter of presenting the evidence.

      Bush is gone. Ohbummer has to actually do something now, and isn't.

    155. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party, pre-Faux News takeover, was a different thing entirely. What the 'progenitor' says about it now is moot.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    156. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      As DJRumpy has also schooled you regarding the origins of the teabagger term, I won't repeat myself. I'll just add that no one on the left is afraid of the tea party. It's hard to be afraid while you're laughing.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    157. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      To have an antithesis, conservatism would need a thesis. The only coherent conservative thesis now is 'Obama must fail so we can win,' and I guess in that regard, you are correct. Obama is your antithesis.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    158. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      Conservatives love to whine that they are not being respected, all the while disrespecting their opponents. Which was my point: conservatives started it. It is par for the conservative hypocrisy course.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    159. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's a difference of how one defines "liberal". But he's already taken positions on many other issues that liberals do not define as liberal.

      He nixed pushing single-payer health care at the absolute beginning of negotiations, for example. His health-care bill also includes a huge giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. He supported a huge bank bailout while requiring barely anything of banks in return.

      It seems to me over here on the left that he's a centrist, just as Clinton was.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    160. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      At least we can commiserate about how much our respective political options suck right about now.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    161. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      When they started gaining traction, the Republicans, fresh off their '08 defeats, succeeded in co-opting the movement.

      FTFY

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    162. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make things up, they literally lie on air and in print, so throwing them together with Daily Kos, which at worst selectively covers stories that illustrate its world-view, is a troll-worthy attempt

      Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.

      ...

      Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate. :)

      I've never once in my life read Media Matters, and I don't think I sound stupid at all to those who haven't drunk the Coulter Kool-Aid. As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied. For countless examples, many documented with footnotes whose sources, unlike many of Coulter's, actually say what they're cited as saying, just Google "slander review" or "ann coulter treason review", et cetera.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    163. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      Exactly like that. Except it isn't a fallacy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    164. Re:To be fair... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      did I said you said that? I just said it's an ad-hominem. an AC implied it by saying "you just lost all your credibility". I should have replied to that post, but hey, I just wanted to point out this little fun fact and your post was wordier so I replied to that ^^

      The only thing I did was point out his rhetorical fallacy, and indicate that through it he was damaging himself more than his opponent.

      generally true, but does it apply to this case? he said "teabaggers" just like he said "obama fanboys", and AFTER making his arguments. he did not use "teabaggers" AS argument. I agree the post would have gained by wording it differently, but to say this makes his arguments more or less valid would be, as I said, an actual ad-hominem... "ad-hominem" is short for "ad-hominem argument", and that's not just any personal insult. if the utterance directed at the human is not an argument, it's not an ad-hominem argument.

      mods are on crack is all. *shrugs*

    165. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I should have been more clear: the people who started using that term against the liberals knew what it meant. Which is really what makes it completely fair to turn it against them. The majority of teabaggers, being little old white men, had no idea what it meant.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    166. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, good one. The economy was in the shitter before the Dems took congress. What exactly did the Dems do to make it worse, hmmmm? Got anything concrete? No? Thought not.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    167. Re:To be fair... by randomencounter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taking a quick scan of the teaparty.org home page, they seem to be more anti-Democrat than for anything in particular.

      If they were really an organization of principle instead of partisanship they would be trying to push both parties to work with their principles, in particular note their stance on Gen. McChrystal's comments. It doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong, that level of public insubordination is unprofessional and behavior unbecoming an officer in the US military.

      That they have an article supporting him on their home page indicates that they simply hate President Obama, no matter what he does, rather than a principled stand in favor of smaller government and lower taxes.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    168. Re:To be fair... by randomencounter · · Score: 2

      Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

      Whatever the original intent may have been, look at the teaparty.org homepage.
      These are not people interested in civil debate of how to implement their principles.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    169. Re:To be fair... by randomencounter · · Score: 1

      And we have a winner!

      There are no conservatives in Washington, D.C.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    170. Re:To be fair... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right and Left both suck in the US right now.

      At least the scandals on the right are Republicans with rent-boys and gay flings. The left has Al Gore getting all handsy in Portland.

    171. Re:To be fair... by randomencounter · · Score: 1

      In my experience of offending people, "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are equally easy to offend, you just need to push different buttons.

      So Ms. Coulter appears to be lying again.

      --
      Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
    172. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      That whole thing makes me sad. If its true. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence. Tipper and Al seemed the perfect couple. It's always a little disconcerting when a couple that's been together for many decades splits up. Something must have happened, even if it wasn't groping a woman in Portland.

      As for the gay thing, I find it astonishing that that much utter hypocrisy and self loathing can exit inside one person's head. You never saw Gore preaching for monogamy, right? If he fondled this gal, he's a cad, but at least he isn't a hypocrite. Fighting tooth and nail against gay rights while nailing gays in bathroom stalls is pretty sick.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    173. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Conservatives love to whine that they are not being respected, all the while disrespecting their opponents.

      You could insert virtually any group (including "liberals") in place of "conservatives" in that sentence and still have a valid point.

      Furthermore, the truth is that there are people who are in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, and strong individual rights who had nothing to do with the idiots who coined the term "teabagging" in its current political meaning, and certainly are alarmed at the current Republican attempts to co-opt their movement.

      To paraphrase, namecalling is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    174. Re:To be fair... by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

      Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    175. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberals are anti-death penalty, but pro-abortion, for example.

      And?

    176. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      He knew single-payer was a non-starter to begin with, and compromised to get something done rather than nothing. After all, wasn't one of Ted Kennedy's favorite sayings "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?

      In those terms, I suppose that his results are mostly centrist, in that they represent a compromise between the right-wing big spenders the left-wing big spenders. However, I'd say that true conservatives - small accountable government, low taxes, strong individual rights - would say that the whole thing stinks.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    177. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      did I said you said that? I just said it's an ad-hominem.

      Well, that certainly appeared to be the implication. My apologies if I misunderstood.

      Also, pointing out his rhetorical error is not an ad-hominem argument. I'd be happy to debate the issue on its merits, if he would stick to them.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    178. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Sadly, yeah, you're pretty much right on that one.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    179. Re:To be fair... by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Also, pointing out his rhetorical error is not an ad-hominem argument.

      fair enough. but what the AC said, "you just lost all your credibility", to me kinda sounded like "because you said teabaggers, what you said was wrong" (which would be an ad-hominem). but yeah, that AC didn't really talk about ad-hominens, so that was kinda mixed up on my part. cheers :)

    180. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) monitor product safety, especially food and drugs, 2) protect the environment, and 3) fund scientific research for which there is no immediate commercial application.

      We would have lots of money to do that if we (and by "we", I don't actually mean "you and I", I mean the Republicrats) weren't spending it foolishly elsewhere. But look at where we are now. We are spending so much so-called stimulus money that even the Europeans are looking at us and saying "Uh, no thanks, we'd rather cut back our spending than try to keep up with you". And surprise, surprise, the Democrats are getting ready to raise taxes again. Not just on those rich folks they demonized during the elections either; they are coming after your paycheck and mine.

      #4) prosecute businesses that engage in anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.

      Hell yeah. I don't like big government interfering in business, but a healthy free-market system requires a free market, which a monopoly certainly isn't. If there is need for a limited government role there, fine.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    181. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      If name calling is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then according to your first point, all groups, including any and all groups you belong to, are scoundrels. Glad we got that cleared up.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    182. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't have anything against the original tea party, and I refrain from calling them teabaggers. The majority of the wingnuts now associated with the term? I have no respect for them. None. They are spoiled, bratty, racist children and I will treat them as such.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    183. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some? Get real. The agenda on DKos is Liberalism, pure and simple. Its says so right on the front page. If you want a politically left view point, then DKos is for you. If want a right, then its Limbaugh. If you want pure news with out a slant... well, I guess you're SOL.

      Wow, you don't even know what any of those words you're using mean.
      Left, Right, and Liberalism are 3 distinctly different political ideologies.
      Liberalism is what America was founded on. It's summed up in one sentence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal".

      Both the left and the right have despised Liberalism since it's inception.
      The Left is at least somewhat compatible with Liberalism and hence with America in strict moderation as the left, in principle agrees with the defining statement of Liberalism. They differ in that they think that they need to go further and use the power of the state against the individual to promote that equality in other areas as opposed to simply equality under the law.

      The Right fundamentally disagrees with the defining statement of America which is why being *moderately* Left of Liberalism is compatible with American Patriotism, but anything to the Right is absolutely, fundamentally incompatible with America. Monarchy, Fascism and Nazism are the right wing governments that have existed. If you call yourself right wing, then those types of government are what you are supporting. Which, in particular do you like best, and why haven't you left America to go move to a country compatible with your beliefs rather than piss all over a country which was founded primarily on the idea that you are scum and your beliefs vile?

      They believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to promote the interests of the elite, whether "elite" is defined in terms of race and religion as under the Nazis by birth as under Monarchy/Aristocracy, or by a combination of these and pure wealth as promoted by the current incarnation of the Right in America...Especially by the bootlicking lapdogs of the Right known as Teabaggers.

    184. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      #1) The movement is being co-opted by Republicans.
      #2) Your analysis of their anti-Democrat tone is a little off, although not by much, I'll grant you.

      On a separate note, I think McChrystal is somewhat like Admiral Thomas Connolly. He sacrificed his career to speak truth to power. You and others may have a problem with how he did it, but that fact remains that the administration was doing a poor job with Afghanistan, effectively sabotaging their own plan much like Vietnam. Silence doesn't fix anything. Frankly, if the administration won't take proper counsel in private when they ought to, they deserve the egg on their face when it blows up.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    185. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I never thought it would be so easy to prove all mankind scoundrels, but hey, when you're right you're right.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    186. Re:To be fair... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "You're already letting Fox win by letting them get away with far more truth bending and even outright lies that the "liberal media" could ever get away, and then calling it a wash."

      I watch the news as I get ready for work in the morning. I generally flip around to avoid the commercials and when my bias meter goes haywire, generally. One month, on a lark, I decided to leave the channel alone and count the bias as I saw it, attempting to be as neutral as possible. This was during the last prez election, wherein Obama won. The worst offender, in my opinion, was MSNBC, BY FAR. It was no wash, not even close. Aside from some outright lies (I counted three in one week during the week I monitored MSNBC), I noted numerous plainly inaccurate stories and a number snide comments about Bush that were completely missing from Fox with regard to Obama. Not one snide opinion piece, and perhaps 2 inaccurate news pieces, which were followed up with corrections the next week. Not one mention of inaccurate reporting from MSNBC for that week. From as unbiased an experiment as I could muster I found Fox far more honest and up front than MCNBC. Second runner up was CNN. Your comments about Fox just don't hold up in my experience. Oh, if we include radio, NPR was by far much more prodigious with snide comments about the previous administration, in a number of radio shows. Some are indeed comedic, but several comments came from shows that are ostensibly about world news. The BBC also ran closely behind, but being a foreign (to me) service, I paid less attention to it.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    187. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think we're seeing a coalescing of various conservatives and libertarians under the Tea Party like we saw with the Dems and other varieties of liberals under Howard Dean a decade or so ago. There's a lot of conflicting ideas and demands, lots of unfocused anger being referred to as "energy". The most strident, often unreasonable voices are the ones being heard. There are people who should shut their mouths before they hurt themselves and the cause the represent any further.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    188. Re:To be fair... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      As the other commentator said, liberals don't have a lock on consistency either. This deal about Arizona, however? Your way off the mark. The national border is the Fed's JOB. Coming off and claiming its some kind of conservative inconstancy in policy is DISINGENUOUS. That's a BS point.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    189. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatism is about the protection of individual rights and liberties, freedom. It is about the reduction of government intervention. Let's see what Obama has done and his responses to certain topics:

      No, it isn't you ignorant, lying sack of shit.
      That is the *definition* of Liberalism. Conservatism is *defined* as the opposition to Liberalism.

      In America, conservatives support:
      Promoting an intentionally false myth of a golden age that by definition can't go any further back than 1954 since having "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is so critically important to them, and it was only added by rabidly anti-American religious extremists at that time.
      They believe in making up deeply vile lies about our founding fathers such as they were Christians which to people as clearly educated and intelligent as they were is grossly insulting.
      They believe in unrestrained military spending in order to address made up threats as proven by their canonization of Reagan, who led the largest growth if government since FDR.
      Pushing unconstitutional police state laws (patriot act, drug laws, eminent domain expansion, corporate bailouts etc.)

      So, shit for brains, when your movement supports and promotes all of that, it's clear to anybody with even a shred of sanity that your definition couldn't possibly apply even if you're so ignorant as to not have know the definitions of the works to begin with.

      It's really the unrepentant lying about basic historical facts and the ovine acceptance of whatever such lies you're being fed and your hatred of intelligence, education and integrity that makes decent people like myself despise you animals more even than your death grip on long since failed policies and attitudes.

    190. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      It's not a BS point. I'm not even talking about securing the national border. I'm talking about, is it big brother for people to have ID, or is it not?

      There was all this to-do on the right about how a national ID card was big brother. But a law that police can just stop people if they *suspect* they're illegal and demand to see their ID, somehow that's NOT big brother?

      Do you see the cognitive dissonance between those two positions?

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    191. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      - against big government, but for the Patriot Act

      The Patriot act was supported by both major parties.

      - against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem

      Have you read the law in question? It's actually pretty reasonable. The only circumstances they can request to see ID are situations where they are already asking everyone for ID ... traffic stops, etc. It's not like liberals are making it out to be.

      - for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws

      Frankly, our Bill of Rights doesn't mean much if our states and towns can write laws that abrogate it on a whim.

      - against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House

      Real conservatives are as horrified of that as you are. Trust me.

      - against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here

      - against abortion, but for the death penalty

      Pretty much. They'd prefer to give someone a chance to prove whether or not the deserve to die.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    192. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      One month, on a lark, I decided to leave the channel alone and count the bias as I saw it, attempting to be as neutral as possible.

      Yes, because bias is totally countable. I think I'm going to sit here and count the irony in your post.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    193. Re:To be fair... by Americano · · Score: 1

      I wonder how someone who can read and write and is not a millionaire can be a Republican.

      The big problem is that Republicans used to be conservative, but these days they're virtually indistinguishable from the democrats when it comes to spending, and even more hypocritical in claiming that they can cut taxes while raising expenditures, and it'll all magically even out somehow.

      But they have that reputation still that they're the "conservative" party, and so people who don't look at their current behavior and policies are fooled into thinking they actually are conservative still.

      The most fervent right-wingers I know are from the working class. They can go through unbelievable mental contortions to rationalise being against themselves.

      I think you can be a fiscal conservative and a member of the working class - all it takes is an understanding that spending beyond your means is usually a road to bankruptcy and other disasters.

    194. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      The Patriot act was supported by both major parties.

      Yes - but I'm talking about consistency in conservative ideology. It's the Republicans who are supposed to be against big government. So that's inconsistent.

      Have you read the law in question? It's actually pretty reasonable.

      I actually have read the law and don't consider it reasonable. Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."

      But again, what I'm pointing at here isn't the law itself. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of what "conservative" is supposed to mean. A national medical ID card gives the government too much power - but a law that requires people to prove their citizenship to the police on command does not? That seems like a large contradiction in political philosophy, to me.

      Frankly, our Bill of Rights doesn't mean much if our states and towns can write laws that abrogate it on a whim.

      Okay, fine - but again, I'm talking about consistency here. A conservative stance I've heard time and time again, is that decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible. Yet this only seems to come up when it's something Federal that conservatives *don't* like.

      As for real conservatives being horrified about deficits, that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see. Historically, even. Reagan tripled the debt, Bush added to it, Clinton eliminated it for the first time in decades, then GWB blows the surplus and puts the government back in the red - and gets re-elected. Yes, Obama's increased it even more - but liberals aren't the ones who are philosophically dead-set against deficits.

      I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    195. Re:To be fair... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Why, yes, it is.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    196. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. They'd prefer to give someone a chance to prove whether or not the deserve to die.

      Which has nothing to do with either of the lines above.

    197. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason you seem to think that, because the movement didn't start off by calling themselves 'teabaggers', there's no way they would have been the first to refer to themselves as such a little further down the line. Care to explain yourself before you fire off any additional ad hominem?

    198. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there are as many liberals as there are conservatives.

    199. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      My apologies in advance for taking these out of order.

      I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.

      To a certain extent you're right. Conservatives now aren't what they used to be. They're a bunch of fat cats. Also, you're right, many of them betray their ideals for power and comfort. What I like to think of true conservatism is mostly gone these days. Then again, "liberal" used to mean something different too; namely the advancement and empowerment of individuals and their liberties. Now, it stands for big government and entitlements.

      Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."

      I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems that they have since amended the law to clarify it. They replaced “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,”. In other words, you have to be in a position where they would ask for your ID anyway.

      The revised law also removes the word “solely” from the phrase “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.” to remove fears about racial profiling. (http://www.common-sense-politics.org/2010/05/01/what-is-the-legal-definition-of-lawful-contact/)

      Essentially the law holds the government's feet to the fire by forcing it to obey federal law - which it should already be doing anyway.

      What bothers conservatives about taxpayer-funded healthcare for all isn't so much the ID cards, it's more about creating another government-run entitlement program, and the inevitable hike in taxes to pay for it.

      A conservative stance ... is decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible.

      That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written. However, that doesn't mean that it is within states' rights to abrogate my personal rights.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    200. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I was making a dark reference to the abortion/death penalty line. Had nothing to do with the Saudi line, which I neglected to respond to before hitting the "Submit" button.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    201. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Moot or not, it is now a disgusting slur used to denigrate a large group. This cannot be excused by claiming that they (actually, a tiny subset of the group you refer to) used it first without knowledge of its connotations.

      That would be the same as looking at the origins of a racial slur, and finding that "Well, slaves from Niger called themselves that long ago, so it's perfectly neutral to refer to all African-descended people with that term now."

      So, yes, they are offended by it, you know that they are offended by it, but you defend your use of it, claiming that no one can view your use as intentionally pejorative. You're as obstinate in your belligerence as a 17th-century plantation master.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    202. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definition of true liberalism doesn't define the Statist state of mind that American Liberalism holds today.

      And this folks, is how the American left operates. Frothing at the mouth with hate and rage just like those wackos at Daily Kos. Disagree with Conservatives all you like, but at least they never act out with such bitterness and malcontent even remotely to the same degree.

    203. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      As you say, you see it on the left too. "Bush planned 9/11!" Thanks buddy, we really needed you to say that...

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    204. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      It's an insult not a fallacy. Like when right wingers claim we aren't real Americans. Saying Obamabots are no true liberals is primarily a way of insulting them, rather than saying that we, the liberals who are pissed at Obama, are the true liberals.

      The political spectrum is a spectrum, not a series of boxes. You ask a dozen people what it means to be liberal or conservative, you'll get a dozen answers. You ask a Scotsman what it means to be a Scotsman, you'll likely get broad agreement that residing in or hailing from Scotland is at least a prerequisite.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    205. Re:To be fair... by spun · · Score: 1

      They actually did know what it meant. "Teabag those liberals in Congress" being just one of the prominent signs displayed on that first major tax day protest. And one of the organizers exhorted those in attendance to "Teabag them before they teabag us." They knew what teabagging was, and thought it would be hilarious to imply that they would be dipping their balls into the mouths of liberals. Is it any wonder that it was turned back on them?

      And just to be clear, I have zero respect for most so called teabaggers. I am outright stating that my use of the term is pejorative. Perhaps it is only a few bad apples that make the group look crazy, but any group that lets its craziest members speak for it, that in fact encourages the crazies, deserves no respect.

      If you don't like people calling you a fucking cretin, I suggest you refrain from discussing your politics online, or stick to the right wing echo chambers where your views will be encouraged.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    206. Re:To be fair... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Yea, funny (in a totally grasping at straws kind of way because you're desperate to have something bad to say about liberals). Of course, you gloss over the fact that teabaggers chose to call themselves by that name (even the ones that knew what it meant). That would be like liberals being stupid enough to nickname themselves the "cleveland steamers".

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    207. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this folks, is how the American left operates.

      I'm not on the Left. Idiot.

      Frothing at the mouth with hate and rage just like those wackos at Daily Kos. Disagree with Conservatives all you like, but at least they never act out with such bitterness and malcontent even remotely to the same degree.

      LOL. Whaaaaaa Obama is a muslim... death panels LEFt LEFt LEFT Liberal Liberal Liberal whaaaaaa they're coming to get us save us big daddy government!!!!!!

      That constitutes the entirety of Conservative "thought" for the last 30 years.
      It's the complete disconnect with reality that your comment demonstrates which completely defines conservatives.

    208. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama is certainly a liberal.

      You're using that word, liberal, but it certainly doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. If Obama were liberal, he would have signed an executive order halting DADT his first week in office, appointed an Attorney General that would be laying waste to Bushco and Wall Street with indictments, pushed for at least a 70% top marginal tax rate, withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed for single payer, pushed for a real green energy bill....

      At this point, it's an open question if Obama will finish his presidency to the left of Reagan, who raised taxes to reduce the deficit, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and signed a treaty requiring the prosecution of torture (hint, hint Obama).

    209. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's only because the rest of the world are so far left that they see Obama as not a liberal.

      I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a fascist. Eisenhower had a 91% top marginal tax rate. Nixon started the EPA. Reagan signed a treaty requiring the prosecution of torturers. Obama? Expands Bush's claims of executive privilege, and places U.S. citizens on CIA hit lists.

      But hasn't anyone been paying attention to his world-wide apology tour?

      Yes, we've been paying attention to your made-up talking point. If he were actually on an "apology tour", he would have apologized to Iran for the United States overthrowing their peaceful, secular democracy in 1953, and to Latin America for all the brutal dictators we supported over the years.

      He's as socialist as any Russian, but he wouldn't admit that.

      You're using that word, socialist, but it doesn't mean whatever you think it means.

    210. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Ok, just to be clear, exactly what is it that you think Obama should be doing that he's not doing about the oil pumping into the gulf? I'm just curious because I really haven't heard of any useful suggestions that haven't already been acted on, and you've got a whole group of conservatives that want to downplay the severity of the situation at every opportunity. After all, like Limbaugh said, oil is natural!

      Except that's a red herring. The problem that honest liberals have with Obama's response to the disaster in the Gulf has been his reliance on BP in the response effort. Or as Shep Smith pointed out, 'BP has a worse safety record than all other companies combined, times ten'. Why was BP free to dump whatever dispersants they wanted into the Gulf? Why have they been free to restrict information to the public? Why have they been free to higher private security guards to chase the press off public beaches?

    211. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      ..and as many others on the left knew long before the election.

      ...but he sure campaigned on a host of liberal issues before the election. Getting us out of dumb wars, ending DADT, having a public option on health care, signing the EFCA, curbing lobbyist power.

      Instead, he escalated Afghanistan after the government admits Bin Laddin left the country and there's less than 100 Al Queda guys left, gave the public option away to the hospital industry at the start of negotiations, pushed Congress to procrastinate on DADT, either invites lobbyists to the White House or for coffee across the street to get around disclosure rules, and the EFCA? What's that?

    212. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Moot or not, it is now a disgusting slur used to denigrate a large group.

      No, that's pathetic whining on behalf of a group of really stupid people. Not our fault they adopted a term, 'teabagging', that's slang for fellatio. Nor is it our fault they started protesting Obama for raising their taxes when he was actually signing the largest middle class tax cut in American history. Nor is it our fault they carry around signs, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, saying "keep your government hands off my medicare".

      The teabaggers made their own bed of stupid, and now they can lye on it.

    213. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The snarky ad hominem bit was "teabagger". And don't pretend you didn't mean it that way.

      Too bad the facts don't meet your storyline.

      Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own Name

      Olbermann said, "It is as useful to remind them anew of how the term originated and with whom. A TV news report aired last March 14 in which a correspondent described the original protest act, 'take a teabag, put it in an envelope, and mail it to the White House.' He added, 'reteaparty.com has a headline Teabag the Fools in D.C. on tax day.' Thus the verb to teabag was invented by the teabaggers themselves, and the correspondent who put it on TV was a Griff Jenkins of Fox News. Send your complaints to him."

      The teabaggers coined their own name, without realizing what it also means, and then they blamed their critics for their stupidity. By the way, why did it take them so long to figure out what a teabagger is? Why has this outrage on their part flared up recently?

      Now, stop pretending the teabaggers aren't reaping what they sowed.

    214. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      What part of lower taxes and smaller government bothers you?

      Because it gets people killed, and low taxes have high costs. Any more questions?

    215. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      We are spending so much so-called stimulus money

      You're using the words, "so much", but they don't mean whatever it is you think they mean. In the 30's, the Democrats put 4 million people back to work in 4 months. The stimulus that passed didn't even come close to doing that, much less match those numbers as a percentage of the population.

      "Uh, no thanks, we'd rather cut back our spending than try to keep up with you"

      The rich crashed the world economy. They got bailed out, corporate profits have recovered, and now the middle class has to take all the cuts in services to pay for it. Smashing, yeah plutocrats.

      And surprise, surprise, the Democrats are getting ready to raise taxes again. Not just on those rich folks they demonized during the elections either; they are coming after your paycheck and mine.

      [Citation needed]

    216. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written.

      It's a conservative stance that that's how the Constitution is written. : ) The Constitution says that those powers not going to the Federal gov't should go to the states - but I don't know of anything in the Constitution that specifically says power should be given to the states **instead of** the government **whenever possible**, i.e. that State power tends to be better and/or more wisely wielded than Federal power.

      Be that as it may, again I'm talking about consistency. If "conservative" meant standing for State's rights as opposed to Federal power whenever possible, then none of the above mentioned situations (plus the Schiavo incident) would have occurred.

      We may be in agreement that conservatives aren't what they used to be - this may in fact be exactly what I mean, when I refer to current conservatism lacking a clear and consistent ideology.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    217. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Conservatism is about the protection of individual rights and liberties, freedom.

      Abortion.
      Drug war.
      Pornography.
      Patriot Act.
      Warrantless wiretapping.
      Gulags at Gitmo and Bagram.
      "Show your papers" law in Arizona.

      You were saying?

      The lower class needs healthcare: response is to increase government spending with entitlements

      ...and force people to buy insurance from the same greedy insurance companies that would just as soon watch you die in the street than pay out claims.

      The economy is tanking badly: response is to create a slush fund of a trillion of dollars (give or take a billion)

      ...fantasy with no basis in reality.

      BP screwed up and caused an oil spill: response is to send in the lawyers, SWAT?, setup several more bureaucracies, etc.

      ...and thanks for letting us know you're a political hack. The conservative/libertarian line is that we don't need no stinkin regulation because companies will be held responsible for their fuckups. Well, a company has the most spectacular fuck-up in American history, but any mention of any kind of accountability, and the political hacks start whining about frivolous lawsuits.

      A car company is going belly up

      ...Detroit is only the basis for 3 million American jobs.

      Wall Street actually paid back their debts

      ...with a combination of our own money and the profits they made by taking zero interest loans from the government and then handing them out to consumers at 20-30%.

      and threaten wall street with excessive taxes

      ...on what planet is that? A fair basis for taxation would be taxing investment income at the same rate as regular income, eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, and bring back the 91% tax bracket.

      Government spending is wildly out of control

      Funny how that's only a problem when Democrats are in charge, and only on budgetary items that don't go through the CIA or the Pentagon.

      Which will result in fewer companies hiring, fewer company startups, an even more depressed economy, etc.

      Which is complete nonsense. There has never been a single income tax cut in history that has created a single job. If a business owner will make more money expanding his business and hiring more workers - then he'll plow the profits of the business back into expansion, and write it off on his taxes. His personal income tax rate is utterly irrelevant.

      It's just that the DKos is SOO far left they think Obama is right.

      If you think that's "far left", you need to see a nice proctologist in North Korea about that little "problem" of yours. Once he's done extracting your head from your ass, you can take a good look around and see what "far left" actually looks like.

    218. Re:To be fair... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Ok, just to be clear, exactly what is it that you think Obama should be doing that he's not doing about the oil pumping into the gulf? I'm just curious because I really haven't heard of any useful suggestions that haven't already been acted on, and you've got a whole group of conservatives that want to downplay the severity of the situation at every opportunity. After all, like Limbaugh said, oil is natural!

      Except that's a red herring. The problem that honest liberals have with Obama's response to the disaster in the Gulf has been his reliance on BP in the response effort. Or as Shep Smith pointed out, 'BP has a worse safety record than all other companies combined, times ten'. Why was BP free to dump whatever dispersants they wanted into the Gulf? Why have they been free to restrict information to the public? Why have they been free to higher private security guards to chase the press off public beaches?

      Mostly because the only other people with any ability at all to do anything about this issue don't want to get involved, and claim that BP has a better understanding of this particular well than they do and is the best group to handle it. Yes, they screwed up royally in causing the problem, but there's nobody else that can really do anymore to fix it than they can either.

      As for the restriction of information and the press, I don't know what the reasons are around that, but I certainly don't think that the press should be barred from reporting on the issue. The dispersants are one of those issues where there's just not enough information to know whether it's a good thing to do or not. Whether you use them or not, you're going to have people screaming about it. I happen to suspect that they're mostly concerned with visible oil, and the dispersants are helping to minimize that. So they feel it's worthwhile because whatever harm they end up doing will likely not be as immediate or visible, and possibly a lot harder to pin on them than the oil problem. But with no real data about the effects of this kind of usage, the government was pretty much damned whether they let them do it or not.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    219. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but liberals are just as self-contradictory.

      Hardly.

      liberals are anti-death penalty

      Because they view it as barbaric, or because of all the people released from death row because DNA testing proved so many prosecutions either malicious or incompetent, or because the level of justice depends on how much the defendant can spend on attorneys. None of which has anything whatsoever to do with...

      but pro-abortion

      ...aborting a blob of cells with as much brainpower as your average garden worm. And of course, conservatives should be all for protecting abortion rights, since they are supposedly all about protecting the individual from the state. Huh, it's almost like they were were partisan hacks, using situational reasoning for arguments of convenience....

    220. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      the apathy of the middle is why the extremists have taken over the airwaves

      False equivalency sense is tingling...

      and we've got crazy utopianists on the other side saying we've got to close all the banks and give the money to the people who pissed their money away in the first place

      Fantasy with no basis in reality. Wow, that was easy.

    221. Re:To be fair... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      They actually did know what it meant. They knew what teabagging was, and thought it would be hilarious to imply that they would be dipping their balls into the mouths of liberals.

      Interesting that you claim that now, yet 2 posts above you claim that they didn't. spun said:

      Now that teabaggers know what the term means, they call themselves tea partiers. But back in the day, they carried teabags around and called themselves teabaggers.

      Selective "fact" finding? You even posted an article to support your above contention.

      And just to be clear, I have zero respect for most so called teabaggers.

      Yea, I think that comes through just fine, as well as your lumping a lot of defenders of liberty in with all kinds of ignorant crazies and GOP establishment types.

      Perhaps it is only a few bad apples that make the group look crazy, but any group that lets its craziest members speak for it, that in fact encourages the crazies, deserves no respect.

      You're looking at it from the outside, and must be relying bad (read: opposition) sources for your information, because there is plenty of effort to ignore/quiet/distance the "crazies" from the movement.

      Part of the issue just a basic difference in the Liberty movement and the Progressive movement. The conservative activists tend to want to let everyone express themselves, and not try to control the message, while the progressives do exactly the opposite, to the point that their ultimate end-game (return to Feudalism) isn't even discussed, but instead is wrapped in rhetorical terms like "Democracy" and "Social Justice", and the message is carefully controlled, without getting into the details of the policies they support. This is evident by checking the progressive sites like MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, etc., where user content isn't allowed. Compare this to sites like CampaignForLiberty.org, where users can sign up, create blogs, post comments, and freely discuss their views.

      If you don't like people calling you a fucking cretin, I suggest you refrain from discussing your politics online, or stick to the right wing echo chambers where your views will be encouraged.

      Good demonstration of the progressive mind-set. "Shut up and let your betters speak for you."

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    222. Re:To be fair... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      "Show your papers" law in Arizona.

      What states have police officers that DON'T ask for a drivers license when pulled over? If you don't have one, you better damn well have a green card or passport. When I travel overseas, I'm asked for my passport when confronted by an official or booking a hotel room. What part of "illegal immigration" don't you get?

      and force people to buy insurance from the same greedy insurance companies that would just as soon watch you die in the street than pay out claims.

      The government has always been the problem...for generations. This new health care bill has shattered an already broken system under the guise of "fixing it". The level of bureaucracy rivals that of our tax code. Wholly inefficient with too many middle-men involved. Entire worthless industries are created because of it.

      fantasy with no basis in reality.

      I'm simply gobsmacked! Are you INSANE?! Have you not seen the levels of unemployment, drop in consumer spending, home sales drop, and unemployment benefits drying up? States are going BROKE! By 2012, our debt is poised to overtake our GDP! That should frighten you.

      The conservative/libertarian line is that we don't need no stinkin regulation because companies will be held responsible for their fuckups

      Correct, and they will be held responsible. You fuckup, you pay. But for various reasons that I don't understand, our Federal Government is being the obstructionists against the will of the States that want to cleanup this mess. They are being stonewalled.

      Detroit is only the basis for 3 million American jobs

      and one of the largest concentration of Unions. It's about the Democrat votes. It always was. But hey, lets prop up their failure anyways right? We're paying for it. And while where at it, when I buy a GM car do I automatically get enrolled into the Democrat party?

      A fair basis for taxation...

      Would be to scrap the IRS and the entire tax accounting industries that it has spawned. If you want a fair tax system that holds our government truly accountable, check out www.fairtax.org.

      Funny how that's only a problem when Democrats are in charge, and only on budgetary items that don't go through the CIA or the Pentagon.

      Didn't you get the memo? Bush was a huge tax spender. Many conservatives are still pissed at him for that.

      There has never been a single income tax cut in history that has created a single job

      There has never been a single income tax increase in history that has created a single job either. It can't be measured either way. But you can match taxation with surplus GDP however. Optimal taxation is based on the Laffer curve.

      If you think that's "far left"...

      Members of DKos have gone from far left to completely off the political chart. Now, they're simply a bunch of angry petulant children.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    223. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

      Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.

      Is it not the Republicans that have told us time and time again that the government should stay out of the way of industry because they know how best to do their jobs? BP is responsible for the disaster and is also responsible for the cleanup, as they have the expertise to know how to do it, the money to buy any and all aid needed for it, and the incentive to do so as quickly as possible for their own financial sake. If we start bringing in others to start doing things without the approval of BP, they'll just blame any failure on the government for interfering, and I think it's rather obvious that Republicans would be all over that, talking about how the incompetent government just had to try to run the cleanup and of course screwed it all up. If BP wanted the aid, they could have had it at any time.

    224. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots like you blame the Democrats, but the real Americans know who got them in this mess

      It's a simple cause-and-effect correlation:

      Democrats took the majority in Congress in 2006. Economy quickly slid into the shitter.

      It's just a matter of presenting the evidence.

      Bush is gone. Ohbummer has to actually do something now, and isn't.

      Right. Except you can't point to anything that the Dem congress actually did that would have caused a practically instantaneous collapse of the entire financial system. Your claim is utterly moronic. You have no concept whatsoever of the causes of the financial collapse. Go watch NASCAR or something. I wouldn't want you to tax your brain.

    225. Re:To be fair... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its easily ironic if you're liberal.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    226. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its easily ironic if you're liberal.

      What's ironic is that you claim to be as neutral as possible, yet regard the best yardstick of media accuracy to be, and I'm paraphrasing here, "how much shit strikes me as false off the top of my head." Perhaps it might benefit you to actually bother to look up the "lies" from MSNBC and the "truth" from Fox. Akre v. Fox News is in the public record and is a good place to start.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    227. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I noted numerous plainly inaccurate stories and a number snide comments about Bush that were completely missing from Fox with regard to Obama.

      You're right. Fox News never makes snide comments about Obama.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    228. Re:To be fair... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, some of the biggest wastes of our money are farm subsidies (grow so much corn that HFCS is cheaper than sugar!) and the military. I'm all for smaller government regarding those two. Much of the rest of government spending is welfare state stuff that I not only support, I want it expanded. Free university education for all, longer unemployment benefits, socialized health care, pensions, etc.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    229. Re:To be fair... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And none of that changes my original point, which was that it is used as a pejorative term to attack people rather than engage in debate, and therefore is usually used by people whose ability to engage in an interesting discussion is less developed than their desire to mock those who think differently.

      Why do you right wing Americans bang on about free speech when it's used to defend the rights of Nazis to promote race war or anti-abortionists to demand the murder of doctors,, but then get all moany when someone engages in legitimate political satire or uses a moderately obscene word?

      Surely it's not because you secretly agree with the Nazis?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    230. Re:To be fair... by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      He's as socialist as any Russian, but he wouldn't admit that.

      Sorry to interrupt that entertaining pie fight you are having, but could you please answer this: do you think Russia is having a socialist government at the moment? If you say yes, could you please explain what you think `socialist' means?

      Actually, could you please explain what you think `socialist' means anyway? In US english it seems to be a dirty word, but concrete examples of `US socialism' seem to have little to do with what we mean with the term in Europe. The best definition I have been able to distill is `any government act that benefits other people instead of me'.

    231. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOA, wait one fucking minute here - are we talking about the same Fox "Terrorist Fist Jab" News, here? The same Fox News that referred to Michelle Obama as a 'baby momma'?

      Are you out of your god damn mind?

    232. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      European leaders are trying to rein in their spending because they see the economic writing on the wall. Obama and his Democrats insist on charging straight ahead and spending more, even if it means rolling back their worthless campaign promises not to raise taxes on earners under $250k. Make no mistake, they are targeting you and I to pick up the tab for their heavy-spending ways.

      Taxation citation.

      I realize liberals might not like the WSJ as a source, but the article is well-written and informative. They have a graph which shows the actual impact the tax hikes would have. It's not op-ed, it's straight-up reporting of what is already out on the news wires. See the Associated Press report as well.

      "Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.

      No, it's not. Throwing more money at a problem that is rooted in waste has never solved the problem, it has only extended it. We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, yet instead of

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    233. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Ah, dammit. Fumblefingers.

      ... instead of cutting waste, we're creating more. We're fucked if things keep going like this.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    234. Re:To be fair... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, some of the biggest wastes of our money are farm subsidies (grow so much corn that HFCS is cheaper than sugar!) and the military. I'm all for smaller government regarding those two.

      Agreed.

      Much of the rest of government spending is welfare state stuff that I not only support, I want it expanded.

      I guess I can amicably disagree with you there. the government fills some admirable and necessary roles in supporting those who need it, but in general, it is rife with fraud, and it is mismanaged and wasteful. So at the very least, it needs to be run more competently. We could to far more good with the dollars we already spend if we spent them more wisely. I also feel that welfare-style spending is dangerous. It tends to create an entitlement mentality, and a cycle of dependency, rather than assist people to move up and off their benefits. No, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I see it every day. Of course, the usual caveats apply, every person's circumstances are different, etc.

      Free university education for all, longer unemployment benefits, socialized health care, pensions, etc.

      State universities used to be places a student could get a good, affordable education. Now government bureaucracy has generally mismanaged them to the point where even a state university education where I am has become quite expensive. Giving them more taxpayer money doesn't look like a solution to me. And believe me, I'd love to not have to pay for college for my 3 kids. I just don't think the government (at least the state & federal govt we have today) should be given any more tax money for education. They've proven they can't effectively use what they have.

      Extended unemployment benefits - especially during a downturn like this - is a good thing. It helps prevent a cascade of other bad things like home foreclosure and personal bankruptcy. By preventing the rug being pulled out from underneath the unemployed, we preserve a key asset to our economic recovery - our workforce.

      Socialized healthcare? Sorry, I've got to say no on that one, for the same reason as education. The government mismanages healthcare in an abominable fashion. Something needs to be done to help the least fortunate, but not at the price of greater government control over healthcare.

      Given your liberal leanings, I realize it might be a stretch to ask you to visit a Cato Institute website, but it can't do any harm to simply read this. If you read this with an open mind, your opinions on pensions might be different. It is a presentation on the Chilean retirement system, the problems they faced, and how they solved them.

      http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html

      To be fair, it's not a perfect system, and there have been justifiable criticisms of it, but it's better than what they had before.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    235. Re:To be fair... by jbeach · · Score: 1

      he's done nothing more than scrub their name...

      Since this entire article is about DailyKos publicly admitting that R2K duped them and are not to be trusted, and Dailykos is now publicly *suing* them....doesn't that disprove your statement right then and there?

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    236. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Hardly.

      Then there's plenty of other contradictions for you left wing nuts.

      Freedom of Speech... unless you disagree with the guy, or it has the possibility of offending someone. Strong government... unless they get involved in your personal life. Higher taxes... but not for ourselves. Smaller military/less intervention... except in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Pro-immigration.... but only if the immigrants will vote for Democrats. Restriction on gun rights... except not for ourselves. (Seeing a trend here? They're elitist bastards who like to pretend they're the voice of the people.)

      >>aborting a blob of cells with as much brainpower as your average garden worm

      I wasn't aware a 9 month old fetus was a blob of cells with as much brainpower as an average garden worm. Hell, Obama supported post-birth abortions, i.e., infanticide.

    237. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied.

      On the balance of things, I've heard Ann Coulter admit when she'd made a mistake, but I've never seen Olbermann do the same. But then again, I think Olbermann is an idiot, so I avoid watching him.

      I'm not an especial fan of Ann Coulter, either, as she's in the wrong on a couple issues, her articles provide a good counterpoint to the left-wing bias in the mainstream media. (And it is left wing - it's silly to argue otherwise.)

      My personal take on consuming media is to try to draw from as many sources as possible. I listen to Pacifica Communist Radio out of Berkeley as much as Fox News.

    238. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      >>As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied.

      On the balance of things, I've heard Ann Coulter admit when she'd made a mistake, but I've never seen Olbermann do the same. But then again, I think Olbermann is an idiot, so I avoid watching him.

      Olbermann is a wind-up noise-box. I was a fan for a while, but got sick of him pretty fast. I like Rachel Maddow, but most of the MSNBC lineup are hacks.

      I'm not an especial fan of Ann Coulter, either, as she's in the wrong on a couple issues, her articles provide a good counterpoint to the left-wing bias in the mainstream media. (And it is left wing - it's silly to argue otherwise.)

      Bullshit. She's a counterpoint to the mostly-accurate media, inasmuch as she's batshit crazy. This is someone that actually believes that Joe McCarthy was a good and honest man, whom we all should've listened to. She will read a column which insists we need to go after terrorists more aggressively, and if it's by a liberal she will claim the article said we should give up on fighting terrorists (if you don't believe me, check her footnotes...I mean actually read the articles she cites). She may have corrected herself on a few occasions (I'm not aware of any) but she says so many things that are baldly false that that hardly makes up for it. www.anncoulter.blogspot.com is a good place to start for fact-checking her, but beware you'll never finish.

      My personal take on consuming media is to try to draw from as many sources as possible. I listen to Pacifica Communist Radio out of Berkeley as much as Fox News.

      That's a good take. Most of my friends refuse to turn on Fox News, but I like to have an open mind so I check in from time to time.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    239. Re:To be fair... by Machtyn · · Score: 1
      Socialism, to me, means that government owns business. Princeton seems to agree.

      Examples: Obama's take over of GM. His attempted take over of the banks. His threatening to take over the oil industry, etc.

      Granted, government ownership is good in some areas. Just look at the wonderful educational system... um, er, the efficient Postal System... er, Medicare and Medicaide! oh, wait, I know, the military medical system, that's not in shambles... umm, wait I guess it is. Ooh, ooh, how about the Department of Transportation, there's no corruption there...no wait, there is.

      I'm not saying government can't do a good job, they've just failed miserably at doing so. In fact, without the Postal System, the transportation of communication would not have been as reliable as it has. But if it was good, FedEx and UPS would never have been able to compete. The USPS is swimming in deficit. The Educational System was absolutely needed at a time when many children weren't getting a proper education. But now the system fails with social experimentation and an inability to get rid of bad teachers. The Department of Transportation does a decent job keeping the roads safe, they just do so at about the most expensive and inefficient way possible and, in my view, is highly corruptible.

      Americans have this ingrained belief that the government is highly inefficient at providing for the public than what they themselves, another private citizen, or private corporations can do. The desire to maximize profit creates processes of efficiency. Government does not care to create profit and therefore does not care to be efficient.

      I feel Reagan was correct in this statement:

      "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

      To answer your Russian question. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I remember what I was doing when the East German wall came down. I watched CNN as the old regime attempted a coup-de-tat on the Russian White House. I was hopeful for Russia. I don't know what Russia is now. They seem to have a democratically representative government. But corruption in Russia also seems to be ingrained and so private business is difficult. Russians are a hard people living in hard conditions. They always have. I'm not sure what Medvedev is up to, there are signs of the old republic showing up. (And I'm not just talking about the 11 buffoons in Chicago.)

    240. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      As I'm reading through a book on the Venona intercepts, it's probably not a good time to be arguing against anti-comunist people. Commie spies in England early in the war were helping the mother fucking Nazis bomb UK defense installations, and agitated heavily in the US to keep us put of Europe, and helped instigate Pearl Harbor.

      So while I wouldn't say that McCarthy was a saintly or even nice individual, I would say that we've lost our focus on the evils of communism to focus just on the "Red Scare", as if the problem was all imaginary.

    241. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      As I'm reading through a book on the Venona intercepts, it's probably not a good time to be arguing against anti-comunist people.

      But what about the opportunistic anti-communist people who were totally full of shit?

      Commie spies in England early in the war were helping the mother fucking Nazis bomb UK defense installations, and agitated heavily in the US to keep us put of Europe, and helped instigate Pearl Harbor.

      I like how you throw around the term "commie" like they're all the same, and if some are spies, they must all be spies, right? There couldn't possibly be patriotic, America-loving commies like, oh, I don't know, Pete Seeger, Helen Keller, John Steinbeck, and WOODY GUTHRIE, the man who wrote one of the most patriotic American songs I know. Just as an intellectual exercise, replace the word "commie" with "German" in your paragraph (which still leaves it entirely true), and suddenly you're advocating hating on Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg because of what Hitler and company did.

      So while I wouldn't say that McCarthy was a saintly or even nice individual, I would say that we've lost our focus on the evils of communism to focus just on the "Red Scare", as if the problem was all imaginary.

      The problem was def. not imaginary. That doesn't change the fact that McCarthy's list was a blank sheet of paper. People who were truly fighting the problem, like President Eisenhower, who actually had civilian spies executed, came under attack from dipshits like McCarthy and the Birchers. And Coulter doesn't care because to her, the only measure of how American you are is how rabidly anti-communist, not how accurately anti-communist, you are. (in post-cold-war times, substitute Islam for communist...yes, she is anti-Islam, she actually said the solution to 9/11 was to convert all Muslims to Christianity, as if Christians never get into holy wars with each other...). Just because there were actual red spies doesn't mean there wasn't an insidious red scare as well, but Ms. Coulter will take any opportunity to attack liberals, even if she has to fudge the facts quite a bit.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    242. Re:To be fair... by Transaction7 · · Score: 1

      Right! This is just one more place where B. O. has made the same kind, and some of the same, false political promises they all make, and made the same bad move of announcing in advance exactly when we intend to give up and go home, giving the other side not only encouragement, aid and comfort but valuable intelligence information, and which, like the deadline to close Gitmo laid down before anybody thought really hard about what to do with the terrorists there, is subect to prospective and retroactive change without notice Every Presidential nominee of either party since "9/11[01]" has solemnly promised that he, and he alone, could and would capture Osama Bin Laden, thereby proving all of them, and both political parties, not only fools utterly ignorant of the history, geography, and geopolitics of that part of the world, the "graveyard of empires" since Alexander the Great's time, but bald-faced liars. Polls commissioned by organizations with political agendas are notoriously unreliable, in significant part because they know all too well what their clients want to hear and publish, and it is all too easy so shade questions over into a "push poll" the questions in which are either subtly or blatantly structured to tip the responses in the desired direction by choice of language, etc. Of course, polls on many socio-economic and political subjects start out with the fundamental problem that a huge part of the population being sampled more or less well doesn't want to let on that they really don't have a clue about the people or issues upon which they express opinions. The polling on Supreme Court appointees is a particularly gross case in point because a majority of Ivy League students or graduates, much less the general population, can’t name and tell you anything meaningful about three of the nine current Justices, doesn't know any more about the realities of "original intent," "living constitution," or any other real or made-up system of actual or purported Constitutional interpretation, can't identify the five primary rights guaranteed--which most mistakenly think are granted--by the First Amendment, much less tell you anything about recent opinions. A majority of voters who show up at the polls, much less the general public, can't name both their U. S. Senators, much less tell you anything significant about each of them, either. I've been a voter since 1959 and been "professionally" five times, all five of them asking me, the same night, while "Love Story" was on TV, what I was watching. I have never seen any design for a political polling sample that did not start out with the expert pollster's preconceived ideas of what factors were going to be outcome-determinative in that upcoming election, based, of course, on what had happened in prior elections. I have worked with the best canvassing and other data my party had in my precinct in a major metropolitan area, and, at least at that time, but probably still today, I seriously doubt that anybody, with the possible exception of Google except that their data covers only serious Internet users like me, has had the kind of detailed demographic data that just might permit a brilliant expert to put together a sample of a thousand or so likely voters that would constitute a fair sample on enough of the things that might influence the votes of swing voters, for example, especially in a year like this one with some rather unprecedented factors and developments. . I happened, years go, to have been doing something else that led to my being at the offices of a major polling organization and they got positively furious that, making conversation, I asked the receptionist a simple, basic question about the process about which I was genuinely curious. I somehow lucked into a B in statistics, but higher math is definitely not one of my talents. I’m sometimes amazed and cannot understand how the polling can be as accurate as it sometimes is. I don't have a clue how the experts cited caught on to the particular bad polling work for Daily Kos, which they would

    243. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      And just because there was a Red Scare doesn't mean that there weren't actually communist inflitrators.

      This is the dominant / mainstream notion in American history now (in my AP US History class back in the day, we were taught that it was all paranoia and hoopla). Coulter corrects a very fundamental error in our society's memory. I'm not sure how any small mistakes (such as?) make up for correcting this very large one.

      As for Woodie Guthrie and the rest, I don't have much respect for anyone who trends socialist or communist. As for the patriotism and the like, the true believers of the communist party put the interests of the USSR (and their Nazi allies before Hitler broke off the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) ahead of that of their home country.

      That's what a communist international gets you, you know.

    244. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      And just because there was a Red Scare doesn't mean that there weren't actually communist inflitrators.

      No shit, sherlock. Didn't you even read my last post where I totally acknowledge this? Quit trying to confuse the issue. There were communist infiltrators. There was a Red Scare. Ann Coulter tries to convince readers that every liberal was a communist infiltrator. The third of those three statements is the issue at hand.

      This is the dominant / mainstream notion in American history now (in my AP US History class back in the day, we were taught that it was all paranoia and hoopla).

      So you went to a HS with a shitty history program, and suddenly that constitutes a dominant notion?

      Coulter corrects a very fundamental error in our society's memory. I'm not sure how any small mistakes (such as?) make up for correcting this very large one.

      She corrects it by insisting that all liberals were either communist sympathizers or communist spies (need I remind you that Kennedy was one of the fiercest anti-communists who stood up to enemy missiles in the Cuban missile crisis) and by letting us know that McCarthy's blank sheet of paper was legit? I'd hardly call that a correction, or a small mistake. It's a large, opportunistic, willful misrepresentation.

      As for Woodie Guthrie and the rest, I don't have much respect for anyone who trends socialist or communist.

      Well, here's the problem right here. You don't have much respect for anyone who doesn't think like you. At this point, why should I even bother debating? You've just informed me you will come out on a particular side no matter how much evidence is presented.

      As for the patriotism and the like, the true believers of the communist party put the interests of the USSR (and their Nazi allies before Hitler broke off the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) ahead of that of their home country.

      That's what a communist international gets you, you know.

      And that's why all the patriotic American commies I mentioned either left the communist party-USA after they saw what the international was up to, or never joined in the first place. They weren't true believers in the communist party, they were true believers in America and true believers in a more just economic structure, which didn't bind them to a particular party. But if you insist on putting everything into binary opposition where categories can't overlap, then yeah, I guess I can see how you could never find patriotism and communism to be compatible within that mindset. Every communist is a drone for Moscow, historical evidence be damned!! Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and Mao Zedong never existed!!! Yay!

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    245. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      If you think she criticized JFK for being pro-communist, then you obviously haven't read what she said, and are just repeating shit you heard some idiot say. I won't disagree with you about the wide paintbrush and hyperbole she uses, but if you're going to criticize her for something that is the opposite of what she said, then you're guilty of what you imagine she is doing.

      http://hnn.us/articles/1554.html)
      http://hnn.us/

    246. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      If you think she criticized JFK for being pro-communist, then you obviously haven't read what she said, and are just repeating shit you heard some idiot say.

      Coulter did not criticize Kennedy by name for being pro-communist. Other than that, you're completely wrong and I have the quotes to prove it. "Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis." (from Treason). There you have it; unless Ann Coulter considers JFK a non-liberal (and he was the last president to proudly apply that title to himself) then she has accused him of being pro-communist. It seems the only way you have of defending her is to accuse people of generalizing and not being familiar with her work who in fact have read her work and are specifically rebutting her.

      I won't disagree with you about the wide paintbrush and hyperbole she uses, but if you're going to criticize her for something that is the opposite of what she said, then you're guilty of what you imagine she is doing.

      Yeah, too bad for you I'm criticizing her for what she actually said and wrote, not for the opposite of it. "So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly." --Ann Coulter

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    247. Re:To be fair... by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1
      "Somebody really fucked up the metamoderation."

      +5 Insightful. The up, down vote implies you either agree or disagree with the post itself. This seems to duplicate the normal moderation system on one hand. Whilst making it likely people will vote based on your own bias on the topic.

      The older system was actually about moderating the moderation which is what I thought meta-moderation was about.

    248. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/

      Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.

      The Jones act doesn't even apply in this situation.

    249. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Considering she called out JFK *by name* as being anti-communist, I'm frankly baffled by your conclusion that she claims he's pro-communist. Since I supplied the damn reference to you in my last post, it's obvious you don't bother reading anything before making an opinionated statement.

      She concluded that there needed to be more liberals like JFK.

      I've recently rewatched the JFK/Nixon debates. They fought over who was tougher on communism. This is in contrast to the milquetoast liberals who, as she said (again with hyperbole) were often sympathizers.

    250. Re:To be fair... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Considering she called out JFK *by name* as being anti-communist, I'm frankly baffled by your conclusion that she claims he's pro-communist.

      Meh. She "called out JFK *by name*", as you say, for saying anti-communist things. "John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy." Then she says he and Truman are a different breed from today's Democrats, but then again she also said all liberals even back then were liars.

      Since I supplied the damn reference to you in my last post, it's obvious you don't bother reading anything before making an opinionated statement.

      I read it. Apparently it's impossible for someone to read the same article and reach a conclusion, in your thinking. "But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery." Once again, just because she previously gave Kennedy faint praise, I don't think that means she's considering him NOT a part of the Democratic party. Remember, this is also the woman who said she would vote for Hilary Clinton if McCain got the '08 nomination. I don't take that as any form of endorsement for Clinton.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    251. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Then there's plenty of other pathetic straw men and canards

      FTFY.

      Freedom of Speech... unless you disagree with the guy, or it has the possibility of offending someone.

      In reference to what? Tipper Gore and CD's? Just one slight problem for you....liberal != Democrat. When Democrats back shit like banning violent video games and passing flag-burning laws, they aren't being liberal, they're being conservative.

      Strong government... unless they get involved in your personal life.

      Simplistic nonsense, but you knew that already. There is no contradiction in wanting to protect access to abortion, and wanting to keep your local coal mine from dumping toxic waste into the nearby river. Because the woman having an abortion only affects her family, while the coal mine affects everyone downstream.

      Higher taxes... but not for ourselves.

      Higher taxes on those who can afford it (i.e., the rich). And many liberals are rich, which you have no doubt spent time whining about as a good little wingnut (Hollywood liberals).

      Restriction on gun rights... except not for ourselves.

      WTF are you talking about. A restriction on xyz guns affects everyone.

      Seeing a trend here?

      Yup, lots of tired wingnut propaganda that was old 20 years ago. Yawn.

      I wasn't aware a 9 month old fetus was a blob of cells with as much brainpower as an average garden worm.

      No one has an abortion at 9 months for shits and giggles. No one. If there is an abortion, it's either because the fetus has severe birth defects, or because the mother's life is in danger. Another wingnut straw man bites the dust.

      Hell, Obama supported post-birth abortions, i.e., infanticide.

      i.e, another baseless wingnut lie. Funny how often that happens.

    252. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      European leaders are trying to rein in their spending because they see the economic writing on the wall.

      No, that would be the aforementioned soaking of the middle class after the rich got bailed out. European countries have cut corporate taxes and regulation...the problem isn't that we're becoming more like Europe, it's the Europe has become more like us.

      Obama and his Democrats insist on charging straight ahead and spending more

      Because it's the only way out of a depression. Before the banking reforms signed by FDR, we experienced booms and depressions on a regular basis, that sometimes lasted decades. When you have a demand-based economy, and demand has collapsed, the only entity capable of stimulating new demand is the federal government.

      even if it means rolling back their worthless campaign promises not to raise taxes on earners under $250k

      [Citation needed (again)]

      Make no mistake, they are targeting you and I to pick up the tab for their heavy-spending ways.

      The part you're leaving out is that it's the working class that's going to have to take it up the ass so the rich can go right on increasing their share of the wealth. Just action would be bringing back the 91% tax rates, Holder laying waste to Wall Street firms with a wave of prosecutions, and of course lopping a zero off the end of our defense spending.

      None of which is likely to happen.

    253. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      What states have police officers that DON'T ask for a drivers license when pulled over?

      Which states have laws like Arizona's? Nice try on moving those goalposts. Well, not really.

      The government has always been the problem...for generations.

      What ended racial discrimination? What saved the economy during the Great Depression? What ensures that the food you eat isn't poisonous, and the water you drink isn't chock full of e-coli or arsenic? What builds the roads you use?

      This new health care bill has shattered an already broken system under the guise of "fixing it". The level of bureaucracy rivals that of our tax code. Wholly inefficient with too many middle-men involved. Entire worthless industries are created because of it.

      It hasn't shattered the system, it's extended the system to the rest of Americans by forcing them to either buy insurance from greedy corporations or subsidize those who cannot afford it - who then have to buy it from greedy corporations. The problem with the health bill is that it wasn't a government takeover of the insurance industry.

      I'm simply gobsmacked! Are you INSANE?! Have you not seen the levels of unemployment, drop in consumer spending, home sales drop, and unemployment benefits drying up? States are going BROKE! By 2012, our debt is poised to overtake our GDP! That should frighten you.

      WHOOSH. The fantasy part wasn't that our economy is in the shitter, the fantasy was your Beckian talking point of "trillion dollar slush fund".

      Correct, and they will be held responsible.

      How. How will they be held responsible.

      and one of the largest concentration of Unions

      Annnnnnd?

      But hey, lets prop up their failure anyways right? We're paying for it.

      Slight problem with that: the unions didn't fail. Management failed by continuing to insist on producing high margin gas guzzlers rather than make smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, same as the leadup to the energy crisis in the 70's. And then after Katrina hit and gas prices went through the roof, Detroit had it's lunch eaten by the Japanese - same as in the 70's.

      Would be to scrap the IRS and the entire tax accounting industries that it has spawned. If you want a fair tax system that holds our government truly accountable, check out www.fuckthemiddleclass.org.

      Fixed that, too. The UnFair tax is a tax increase on the lower class, while allowing the rich to pay an even smaller percentage of their wealth. In fact, you take any Republican/Libertarian/wingnut talking point on economics and boil it down to its essence, and that's what you'll find: a rationalization for giving the rich even more money.

      Didn't you get the memo? Bush was a huge tax spender. Many conservatives are still pissed at him for that.

      Yes, many conservatives are "pissed" at Bush. Too bad they're all bald faced liars.

      There has never been a single income tax increase in history that has created a single job either.

      You aren't even trying, are you? NASA creates jobs. The military creates jobs. Research funding creates jobs. Infrastructure spending creates jobs. Guess how these can all be funded? Ever wonder why we had money for shit like going to the moon in the 70's? It's because we had a 70% tax rate at the time (91% under Eisenhower).

      Members of DKos have gone from far left to completely off the political chart.

      ...and once again, you wouldn't know far left if it bit you on the ass. Seriously, take a nice vacation to North Korea, and get back to us on that one. Good luck with your appointment.

    254. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Quoting media matters? Enough said about your bias.

      The truth of the matter is that he does support infanticide, in that a baby born alive after a botched abortion could still be killed. I don't know how could possibly support this stance. Obama defended it saying it was an encroachment on abortion rights.

      Here's a more reputable source for you to read:
      http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

      >>WTF are you talking about. A restriction on xyz guns affects everyone.

      What I'm talking about is the various Hollywood liberals who support gun rights, except not for themselves, exactly as I stated it.

      >>Just one slight problem for you....liberal != Democrat.

      Yeah, no shit. But let's conflate them for now. They have all sorts of great phrases like, "I might disagree what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it", until, you know, Ann Coulter or someone comes to their campus. Then they do everything they can to stop her from speaking.

    255. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's not what he said. He didn't say 'Daily Kos is just as bad as tea-partiers.'

      He was talking about accuracy. So was I.

      no one goes to the Daily Kos expecting clear-minding political analysis.

      Based on what, exactly. When has their front-page analysis been cloudy-minded. Diaries don't count, since many of them are written by fanboys.

      Incidentally, if anyone is looking for the most hilariously brain-dead knee-jerk defensive post, check this out. He finds it easier to believe that the entire electoral system is wrong, rather than give up his faith in his favorite website. This despite the fact that that website has admitted it's a problem, and it's obviously not even the website's fault.

      Bleh. Actually my favorite is still the Dkos diary commending Obama for his "pragmatic" offshore drilling policy, a couple of weeks before Deep Horizon blew up. The diarist, who spent months telling us how great mandates and excise taxes would be, hasn't been seen much since them.

    256. Re:To be fair... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Quoting media matters?

      Who cite facts and make full quotes in context? What about them?

      Here's a more hair splitting for you to read

      Fixed that, too. Unfortunately for you, a vote against a bill that restricts abortion does not equate to supporting infanticide, no matter how many contortions you stretch yourself into.

      What I'm talking about is the various Hollywood liberals who support gun rights, except not for themselves, exactly as I stated it.

      You're still moving your mouth up and down, and words are falling out, but they don't mean anything whatsoever. So take the liberal celebrity of your chose - say Barbra Striesand - and she wants to ban handguns. A handgun ban is also going to...prevent her from buying handguns. What part of this is so hard for you to understand....

    257. Re:To be fair... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Based on what, exactly. When has their front-page analysis been cloudy-minded. Diaries don't count, since many of them are written by fanboys.

      I am not sure if you count this one since it's a diary, but it was on the front page. That will be my example of cloudy-minded analysis for the day.

      Come on man, Kos is writing a book comparing the Republican party to the Taliban. While entertaining, that's hardly a way to set the stage for an unbiased, clear-minded discussion.

      Bleh. Actually my favorite is still the Dkos diary commending Obama for his "pragmatic" offshore drilling policy, a couple of weeks before Deep Horizon blew up. The diarist, who spent months telling us how great mandates and excise taxes would be, hasn't been seen much since them.

      lol hilarious. Poor guy.

      --
      Qxe4
    258. Re:To be fair... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Unfortunately for you, a vote against a bill that restricts abortion does not equate to supporting infanticide, no matter how many contortions you stretch yourself into.

      If it involves killing live births it is, moron.

  2. Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics.

    1. Re:Statistics by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no joke. Didn't we just have a financial crisis with roughly the same cause?

  3. Poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fraudulent process was discovered when 5 out of 5 dentists recommended the gum, for patients that chew gum.

  4. Slightly misleading headline? by Pojut · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those who aren't used to phrases used with "political" centric organizations might mistake the title as saying someone who is on Daily Kos' payroll flubbed the numbers, rather than a company working on contract with them.

    1. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by Ocker3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      even simply adding an apostrophe to make it "Daily Kos' pollster made up numbers" would be more informative

    2. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless Kos is plural, since it's not the name of an ancient person, they'll need to add an apostrophe and an s. "Daily Kos's Pollster Made Up Numbers".

    3. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's technically correct (the best kind of correct) that you can show possession with simply an apostrophe for singular nouns ending in an 'ess' sound.

      The trick is you have to be consistent about it. (You can't start with "Daily Kos' pollster" and later use "Daily Kos's editor".)

      It's more of a guideline than a rule to use the succeeding 's.'

      However, I will say that leaving the 's' off would likely be a depreciated style if this was a standards documentation.

    4. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      No! That will crash my sql database!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Unless Kos is plural, since it's not the name of an ancient person, they'll need to add an apostrophe and an s. "Daily Kos's Pollster Made Up Numbers".

      WTF does it have to do with being the name of an ancient person??

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    6. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      However, I will say that leaving the 's' off would likely be a depreciated style if this was a standards documentation.

      I'm pretty sure you mean "deprecated", not "depreciated".

    7. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe you are technically correct.

    8. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Ancient people (or at least, ancient people of note) are pluralized without the "s" if their name already ends in an "s": so, Jesus' disciples, Moses' journey, or Socrates' principles (but Homer's Odyssey, not Homer').

      Yes, it's weird. No, I don't know why.

    9. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by iNaya · · Score: 1

      It has depreciated. Back in 1976, an "s" took up 1B/100KB on my floppy disk. That was 16,000 words - a novel could take 10 to 20+ disks. Say, out of those 16,000 words, I used the possessive form of a name ending with 's' about 100 times. By using "...s'" instead of "...s's" I could save 100B, adding about 16 words to a disk (0.1%). Vice versa, adding the 's' would cost me 16 words on a disk, extend the novel by a disk, and make it not fit in my standard package! Costing me an extra 50c in postage!!

      That extra 's' had a truly quantifiable cost.

      Now, the 's' has depreciated so much that I can use them very liberally, and never have to worry about the cost using them. It was in 1986 that my novels stopped saying "Ross' banana" and now say "Ross's banana". Only a few of my readers noticed the change, and fewer still were confused by it.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    10. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Ancient people (or at least, ancient people of note) are pluralized without the "s" if their name already ends in an "s": so, Jesus' disciples, Moses' journey, or Socrates' principles (but Homer's Odyssey, not Homer').

      Yes, it's weird. No, I don't know why.

      I don't think that's really because they're ancient, I think it's because they end with s. It's fairly standard to write "Charles'" and several style guides say the final s is optional as long as you're consistent. Strunk and White, oddly enough, back you up by insisting on the final s except for ancient names, but I think that's as much because those names are associated with convention (that is, "Jesus'" is so commonly used already that it makes sense to conform with it). But if you're not taking Strunk and White as God, it's perfectly normal to possessivize "Kos" to "Kos'".

      That's also not being pluralized, unless you were trying to say that "Jesus'" means "more than one Jesus" and "Moses'" means "more than one Moses".

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    11. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, that rule is straight out of style manuals. Proper modern style is to pluralize singular names (or other proper nouns) that end in "s" with "'s". Dropping the post-apostrophe "s" is common, but not proper modern style. However, there is an exception for ancient people whose names end in "s": they should always be pluralized without the post-apostrophe "s".

    12. Re:Slightly misleading headline? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      ...Proper modern style is to pluralize singular names (or other proper nouns) that end in "s" with "'s"...However, there is an exception for ancient people whose names end in "s": they should always be pluralized without the post-apostrophe "s".

      Dude, we're still not talking about pluralization. NOTHING should ever be pluralized with apostrophe-s. (People who type "the 60's" instead of "the 60s", I'm talking to you)

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  5. Mark Twain said it best by pilgrim23 · · Score: 0

    there are Three sorts of Lies: Lies, damned Lies, Statistics. but then he did plead......Clemmency...

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    1. Re:Mark Twain said it best by flitty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this case it was Lies, Damned Lies, and "stuff we made up".

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    2. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Hylandr · · Score: 1, Troll

      Or, the polling could be dead accurate, and the election results that are not correct.

      Given todays political climate, it wouldn't be too big a stretch to see our 'politicians' rigging results. How many people have been asked outside the polling offices, who they voted for? How was that tracked? It would be interesting to know.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    3. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For actual details on how you can tell that stuff was just made up, start reading here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/breaking-daily-kos-to-sue-research-2000.html

    4. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And when you look at it from another perspective - you will probably exclude the nerd section of the population who never answers calls from 800-numbers (or other known junk callers) by using technology to divert the calls into a tarpit or something.

      At least the open source telephony switch Asterisk do have a blacklist function where blacklisted numbers can be stored and used to perform a response like "The number you have dialed is not in use".

      I do run that feature myself - and it's a lot more effective than using those "do not call" registries.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Mark Twain said it best by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tin Hat Alert doesn't begin to cover this.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Intron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've never heard of exit polls? They're pretty much dead on in predicting vote results if done properly. There was some controversy in Bush vs. Kerry about them, it's interesting reading.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    7. Re:Mark Twain said it best by icebike · · Score: 1

      Shocked, Shocked I tell you!

      Politicians cooking the numbers? Astor-turfing?
      What is the world coming to?

      Now my tinfoil hat no longer covers my head you say?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Mark Twain said it best by jkauzlar · · Score: 3, Informative
      The headline on this article was stupidly misleading. Months ago, if not over a year, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com called out R2K for just this one thing. You may remember Silver's interesting observation that the least significant digits in the polling results did not follow a normal random distribution. For example there may have been too many .9's in the results (58.9 or 63.9, etc) while there were few instances of other digits.

      The pollster was subscribed to by DailyKos, among hundreds of other news organizations, and the results were skewed IN FAVOR OF RIGHT-WING CAUSES, not left-wing, so the assumption that DailyKos was somehow complicit in this is absolutely not true. (And I've rarely, if ever, read DailyKos, so I have no personal interest in defending them.. the headline is just grossly misleading).

    9. Re:Mark Twain said it best by skids · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was Strategic Vision, not R2K.

      (Hey, I'd be much happier if people named products with distinguishable proper names rather than generic sounding word combinations and worse yet, acronyms, so you have my sympathies for getting them mixed up.)

    10. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Or, the polling could be dead accurate, and the election results that are not correct.

      Don't Stop Believin'

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    11. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Yes. Our blacklist attendent plays this: http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds/wav/bell/disconnected.wav then disconnects.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    12. Re:Mark Twain said it best by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it has never happened.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    13. Re:Mark Twain said it best by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I realized that after I posted and went back to fivethirtyeight to read what he was saying. It looks like Silver's analysis this time around uses different methods, and again he's received a C&D to stop commenting.

    14. Re:Mark Twain said it best by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Self Reference Tin Foil hats.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  6. Polling by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Informative

    For me, the surprising part of this isn't so much that R2K made up poll results, but that the results actually were noticably less accurate than traditional polling, which I like to think of as representing a broad cross-section of people who still have landlines with no caller ID for some reason (or are desperate enough to talk to another human being that they'll answer their landline anyway).

    1. Re:Polling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, the surprising part of this isn't so much that R2K made up poll results

      I'm surprised they made up the final number instead of making up the raw numbers. They obviously predicted results, then made numbers to match them. They could have simulated polling and created raw numbers which would have been very hard to detect as frauds. They final numbers just scream "fake".

    2. Re:Polling by Intron · · Score: 1

      people who still have landlines with no caller ID

      It would be like opening unfiltered email without reading the subject lines.
      Or clicking on a link in a /. post.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:Polling by Entropius · · Score: 1

      This is what gets me, too.

      Even with undergrad-level statistics, they'd be able to do better than this (hint: random shit tends toward gaussianly-distributed, and there are all those friendly equations with sqrt(N) in them that tells you how big the Gaussians are) -- and knowing that there are people like Nate Silver et al. on the loose, they should have realized they'd be caught sooner or later.

    4. Re:Polling by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      representing a broad cross-section of people who still have landlines

      That's a fairly accurate description of Rassumsen, but most other pollers try to reach cellphone users somehow, and try to do things to make up for the demographic skewing inherent in selecting those who chose to talk to pollsters (skewed female, I believe).

      This is probably why Rassmusen has been just about the least accurate (non-internet) poll around for the last few years. Much worse than R2K. The resulting conservative skewing also explains why Rassmusen has become the Republican's favorite pollster. Any time you hear a Republican quoting poll numbers, the absolute first thing you should do is check to see if they are getting their numbers from Rassumusen.

  7. Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unlike the many Republican outfits which used partly- or wholly-fabricated polls by Strategic Vision, or the many media outlets which continue to use the horribly flawed Rasmussen polls to create eye-catching headlines, Kos immediately dumped the pollster, did an investigation, owned up to the errors publicly, and is now pursuing legal recourse.

    This is exactly how you would expect an honest media organization (if one with a considerable political agenda) to behave. Too bad the mainstream media and those on the other side of the aisle don't seem to want to do the same.

    1. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymusing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not Republican, but ... [citation needed] for the Rasmussen reference.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    2. Re:Give them credit. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      +1 on this.

      If Stephen Glass worked for a conservative rag like the National Review, he wouldn't have been fired, he would've been promoted.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly how you would expect an honest media organization (if one with a considerable political agenda) to behave. Too bad the mainstream media and those on the other side of the aisle don't seem to want to do the same.

      And then Google goes, recognizes a problem with their wi-fi location data collection, publicly and responsibly admits the problem, and takes steps to correct it, and they're being raked over the coals for it.

      And that's why media organizations have learned to not behave with honesty: The ones who don't gleefully feed on the ones who do.

    4. Re:Give them credit. by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently the situation with Rasmussen is complicated, but this seems to be a fairly decent starting place (that's not just some activist blogger).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      The quote you gave merely says that the results that Rasmussen is getting at this time show a public more greatly favoring Republican positions not that Rasmussen is fudging the numbers to get those results. The rest of the article can be dismissed since the source for the article clearly favors Democratic policy over Republican

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1 on this.

      If Stephen Glass worked for a conservative rag like the National Review, he wouldn't have been fired, he would've been promoted.

      You mean the way that NYT promoted Jayson Blair several times even though his superiors were complaining about his inaccurate stories, until it became public knowledge that he just made things up?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This, although I can't promise it's reliable, as it comes from the Daily Kos.

    8. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry but Rasmussen is the most respected polling service out there. Only leftist cockguzzlers blame it of bias because it disagrees with theirs.

    9. Re:Give them credit. by Pojut · · Score: 0, Troll

      The quote you gave merely says that the results that Rasmussen is getting at this time show a public more greatly favoring Republican positions not that Rasmussen is fudging the numbers to get those results.

      Ah. Didn't intend to mislead, I was merely pointing out that Republicans do indeed quote Rasmussen measurably more than Democrats, not that Rasmussen cooks its polls. Sorry for the confusion!

    10. Re:Give them credit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly how long did the Daily Kos blindly spew out those poll results while someone wondered about "odd patterns he had noticed in R2K's reports"?

      How long had they been featuring those results while there were questions about R2K's quality?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    11. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose I must have been confused by your use of the phrase "horribly flawed Rasmussen polls" - I thought that might mean you thought there was something wrong with them. That's my bad, then.

    12. Re:Give them credit. by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Troll

      Kos immediately dumped the pollster, did an investigation, owned up to the errors publicly, and is now pursuing legal recourse.

      In other words, they're sorry because they got caught - and they only got caught because of an independent review by an unaffiliated third party.
       

      This is exactly how you would expect an honest media organization (if one with a considerable political agenda) to behave.

      No, I'd expect an honest media organization to do their own routine reviews of second party material they publish and promote and place the weight of their own reputation behind. But dishonest corporations (of any stripe) can get away with just about anything short of murder because they can bet on two things; First, that people have short memories. Second, that the fanboys will be out in force explaining how it can't possible be the corporations fault. The corporation has always been at war with Eastasia.

    13. Re:Give them credit. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      That wasn't in my post...that was in the post I was responding to :-)

    14. Re:Give them credit. by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      until it became public knowledge that he just made things up?

      At which point he was shitcanned. Your point? Whereas Bill Kristol has gotten virtually everything wrong in his entire career, yet still has a job. As do most Iraq-war-supporting pundits.

    15. Re:Give them credit. by bonch · · Score: 0, Troll

      What the hell? Not even a citation or logged-in account, and you get an instant +5.

      You're trying to portray Markos as some moral character when he's the one who cheered troop deaths in Iraq, writing "Screw them" on his site before apologizing and editing his post after receiving major criticism. And 18 months before dumping the pollster isn't exactly an immediate response.

    16. Re:Give them credit. by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Kos had already fired R2K before the study was performed. Evidence of fraud was only recently discovered.

    17. Re:Give them credit. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Humans like patterns. We are very tuned to finding patterns. So much so that we often find patterns where no such pattern actually exists. For example, having 'lucky' numbers or "it always rains when I want to go to the park".

      An odd pattern means it's time to do a more thorough analysis, which appears to be what happened here.

    18. Re:Give them credit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      How is it asking valid questions being a troll but stating that many others are intentionally using bad polls and stating flat out that a polling company methods are "horribly flawed", both without offering even a shred of evidence. "Interesting"?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    19. Re:Give them credit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      An odd pattern means it's time to do a more thorough analysis, which appears to be what eventually happened here

      There, fixed that for you, and you didn't answer my questions.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    20. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the NYT fired Jayson Blair once they could no longer hide the fact that he made things up. The NYT had known for years that his "news" articles were fabrications before they fired him. BTW, unlike Bill Kristol, who writes opinion pieces, Jayson Blair was supposedly writing news articles.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    21. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You seemed to be supporting the parent post for the one you replied to.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:Give them credit. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Again, just pointing out that Republicans do indeed cite Rasmussen more than Democrats do...didn't mean to mislead -_-;;

    23. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAA!

      Funny.

      Yeah. Rasmussen has no ties to Washington politics. (snicker)

    24. Re:Give them credit. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should actually read TFA - you'll find Kos fired R2K *after* they were deemed unreliable by a third party, and *then* a study by a fourth party confirmed what the second party had already noted.

    25. Re:Give them credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice...
      a wholly unprovoked attack on a disagreeing ideology just to reiterate the fact that daily kos ( a website you seem to enjoy and respect) fired some janky polling outfit after they found out said janky polling outfit was putting out crap. bravo /applause

    26. Re:Give them credit. by debatem1 · · Score: 1

      Nate Silver seems to think they are given his posts on the topic and comments on his twitter feed, although its interesting that their rating in his pollster rankings isn't *that* terrible.

    27. Re:Give them credit. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      So, in your world a pattern of odd results appears instantly?

      A polling firm that had a reputation of reliability should be tossed aside the moment one of their results looks "odd"? In a science as soft as public opinion polling?

      Fact is, Research 2000 isn't a new fly-by-night firm, and their polling is used by many 'reputable' news sources (such as a whole lot of local newspapers). Which means they started with DKos with a position of being trusted.

      It's going to take any sane person several 'odd' results before they start to question that reputation. The thinking being that nobody would be so stupid as to throw away such a reputation, since that would completely destroy their business. But just as with the people on Wall Street, some people do dumb crap that blows their foot clean off when they get a short-term gain.

    28. Re:Give them credit. by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      This is not a hive mind. You received a single Troll moderation, deal with it and don't whine.

      If I had to guess why you got it, I'd guess the use of loaded words like "blindly spew" instead of a more neutral term did it.

    29. Re:Give them credit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      A) I didn't say hive mind dipshit
      B) Apparently you can't count because it is 3 troll mods.

      Now shut the fuck up.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    30. Re:Give them credit. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Seeing how often they post the polls, I would say over six months doesn't qualify as instantly.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    31. Re:Give them credit. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      There have actually been quite a few reports on FiveThirtyEight.com, DailyKos, and (I understand) more websites I don't regularly read about the Rasmussen bias. More than I really care to dig up links for, frankly.

      When you compare them with other polls on the same things, they are an outlier. A consistently more favorable to conservatives outlier. That doesn't mean they are wrong. It could be that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

      The explanation for this isn't generally malice, its just a matter of method. They rely almost exclusively on land-line polling. Most other organizations try to include cellphone polling somehow. Every year more more (generally younger) people drop their land-lines and go exclusively with cellphones. That means every year Rasmussen's demographic sample gets older and older. This favors conservatives. However, conservatives are also more likely to vote most years than young liberals. Also, Rasmussen does try to correct for their skew a bit. So again, Rassmusen could be right. It doesn't seem likely to me, but that could be wishful thinking on my part.

    32. Re:Give them credit. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      BTW, unlike Bill Kristol, who writes opinion pieces, Jayson Blair was supposedly writing news articles.

      Which doesn't explain why he's still invited on news programs, but nice attempt at misdirection. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Dan Rather was fired - over guard memos that were sourced for the accuracy of their content - yet reporters writing and airing "news articles" featuring the bogus claims of the Bush Administration still have their jobs.

    33. Re:Give them credit. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      BTW, unlike Bill Kristol, who writes opinion pieces, Jayson Blair was supposedly writing news articles.

      Which doesn't explain why he's still invited on news programs, but nice attempt at misdirection. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Dan Rather was fired - over guard memos that were sourced for the accuracy of their content - yet reporters writing and airing "news articles" featuring the bogus claims of the Bush Administration still have their jobs.

      First, as far as I know Bill Kristol has been on shows that discuss the news, not shows that report the news. Perhaps occasionally a show that reports the news will ask him his opinion about news that it is reporting.
      As for the memos that Dan Rather was fired over, he was fired because he claimed they were either original documents or photocopies of original documents when they clearly were not. As to them being "sourced for the accuracy of their content", considering that the person who supposedly wrote them is dead and the person they were supposedly sent to is also dead, who exactly is that source?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    34. Re:Give them credit. by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      I said "fraud" not "unreliable." There's a big difference. Kos fired R2K when Nate Silver rated their performance in accurately predicting the outcome of elections very poorly. Crappy != Fraud, at least not by default. Evidence of fraud surfaced in the fourth party study, which has spurred the Daily Kos to file suit.

    35. Re:Give them credit. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      First, as far as I know Bill Kristol has been on shows that discuss the news, not shows that report the news.

      Hmm, let me copy that part you blockquoted, putting a different part in bold this time:

      Which doesn't explain why he's still invited on news programs, but nice attempt at misdirection. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Dan Rather was fired - over guard memos that were sourced for the accuracy of their content - *yet reporters* writing and airing "news articles" featuring the bogus claims of the Bush Administration still have their jobs.

  8. Nelson from the Simpsons sums it up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha-ha

  9. Obligatory by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.

      And that the other 23% are erroneous.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Obligatory by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

    3. Re:Obligatory by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.

      And that the other 23% are erroneous.

      And that the remaining 17% just don't add up.

      And that the remaining 81.51% do add up, but to 200% instead of to 100%.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    4. Re:Obligatory by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.

      This is a common misconception. In fact, only 84.3% of people know that 78.49% of statistics are made up.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  10. Gee by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'd think they would spend Soros money more carefully.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  11. R2K not alone in this. by Zephyr14z · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to work a different major polling company, and I can assure you R2K is not alone in just making up numbers. Easily 80% of surveys that went through my region were completely falsified, and the remaining 20% rarely matched the demographic they were supposed to be answering for. Survey administrators have quotas, and then get paid extra for additional surveys past that, but there is basically nothing done to verify any of the surveys turned in, and everybody in the company knows it. Don't always trust what you read, especially not statistics.

    1. Re:R2K not alone in this. by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easily 80% of surveys that went through my region were completely falsified, and the remaining 20% rarely matched the demographic they were supposed to be answering for.

      You're just making those numbers up, aren't you?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:R2K not alone in this. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      I believe the statistic that you are looking for is 87.

    3. Re:R2K not alone in this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it should read like this...

      Easily 80% of surveys that went through my region were completely falsified, and the remaining 80% rarely matched the demographic they were supposed to be answering for.

    4. Re:R2K not alone in this. by D+Ninja · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't decide whether this is just being funny, or if it's insightful, or interesting. But, I'm pretty sure it's 50% funny, 20% insightful, and 30% interesting. +/- 3%

    5. Re:R2K not alone in this. by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if Diebold scored it:

      24% Funny
      10% Insightful
      15% Interesting
      51% Republican

  12. misleading headline... by emagery · · Score: 4, Informative

    For headline skimmers, this post would produced a completely inaccurate sense of what the article was all about... at length, the D.KOS are the ones who found out about this and are doing something something about it. That's good... but if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.

    1. Re:misleading headline... by Scareduck · · Score: 1

      I don't get that. "Daily Kos Pollster" is the pollster used by the website "Daily Kos". If you read the story, Kos was defrauded by the pollster.

      --

      Dog is my co-pilot.

    2. Re:misleading headline... by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Welcome to Slashdot. An assumption that the headline reflects the contents of the article, or that the summary reflects the contents of the article, are things you eventually learn is rarely true around here.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:misleading headline... by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      are rarely true... *sigh* What can I say, I just got up...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:misleading headline... by men0s · · Score: 1

      Daily Kos: Our Contracted Polling Company Made Up Their Numbers

      ..would have been a better title. I'm beginning to see why people choose to ignore kdawson edits. Or maybe it's just a ruse by him to make us actually RTFA?

    5. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I don't get that. "Daily Kos Pollster" is the pollster used by the website "Daily Kos". If you read the story, Kos was defrauded by the pollster.

      But it doesn't emphasise the pollster was a third party. Replace 'Daily Kos' with 'Fox News' or 'MSNBC' and see how it can be (mis)interpreted.

      If you need the DK reference, then 'Pollster for Daily Kos...' is better as it implies more a working relationship rather than part of the organization.

      Or they could have just said 'Research 2000 Makes Up Poll Numbers' Don't know who R2K is? RTFS.

    6. Re:misleading headline... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's pretty much not what happened. The Daily Kos published the poll results without review or oversight - until a third party found the pollster to be unreliable and a fourth party found the particular polls published by the Daily Kos to be flawed.

      So yeah, I'd lump the Daily Kos in among the culprits for failing to properly review the material they were publishing.

    7. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you took your car in to get an oil change and your mechanic mucked it up, are you to blame for the damage?

    8. Re:misleading headline... by bonch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What an awful comparison. If you were telling a group of people that your car is in perfect condition, then yes, you are to blame for not verifying the claim.

    9. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if the mechanic used the wrong type of oil?

      Well, I guess I could do that myself. Unless the factory filled the bottle wrong, so I guess I should refine my own car oil?

      Where up the chain does it stop being 'my fault'?

      Your example is sidestepping the issue of the seemingly trustworthy third party.

    10. Re:misleading headline... by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between being sold defective product and knowingly selling said defective product. Will Daily Kos likely and deservedly lose some credibility from this? Probably. But to say that they're a culprit is to imply that they were knowingly complicit in the fraud that they are alleging.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    11. Re:misleading headline... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I just had the oil changed, by professionals! Of course my cars still in perfect condition!

    12. Re:misleading headline... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      For headline skimmers, this post would produced a completely inaccurate sense of what the article was all about... at length, the D.KOS are the ones who found out about this and are doing something something about it. That's good... but if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.

      Once again, it's the kdawson effect.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    13. Re:misleading headline... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      If you took your car in to get an oil change and your mechanic mucked it up, are you to blame for the damage?

      Yes. Real men change their own oil. And real programmers recompile all their own programs from scratch, writing a new toolchain or even reverse-engineering closed-source binaries if necessary. Anything less is pure wussery.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    14. Re:misleading headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you took your car in to get an oil change and your mechanic mucked it up, are you to blame for the damage?

      Largely. The only time that's every happened I was lazy and took it to a quick change place. I knew better. Pretty much every good or service needs to be considered for quality. Also, I always check my car for leaks a few days after an oil change, no matter who changed it. It's my duty to verify it was done right, not just make sure I have someone else to blame.

    15. Re:misleading headline... by tomhath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Kos' sponsors paid R2K for a year and a half because they got the results they wanted to hear, even though everybody knew the results were complete BS. They finally got called out on it so they go into damage control mode....That's good?

    16. Re:misleading headline... by bonch · · Score: 1

      If the mechanic used the wrong type of oil, you shouldn't spend 18 months presenting your car to the public as being in perfect condition without any review, oversight, or confirmation.

      Your example is sidestepping the issue that Daily Kos presented its polls as accurate without verification. The pollster is only being sued because others exposed how flawed the polls are, and now Kos is trying to save face.

    17. Re:misleading headline... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between being sold defective product and knowingly selling said defective product.

      They knowingly put their name on the product - and thus implied the product was not defective. Thus it doesn't matter what they knew or when they knew it, because they failed to verify it wasn't defective.

    18. Re:misleading headline... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If you took your car in to get an oil change and your mechanic mucked it up, are you to blame for the damage?

      If this were remotely a valid comparison, that would be a valid question.

    19. Re:misleading headline... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't emphasise the pollster was a third party.

      And here we are at the best reason to outsource. Any problems discovered are someone else's fault. They hired the pollsters. It's their fault. There's no need to emphasize anyone else. Whether done or not done by someone else, the responsibility is in the company that commissioned and published the numbers. It's like BP and the rig. Sure it was owned by one company and being run under contract by another, but BP signed the papers to get the lease and agreed that the rig (no matter who owned or ran it) would operate accordingly. And it didn't. BP can blame the contractor, even collect from the contractor, but BP is still 100% responsible. Daily Kos commissioned polls and published false reports. Emphasizing that it was a contractor that actually did it seems to shift responsibility to the wrong party.

      Replace 'Daily Kos' with 'Fox News' or 'MSNBC' and see how it can be (mis)interpreted.

      Huh? Are you saying that if MSNBC published an MSNBC poll that was fraudulent, that they would be off the hook just because they outsourced the poll? It's not a case of MSNBC saying "Reuters reports poll saying 5% are for stupid polls" but that MSNBC would be saying that MSNBC official polling states something.

      Or they could have just said 'Research 2000 Makes Up Poll Numbers' Don't know who R2K is? RTFS.

      Sure, or say "Transocean rig involved in oil spill." Who cares that it's BP who is legally responsible. Who cares that it was a a separate engineering company running it. Who cares if it's BP who commissioned it, hired them, swore to supervise them. It can't be BP, it has to be Transocean, since they own the rig, right?

    20. Re:misleading headline... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.

      They published a fraudulent poll in their own name. They may not have been the ones that did it, but they are responsible. Outsourcing doesn't absolve you of responsibility (as BP is painfully aware).

    21. Re:misleading headline... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      If I hire someone to drill an oil well in 5000 feet of water in the guld of mexico for my 2-letter energy company, and he cocks it up, am I responsible?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:misleading headline... by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It certainly does matter, and if you don't see the difference it's only because you've decided not to.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    23. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Then...explain why?

      "If you don't know what you did wrong, then I'm not going to tell you" IS just as stupid as it sounds.

    24. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Depends if their lawyers are better than yours.

      .

      I am aware of your comparison that you're trying to make, but 'you' were just as active in the drilling process as the third party.

      In this case 'you' are entirely dependent on the third party for results, and don't have the staff to double check everything. (In fact, if you had the staff, you could likely have ran your own polls.)

    25. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Real men change their own oil.

      Do you chemically test the oil to verify that what's in the bottle is what's advertised as being in the bottle?

      Do you refine your own motor oil from crude?

      Or are you relying blindly on the refiner to honestly provide you with what you're hoping for?

    26. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      If you contract party A for service X, and they instead provide service Y claiming it as X, would you sue A to "save face" or "breach of contract?"

    27. Re:misleading headline... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that they terminated R2K's services a week before they were approached about the phony numbers. Nevermind that they only reason that this was discovered in the first place is because Dkos insisted on having open cross tabs of the poll data.

      So you're clearly speaking out of your ass....that's good?

    28. Re:misleading headline... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Real men change their own oil.

      Do you chemically test the oil to verify that what's in the bottle is what's advertised as being in the bottle?

      Real men verify the contents by taste.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    29. Re:misleading headline... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Touché, sir. I tip my king to you.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. the truth is, polling sucks by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of course this will turn into a "bash the left" and a "bash the right" thread. when ideology isn't the point. polling is the idiocy in question

    and the guy who manipulated the numbers is clearly an amateur. the way you do proper poll manipulation is LOAD THE QUESTION. you poll people with a question with the proper turn of phrase to lead them towards the answer you want. then, when you present the answers to the poll, you also cage the results in such a way to lead the audience in the way you want them to interpret the results

    polling is fucking joke. all results from the left, or the right, is complete bullshit, and a waste of your time

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So what you're saying is that R2K is run by ACORN?

    2. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're assuming the motive was to manipulate the outcome.

      Did it not occur to you that maybe the motive was to provide any outcome that would look real enough to get paid, while not doing as much work?

    3. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      The British Civil Service under Sir Humphrey Appleby.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U

    4. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      polling is fucking joke. all results from the left, or the right, is complete bullshit, and a waste of your time

      Or, to put it another way, it's absolutely impossible to know what the people want without asking every single one of them.

      Genius.

      No, wait, sorry, I meant "bullshit". Polling is a tool, and an extremely important one. Can it be done very poorly? Yes, of course, But that needn't necessarily be true. And it's the only option for understanding a population when there's millions and millions of individuals.

    5. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by "joke". Using polling data, Nate Silver predicted the 2008 election within less than a half a percent. That's pretty accurate, but it could still be a joke for some definitions of joke.

    6. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      The Polling Industry: the last resort of employment for those who got a D-minus in statistics.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    7. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by swillden · · Score: 1

      he way you do proper poll manipulation is LOAD THE QUESTION. you poll people with a question with the proper turn of phrase to lead them towards the answer you want. then, when you present the answers to the poll, you also cage the results in such a way to lead the audience in the way you want them to interpret the results

      Damn, that sounds like a lot of hard work. Much easier to just make up some numbers that sound good.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Entropius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Daily Kos wasn't trying to manipulate anything -- notice that they fired R2K once fivethirtyeight's statistics showed them to be least accurate at predicting election results, long before there was any evidence of fraud?

    9. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by radtea · · Score: 1

      of course this will turn into a "bash the left" and a "bash the right" thread. when ideology isn't the point. polling is the idiocy in question

      The striking thing here is not that the poll numbers are made up, but that the fraud was carried out in such a clumsy and obvious manner.

      Half a dozen lines of Python could have generated all the numbers these clowns needed, but presumeably they didn't have the brains to write them. Sad, really.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or, to put it another way, it's absolutely impossible to know what the people want without asking every single one of them.

      I didn't see that at all. Polling, as a statistical exercise, works great. The problem is that loaded questions taint the answer, regardless of whether the statistics are or are not sound.

      I've had polls ask me questions like "Are you aware that The Lone Ranger enjoyed eating babies for lunch?" Of course, he didn't actually eat them, and the answer to that should be "no" because no one can be aware of a falsehood, but it implies a truth. Then, you follow that up with "Would you trust your baby and a bottle of ketchup with the Lone Ranger?" And people are more likely to say "no." That's why polls are shit. You tell me what you want people to say, and I can make them say it, so long as it's something that is of general polling interest (I couldn't make a poll to get people to agree that the sun was green, but others of greater skill might, but I can ask a poll in a way to get 60% to say they favor abortion, or 60% to say they are against abortion so that you can make it look like the majority favor your position).

      So, even if you ask everyone, that doesn't mean the poll is valid. It just eliminates the statistical uncertainty. That's only one of the many types of errors polls are want to.

    11. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that loaded questions taint the answer, regardless of whether the statistics are or are not sound.

      Yes, because every single poll has loaded questions, and none attempt to compensate for bias. Nope, they're universally crooked affairs that are totally worthless...

    12. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, because every single poll has loaded questions, and none attempt to compensate for bias.

      Most polls don't ask questions they want the answers to. In political times, calls on behalf of candidates are verboten (either directly banned at times, or subject to finance rules), but a poll asking "Were you aware that Abcd1234 eats babies for breakfast?" is allowed, as it's just a poll. So nearly all polls I've ever heard on the phone for politics were ones that were biased and unrelated to trying to determine my vote for an accurate gauge of the upcoming election.

      Nope, they're universally crooked affairs that are totally worthless...

      You should be a pollster. I never said anything of the kind, but you assert it, serve it up, and mock it all at once. I've heard you rape sheep. But only the male ones. Just because polls can be manipulated by anyone who wishes to do so doesn't mean they all are. If the NRA runs a poll that says 90% of people support gun rights, or the Anti-NRA says their poll shows 90% of people are against gun rights, I'll think them full of shit. I'd be stupid to think otherwise. That you think otherwise speaks to your intelligence.

      But when the NRA's poll shows 10% of people support gun rights, or the Anti-NRA shows that 10% of people oppose gun rights, then that's much more interesting.

      As in the case of this article, you must take the slant and reliability of the polling party into account. To do otherwise is ignorant and naive.

    13. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      . I never said anything of the kind, but you assert it, serve it up, and mock it all at once.

      You didn't. The original post I responded to did. To quote:

      polling is fucking joke. all results from the left, or the right, is complete bullshit, and a waste of your time

      Your point is absolutely valid: it is very difficult to construct a valid poll, and to analyze it's results. I absolutely don't dispute that. What I *do* dispute is the idea that *all* polls are worthless. It's a ridiculous statement that, apparently, you yourself agree with.

      Frankly, your original response looks more and more like an attempt to build an argument for kicks. The statement you replied to was:

      Or, to put it another way, it's absolutely impossible to know what the people want without asking every single one of them.

      What you don't seem to understand is that that was intended to be a mocking restatement of the first quote I provided above, from Mr. Circletimessquare, who *does* appear to think that.

    14. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      That was my impression when they pointed out the fact that results were almost never the same from one week to the next. It seemed like someone was going through and adding a +1 or a -1 to every percent each week. So that the one poll that they actually carried out god-knows-how-long-ago could be re-used ad infinitum, but some change would always be present to make it look like it was a fresh poll.

    15. Re:the truth is, polling sucks by spidkit · · Score: 1

      Yes asking each and every person is genius - that's called a referendum or a full election. Polling a small sample and then claiming its accurate to such and such percent "19 time out of 20" is where bullshit lives. And loading the question is the icing.

  15. You Are Not a Republican by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 4, Informative
    You're also lazy, and ill informed. You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google to find about 3,860,000 results for the search term "Rasmussen bias" to discover that, yes, in fact, there is some discussion of this point.

    Nate Silver on Possible Biasin Rasmussen Reports
    "What Rasmussen has had is a "house effect". So far in the 2010 cycle, their polling has consistently and predictably shown better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms have. But such house effects can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate. And ultimately, these differences of opinion will be tested -- based on what happens next November. If Rasmussen's opinion turns out to be wildly inaccurate, that will impeach their credibility, and believe me, we will point that out. Likewise, if they turn out to be right when most other pollsters are wrong, we will point that out too."

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Hey! Let's play Google Confirmation Bias!

      Let's see... are there aliens in Area 51? Yep -- google finds 6.9M results.
      Um... did NASA fake the moon landings? Yep - 300k results say yes.
      How about: was there a conspiracy to cover up the WTC attacks? Wow - 2.7M results, so it must be true.

      Using Google to search for information to support your hypothesis is a lousy way to find the truth.

    2. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Anonymusing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're also lazy, and ill informed. You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google to find about 3,860,000 results for the search term "Rasmussen bias" to discover that, yes, in fact, there is some discussion of this point.

      I know there is discussion. Even your quote says differences "can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate" and FiveThirtyEight has, in the past, noted Rasmussen's surprising accuracy in predicting election outcomes. Your link would not support the GPP's description of "horribly flawed" to Rasmussen -- merely "hmm that's interesting".

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    3. Re:You Are Not a Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google

      You must type freakin' FAST!!!!! I can't even say my search terms that fast, much less type them. Hell, I can't ctrl-c, ctrl-v in 0.15 seconds!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Using Google to search for information to support your hypothesis is a lousy way to find the truth.

      AC is right! From now on I'm getting all my information from comments on /. instead!
      Sarcasm aside, he was able to support his comment with more than just numbers.

      (Interesting side note, searching "anonymous coward is a dick" yields about 2.4M results. Go figure.)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    5. Re:You Are Not a Republican by oatworm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Similarly, I slept with your mom returns 2.1M results. Also, 910k results say your mom is a whore.

      Seriously though, yeah, Google Confirmation Bias is an incredibly fun game to play.

    6. Re:You Are Not a Republican by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Your source is biased:

      I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time

      Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism"

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:You Are Not a Republican by remmons · · Score: 1

      Rasmussen doesn't necessarily have a bias, but just a different methodology how it's doing its polling. It polls likely voters instead of all adults, which is an enormous advantage to conservatives since they tend to be the more politically active population in the U.S.. While it doesn't show an accurate representation of the country's opinion, it likely can have a higher likelyhood of predicting an election then a pollster like Gallup. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/why_is_rasmussen_so_different.php

    8. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a fair cop.

    9. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the OP claimed is that there is discussion about Rasmussen bias, not that the google search results support there being bias. Big difference.

      Comparable queries would be things like:
      A lot of people think there are aliens at Area 51, just google "aliens Area 51"
      There are people who think the moon landings were faked, check out google
      etc.

      Yes, people think those things and talk about them. No, it doesn't mean they're true, nor did the OP suggest his google search implied truth.

    10. Re:You Are Not a Republican by internic · · Score: 1

      The GP is right in asking for some sort of reference. Generally if a person is making some claim that clearly could be controversial or disputed he should be the one offering support for it. That's how argument works in any sane environment. Consider if, nothing else, the unnecessary duplication of effort when 20 readers have to search for support for a claim that the one writer should have provided. If you want a more detailed argument, see here.

      I don't get why the Slashdot culture seems to pat people on the back for not backing up their claims.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    11. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      No, the GP was lazy. This is a common Slashdot problem.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    12. Re:You Are Not a Republican by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      Generally if a person is making some claim that clearly could be controversial or disputed he should be the one offering support for it.

      You must be new here.

      I don't get why the Slashdot culture seems to pat people on the back for not backing up their claims.

      You deserve a pat on the back my friend. :)

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
  16. Turd polishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Daily KOS employed bullshit artists for their polling data.

    Commence turd polishing!

  17. Obligatory xkcd by somaTh · · Score: 1

    http://xkcd.com/756/

    I think we should take a poll on how seriously we take poll numbers. I mean We already know how we vote in them

    --
    Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  18. Remember: by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you place a statistician's head in ice and his feet in boiling water, then on the average he is quite comfortable!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Remember: by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you place a statistician's head in ice and his feet in boiling water, then on the average he is quite comfortable!

      But his comfort has a large variance.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure. 122F doesn't sound comfortable to me!

    3. Re:Remember: by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Try using more ice than boiling water, then you can average a refreshing 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He is in searing pain at 50C. Idiot

    5. Re:Remember: by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If you place a statistician's head in ice and his feet in boiling water, then on the average he is quite comfortable!

      I'm guessing this was created by a middle manager, only someone with no brains, guts, spine or heart could call 50 Degrees C "quite comfortable".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the average statistician, but I don't think I'd be particularly comfortable with an average temperature of 50 degrees Celsius! ;)

    7. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water boils at 100 degrees celcius, and freezes at 0 degrees celcius; human core body temperature is about 37-38 degrees celcius. So, assuming the ice is frozen water, he'd be on average 50 degrees celcius and very very uncomfortably hot.

    8. Re:Remember: by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      If you place a statistician's head in ice and his feet in boiling water, then on the average he is quite comfortable!

      I misread statistician as politician, and thought you were on to something there!

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    9. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      122F is comfortable?

    10. Re:Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ewww, look, I get to beat the pedantic fucks to the punch:

      Said statistician is uncomfortable at his head and his feet regardless of the type of uncomfortableness and if you average 2 instances of uncomfortableness you don't get comfortable. Further, even if you average the temperature of his body, he's not comfrotable (--misspelling included as per the rules of being a pedantic fuck correcting someone else).

      (100 degrees + 0 degrees)/2 = 50 degrees != comfortable

  19. exactly my point ;-) by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    false association is the best sort of poll manipulation

    for example, if the poll was

    "do you believe obama is the antichrist?"

    of course this wouldn't poll very high. even those who oppose obama, the vast majority do so for genuine reasons of policy, not out of some demented partisan bloodsport (although unfortunately, the unthinking zombie partisan hordes seem to be on the rise in this country)

    but if the poll was

    "if obama were the antichrist, should he be impeached?"

    and of course, this will poll high. when of course the question is completely loaded bullshit. if ANYONE were the antichrist, they should be voted out of office. but this is exactly this sort of false association that goes on all the time with polling questions. albeit a lot more subtle than this, and usually preying on people's preexisting prejudices and simplistic ideological understandings. it leads them to completely useless answers, but answers that can then be twisted when reported upon, with cable news HD graphics and bombastic audio cues and cinematic announcers with heavy gravitas and serious, low voices:

    "in a shocking new poll, the idea of impeaching obama polls high among a wide sampling of americans"

    polls are nothing but propaganda

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:exactly my point ;-) by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      if ANYONE were the antichrist, they should be voted out of office

      Well, no, not in the USA, where government is explicitly commanded to separate itself from religious affairs.

    2. Re:exactly my point ;-) by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that brilliant response that totally missed the guys point.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    3. Re:exactly my point ;-) by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I tell you what, if any politician stands a chance at actually delivering some sort of change, it's got to be the Antichrist.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  20. Are you for some reason surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Troll

    if you just read the headline, you'd come away thinking that D.KOS were the culprits instead.

    This is slashdot, after all. If they don't keep up their conservative credentials how will they continue to attract conservative advertising revenue?

    Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by bonch · · Score: 0

      Are you out of your mind? Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on, from copyrights to environmentalism. Are you an angry Kos reader who hates seeing this story on the front page or something? Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately.

      By the way, your journal is close to psychotic. You take people's sarcastic comments about executing spammers literally and accuse them of supporting state-sponsored murder.

      I don't know if you're trolling or what. If not, I suggest you take a deep breath and try to regain some perspective.

    2. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I think that's a good sign of well-balanced reporting. Equal numbers of people complaining about left and right bias.

    3. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's sadly what people *think* is a sign of well-balanced reporting.

      Well-balanced reporting isn't simply repeating what both sides said and "leaving it there" (as CNN does).

      Well-balanced reporting isn't repeating both sides and saying "well I guess the truth must be somewhere in the middle".

    4. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by bonch · · Score: 2, Informative

      But my point is that there aren't equal numbers. Slashdot has always leaned one way--left. In this one case where a left-wing site is the topic of discussion, the accusation is being made that Slashdot is a conservative site.

      By the way, the Kos supporters with mod points are out in full force abusing the -1 Overrated moderation.

    5. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      I haven't read any of your posts before so I don't know if you're for real or just making a joke here. But either way your UID is low enough that you should be well aware of the strong conservative bend that slashdot has been following recently. We regularly see articles like this on the front page with serious conservative leanings, generally a few a week (or more). Along with this we generally see a few conservative ads a week on the slashdot front page. I'm not sure what's worse, that conservative commentators think people are stupid enough to accept their drivel as "journalism", or that slashdot puts it on the front page so readily.

      There have been plenty of other examples of this happening as well. Just one blatant example was a few months ago in the Accidental Wii Suicide article. Anyone who knows anything knows that a 2-year-old kid does not commit suicide as the article headline and summary claimed. But because the conservative nutjobs were working so hard to turn the lunacy up to 11 to avoid the imagined possibility of gun control laws, they completely overlooked the real problem - bad parenting. Anyone who reads the actual article (and not just the conservative spin posted here) realizes that some idiot left a loaded weapon, ready to fire, within easy access of an unsupervised toddler. The gun is no more at fault than the Wii, or the shoes the kid was wearing. The gun owner should be tried for homicide.

      Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on

      Except slashdot rarely reports on anything, you should know that slashdot doesn't have any reporters, they just pass on news stories from other sites most of the time. And the only slashdot employee I know of who calls himself a "journalist" is so conservative he makes Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa. So it is unlikely you would see a "report" from slashdot that was left-leaning.

      from copyrights

      Are you saying that conservatives want copyrights to extend for all eternity? I was not aware of that...

      to environmentalism

      Has it occurred to you that the earth is occupied by people from all realms of political persuasions?

      Are you an angry Kos reader

      Nope. I don't read Kos at all.

      But I won't let that get in the way of your rant (not that I would expect you would, either).

      ... who hates seeing this story on the front page or something?

      Hate is an awfully strong word. Although based on the way you write I suspect you use it fairly often.

      But no, I do not "hate" seeing this story. I do, however, strongly disagree with the partisan conservative wording of the summary and headline. It could have been presented in a much more even manner, but someone intentionally chose to word it this way.

      Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately

      Has your anger muddied your reading comprehension? Let's go back to my post that you couldn't seem to be bothered quoting directly, shall we? I stated

      Hell, it's already Tuesday afternoon in the US and this might be the first pro-conservative story they've run all week; in which case they have a lot of catching up to do in order to make their quota...

      I don't make a habit of counting the pro-conservative stories because I often don't have the time to discuss them. This one was so blatantly obvious that I thought I would check in on the discussion to see what people were saying - I was not surprised when my posts were down-moderated for pointing out the conservative leanings of the summ

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by internic · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always leaned one way--left.

      I'm not sure that's true. If anything, I think Slashdot has always leaned libertarian, which doesn't fit into the mold of either right or left, as they are often defined. Of course, I see how to get the data necessary to decide the question. Can you?

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    7. Re:Are you for some reason surprised? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always leaned one way--left.

      I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a fascist.

  21. Echos of Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, there's a scene early in the book where the Allies are assembling the personnel for Station X (aka Bletchely Park). Statistician, turned Nazi codebreaker Lawrence Waterhouse, points out that his Nazi counterpart Rudy von Hacklheber, would notice something was amiss with the Allied personnel changes based the statistics of people being transfered to Bletchely Park, and then quickly deduce that the Allies are attempting to break the Enigma code. To camouflage the transfers, Waterhouse suggests creating ficticious personnel and have some of them transfered to Bletchely Park as well. However the military can't just make any random fake person, the fictious people must be statisitically drawn from a distribution that when added to distribution of real Bletchely Park personnel, the combined distribution is statistically insignificant (i.e. fail to reject the null hypothesis) than any other large military base.

    If Research 2000 did what is suggested, they failed to taint the polls with the right kind of fake data, just like what the novel warned about.

    1. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Unless this is a project to make polling companies look bad, so that Obama can take them over like he did with the banks and car companies, and now the oil and coal companies. Soon, him and his alien invasion forces will be taking over the MMO companies too!

      Don't look at me like that, I'm not just some random crackpot, I'm a specific crackpot.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, basically that's it. But why the reference to a book? That's just good established fraud detection. It really doesn't add much to the discussion. Its like all of those BS cultural references at the end of the wikipedia articles.

    3. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by hibiki_r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you are attempting to do as little work as possible and still get the million dollars a year kos spends on polls, mocking with the data in such a way that nothing amiss can be detected is rather counter productive: You might as well do the polls right anyway.

    4. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by coaxial · · Score: 1

      In Popular Culture

      Mal detects fraud in an episode of Firefly.

      In Dark Horse Expanded Universe Star Wars Comic Centered on Background-Character-with-Back-to-Camera-Seen-at-43-Seconds-in-to-the-Tatooine-Cantina-Scene-of-the-Special-Edition-of-SW:ANH detects fraud during a Dejarik game.

      Super Miroki-chan detects fraud while negotiating for the return of her panties in the anime OAV Tentacle Monster Love 3000.{dubious}} In the original manga, Miroki-chan instead detects fraud from Harumi-kun {{original research?}}

    5. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by coaxial · · Score: 1

      As any grader can tell you, cheaters are intrinsically lazy. Because they are lazy, they will inevitably fail to sufficiently cover their tracks, most often because the coverup is harder than the original task.

    6. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by Fartypants · · Score: 1

      The polling company also could have fallen afoul of Benford's Law.

      From Wikipedia: "Benford's law, also called the first-digit law, states that in lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, non-uniform way. According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty. This distribution of first digits arises whenever a set of values has logarithms that are distributed uniformly, as is approximately the case with many measurements of real-world values.
      This counter-intuitive result has been found to apply to a wide variety of data sets, including electricity bills, street addresses, stock prices, population numbers, death rates, lengths of rivers, physical and mathematical constants, and processes described by power laws (which are very common in nature). The result holds regardless of the base in which the numbers are expressed (except for trivial bases), although the exact proportions change."

    7. Re:Echos of Cryptonomicon by the+entropy · · Score: 1

      You mean that hiring someone to write a program that will generate truly random polls and paying at most a few hundred dollars and then just clicking a button every week is more work than doing them by hand?

  22. Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Can anyone give a reasonable explanation for why this story is listed under "science.slashdot.org"? Clearly this is a political story and should have been placed as such.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  23. No offense by Shivetya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    but one left leaning group acting does not support a trend on one side or another. While your political bias is obvious and you do believe what you do extrapolating it such as you do is not accurate.

    What we see here in your response is others is acceptance of an issue because it supports the viewpoints of those responding favorably to it. Throw in the left/right condemnation of the mainstream media; itself a generic term that has different meaning to different viewers; and the whole comment comes off as a coffee sipping head nod.

    There are very few polls conducted fairly, we have seen this in polls leading up to elections as well as exit polls. Having seen some exit pollsters at work I have seen one common theme, they ask people like themselves. As in, they look similar.

    What this action by DailyKOS may do is spur groups on both sides to look at their data in new light. Not every group is blessed with good statistical oversight and many on both sides will discount examinations of their data because it the criticism is seen as leaning the wrong way. Right now with the level of political strife it is only natural for some groups to dig because of the level acrimony.

    I know just as many on the right and left who latch on to polls and it never amazes me that they like pollsters who show results that agree with their political leaning and disparage polls that don't as slanted. Its human nature.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  24. Echos of Cryptonomicon by coaxial · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, there's a scene early in the book where the Allies are assembling the personnel for Station X (aka Bletchely Park). Statistician, turned Nazi codebreaker Lawrence Waterhouse, points out that his Nazi counterpart Rudy von Hacklheber, would notice something was amiss with the Allied personnel changes based the statistics of people being transfered to Bletchely Park, and then quickly deduce that the Allies are attempting to break the Enigma code. To camouflage the transfers, Waterhouse suggests creating ficticious personnel and have some of them transfered to Bletchely Park as well. However the military can't just make any random fake person, the fictious people must be statisitically drawn from a distribution that when added to distribution of real Bletchely Park personnel, the combined distribution is statistically insignificant (i.e. fail to reject the null hypothesis) than any other large military base.

    If Research 2000 did what is suggested, they failed to taint the polls with the right kind of fake data, just like what the novel warned about.

  25. Re:Commence Right-Wing Yank-Fest by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Informative
  26. To Hell with all Polling. by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Let the fools in Washington be suprised come election day, not trying to figure out how to leverage someone who is leading in the polls months before they get elected to an office.

    I think polling itself is a travesty as some of the dumb idiot sheep following fools out there will tend to "vote for the winner" instead of voting for their ideals. Why not just stop all polling, the only polling we need is in primaries and in november.

    I would really love to see this happen as it would cause people in the news to actually be suprised when the people they help pick by biased reporteing get their pants handed to them. Nothing is funnier than watching a media personality get a nice nasty surprise on election night...

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  27. Considering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Considering they call me up while I'm eating dinner, I find the average polling person to be mean.

    1. Re:Considering... by Intron · · Score: 1

      I talked to pollster who cross-dressed, but I believe that is a standard deviation.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  28. How many logical fallacies can you count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Herring: "A fallacy of distraction, committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic."
    Tu Quoque: "The assumption that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it."
    Ad Hominem: "Attacking not the idea, but the person putting forward the idea."

  29. Re:Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about polling and statistics, not politics.

  30. MOD PARENT UP by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how do they even get polls to work now, given that people try to avoid them like the plague?

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by BabyDuckHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How? Lots of hand-waving, misdirection, and questionable assumptions. The whole research industry is in total denial about it, because there aren't any good alternatives yet.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure they could shed a lot of light on the problem if they would just count people who didn't answer the poll, as verified by an auditor. That is, require *any* attempted poll solicitation that doesn't get an answer to be included in the poll results on par with the other answers, and list it as a "didn't respond". If no one picks up the phone, it goes in the results. If a person refuses to take the poll, it goes in the results. Only dead numbers should be ignored, and even that's questionable.

      I suspect that if they followed that procedure, polls would look something like:

      "How effective do you think Obama has been at advancing his plans for health care reform?"

      Results:
      1% Very effective
      1% Somewhat effective
      1% Very little or not effective
      97% No reponse
      Margin of error +/- 3%

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but apparently they do, considering that the people who did poll meta-analysis predicted the election results to high precision...

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      All of them, or just those who survived being wrong to tell about it?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    5. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I only followed one -- the Princeton Election Commission -- and it was right.

      Later I heard about fivethirtyeight.com (Nate Silver), and he was right too.

      I don't know of any wrong ones.

      I imagine that since mathematics imposes a fairly strict, straightforward way to do it there won't be that much variance between different people doing the analysis.

    6. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      That's a "no", then?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  31. nothing's shocking by electron+sponge · · Score: 0, Insightful

    A website that has an openly biased point of view published data that backed up their point of view for a year and a half without looking at it critically? Why are we surprised at all? By that same token, why would anyone care what dailykos or any of those other rabble-rousing political bitchfest sites (from either side, a pox upon both their houses) have to say about anything?

    1. Re:nothing's shocking by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They did look at it critically. Research 2000 was fired by Daily Kos before anyone noted any impropriety in the figures, simply because the numbers weren't matching up with reality. Shortly after this happened, Grebner, Weissman, and Weissman approached Markos with evidence of deliberate impropriety.

      Does Daily Kos have a responsibility to not promote questionable information as truth? Of course, and they've apologized for the situation. But keep in mind that this information is only coming to light because someone with sufficient statistical background took the time to pore over the data. That sort of expertise is hard to come by, which is the reason why smaller media/news outlets contract out to firms like Research 2000 in the first place!

      It's only relatively recently that there's been much interest in the science of polling. Before the emergence of aggregation sites like FiveThirtyEight or Pollster.com, it was extremely rare that you'd ever see this kind of statistical analysis of polling data. The traditional method of testing a pollster's reliability was simple trial and error over a period of several elections. Really, that's *still* the primary method. If anything, Research 2000 only got scrutinized in this case because of the issues with their accuracy that led to them being dropped in the first place.

      For me, it's not really a partisan issue, despite the highly politicized nature of Daily Kos. It has more to do with the size of the media outlet. I would expect a major news organization with dozens or hundreds of employees, like Fox News or MSNBC, to be able to detect problems like these very quickly. A relatively small blog with maybe a dozen part-time employees like Daily Kos, or Red State, or whatever, I'm more willing to give a pass. At least at first: I'd expect Markos to learn his lesson from this and be more proactive in ensuring that it doesn't happen again.

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
    2. Re:nothing's shocking by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      They did look at it critically, eventually.

      They waited until it was becoming apparent to various observers that the polls were crap before they did anything because the polls supported the Daily Kos' own biased opinions.

      If we apply the same standard to the Daily Kos as the Daily Kos and a good portion of the slashdot audience apply to Republic politicians and conservative media, then the Daily Kos and its staff are collectively liars.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    3. Re:nothing's shocking by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      But keep in mind that this information is only coming to light because someone with sufficient statistical background took the time to pore over the data. That sort of expertise is hard to come by

      According to those Daily Kos folks, all climate scientists have sufficient statistical background to do these things. This quality, according to them, is easy to come by. People not even specialized in the field can do the most difficult statistics of all.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:nothing's shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Daily Kos have a responsibility to not promote questionable information as truth?

      Did you look at the polls Kos commissioned? Questions like "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?", "Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?", and "Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?" He was never interested in 'truth.'

    5. Re:nothing's shocking by HoppQ · · Score: 1

      I'd wager your average climate researcher has a fair bit more knowledge about the science of statistics than your average political blogger or politician.

      --
      My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
  32. A Vorlon said it better.... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  33. Re:Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by coaxial · · Score: 1

    Math outs a fraud. How is that not cool? It's like real life Mathnet!

  34. Re:Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by radtea · · Score: 1

    Can anyone give a reasonable explanation for why this story is listed under "science.slashdot.org"?

    Because the statistical analysis used to reveal the fraud is a good examples of how science works: take the raw data and squeeze it for internal and external inconsistencies.

    Science is the policy that to be credible an idea must pass tests involving systematic observation and controlled experiment subject to as careful quantitative and qualitative analysis as the subject matter permits. This is a wonderful example of practical scientific technique applied to perfectly ordinary empirical data.

    Labelling data "political" doesn't make it any less empirical. It just labels the labeller as someone who doesn't understand science.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  35. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 1, Troll

    It's the name you gave yourselves until you eventually found out to your dismay what it meant.

    Now you're stuck with it.

    Have a nice day.

    Signed:

    A traitor scum liberal douchebag going-to-hell-athist communist nazi socialist jew from Canada (or something) as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.

    --
    BMO

  36. Re:Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    It's about polling and statistics, not politics.

    Wrong. This is entirely political. Read the headline -

    Daily Kos Pollster Made Up Numbers

    Everyone knows the Daily Kos is a political news site with a liberal sway. If it was about the statistics then an appropriate headline would have been something like

    Pollster made up numbers and sold them for money

    Instead the headline as written carries a direct implication of Daily Kos intentionally handing out known bogus data.

    This story is political, plain and simple.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  37. Re:Excuse me? Science.slashdot.org??? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Because the statistical analysis used to reveal the fraud is a good examples of how science works: take the raw data and squeeze it for internal and external inconsistencies.

    While the analysis may be scientific, the story - especially the way it was posted here - is decidedly not. Even the headline itself wreaks of a political vendetta. While science should not carry a bias, it also should not be used to attempt to cloak one.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  38. Has someone told President Kuchinich about this?? by Doghouse+Riley · · Score: 1

    n/t

  39. Re:Commence Right-Wing Yank-Fest by bonch · · Score: 1

    PowerLineBlog in particular is pretty well-respected for being rather calm and fair-minded, so I suspect you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites. In other words, politics as usual. You don't even give a single example of anything.

    There was a study done that showed a certain part of the brain was stimulated when someone was shown political viewpoints that fit their worldview. Interestingly, being given information that countered criticism of that worldview--even when that information was obviously false and the subject knew it--stimulated that same part of the brain. In other words, people are willing to accept any information that "refutes" criticism of their worldview even when their rational side knows it's wrong.

    Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively. I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.

  40. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by enormouspenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's the name you gave yourselves until you eventually found out to your dismay what it meant.

    Now you're stuck with it.

    Have a nice day.

    Signed:

    A traitor scum liberal douchebag going-to-hell-athist communist nazi socialist jew from Canada (or something) as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.

    -- BMO

    The name is and was "Tea Party" asshole. The perjorative was given to them by the Left. Is there some mental defect that requires all liberals to be liars?

    --
    "I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
  41. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Well, no. But that makes such a nice l'il hipster story, I'm almost tempted not to correct you.

    The "teabagger" epithet was first applied to the movement by CNN's Anderson Cooper (Cue the "well, he should know" snickering...)

    Tea Party activists did use the phrase "tea bag" as a verb, on isolated placards, but they never referred to themselves as "teabaggers." That phrase has always ever been a pejorative hung on them by their opposition.

  42. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is there some mental defect that requires some non-liberals (e.g. enormouspenis) to make false generalisations?

  43. Give them credit for WHAT?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone else found out the polls Markos has been putting on his site are wrong. He was forced to address this, and now he's trying to distance himself by suing his pollster. None of this would be happening if someone else hadn't exposed the bad polling he was putting on his site.

    He doesn't deserve credit for that. It's a scandal, and now he's trying to save face. If you think he deserves credit, you're being biased. It's okay to be a Daily Kos reader yet also shake your head over this. It's more important to be objective than supportive.

  44. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Informative

    Too damn bad:

    The current Tea Party movement initially came up with the 'clever' idea of sending Tea bags to members of Congress. It was in their initial rallys that they started referring to this act of sending their representatives boxes of tea bags as 'TEABAGGING":

    Now this may be a generational thing but somebody should have told these people that the term was already in wide use as a term for performing oral sex on a man. Now you got people like Tucker Carlson crying: "Stop saying Teabagger". I got news for all of you Teabaggers that are opposed to the use of the word Teabagging when they are out doing their Teabagging protest; You really shot yourself in the foot (or other appendage) when you started this mess. But then what do you expect from the extremist that our on a highly successful mission to divide and destroy the once Grand Old Party, GOP. Oh yeah, and they really didn't mean to destroy the country their supposed to be saving either. Collateral Damage its called!

    But what do you expect from people who start holding anti-tax protests after Obama signed the largest middle class tax cut in history? What do you expect from the kind of geniuses that hold up signs saying "Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare".

  45. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    Signed:

    A traitor scum liberal douchebag going-to-hell-athist communist nazi socialist jew from Canada (or something) as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.

    You forgot "gay unicorn-rapist".

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  46. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methinks perhaps you doth protest too much.

  47. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw participants referring to themselves as teabaggers in the beginning, and the idiotic right wing commentators at Faux News picked it up and ran with it before they figured out what it meant. Which is hilarious because the initial Tea Party events were sponsored by Faux News.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  48. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine)

    In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  49. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by skids · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "Teabagging" referring to the American neo-idiot movement was a term coined by the American neo-idiot movement.

    I'd go into depth but Olbermann says it much better.

    Oh yeah... Asshole.

  50. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it isn't you fucking cocksucker.

    (see what i did there?)

  51. I Called it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did actually single them out as completely making up numbers. They were so historically wrong, plus Daily KOS was also completely misinterpreting them. If you have three polls two of which routinely agree with each other with the standard deviation, and a third which consistently does not. Well, that third one is suspicious and not to be trusted, regardless of how much you like its results. Here's the thing Daily Kos doesn't freaking care, they have memories of goldfish. But to be fair, so does every other political blogger regardless of ideological bent. You always remember the times and ways in which you were correct, you never remember all the times you were wrong. Such a constant diet of politics is a death trap of the ego.

  52. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know the original Teabaggers were protesting the fact that the wealthy British lowered taxes on their own tea below the taxes on the colonial tea? Now the Teabaggers are protesting because the rich are being taxed too much.

    Ironic, isn't it? Has it trickled down to you yet?

    I've said it before. These foolish, foolish people are nothing but mouthpieces for mega-corporations and the very wealthy.

  53. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 1

    You have to be careful where you put the hyphen

    Gay-unicorn rapist
    Gay unicorn-rapist

    There is a distinction between the two.

    "and live in harmony harmony oh love!!!"

    --
    BMO

  54. R2K send Cease and Desist to FiveThirtyEight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    R2K, the research firm, has had it's lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to the guys who found out about the less than credible polling results.
    See fivethirtyeight.com for the actual letter.

  55. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

    Yea, my understanding is that they, being the class acts that they are, wanted the name because they intended to "teabag them damn liberals".

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  56. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yet we see that the Teabagging right is perfectly fine with calling everyone around them that don't buy into the Teabagger philosophy "traitors" and go right out and buy books written by vile disgusting authors who have scads of time on national television (Anne Coulter) with that very word in the title.

    Oh yeah, and Sarah Palin and Anne Coulter are never going to sleep with you.

    Piss off, teabagger. Anyone with more than a few brain cells see that the Teabagger movement is philosophically, factually, and morally bankrupt.

    --
    BMO

  57. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

    And, what a surprise, even Wikipedia backs that up (with a picture and everything)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  58. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only your brain was able to get some of the blood that your enormous penis is hogging, you would be able to tell who is lying by simply reviewing the VIDEOS available on YOUTUBE by DATE and see that the teabaggers were CLEARLY CALLING THEMSELVES TEABAGGERS, ON CAMERA from the very beginning.

    Why is it that the !right and republicans feel they are entitled to re-write history whenever it pleases them?
    You are only victims of your own IDIOCY, Sadly so is the rest of the country.

  59. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    What do you expect from the kind of geniuses that hold up signs saying "Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare".

    Sadly, realism.

    It's like comparing aids and gonorrhea, but at least one is mostly curable. Furthermore, it's absolutely true that Obama's sabotaging medicare by expanding it. Here's the argument : we can't pay the rent for the smaller house, and Obama just forced us into a mansion (certainly it's priced like a mansion). Needless to say, this will merely lead to eviction.

  60. There are two types of pollsters: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Those who make up numbers.. ...and those who don’t get caught. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  61. Rasmussen by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Daily Kos frequently posts the results of several polling organizations, in addition to those they commissioned. Rasmussen almost always shows Republicans several points higher than the other polls.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Rasmussen by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      And the fact that most of the polls that the Daily Kos (a website that overwhelmingly favors Democrats) shows results from tend to favor Democrats in what way demonstrates that Rasmussen is cooking their numbers?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Rasmussen by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      No, and nobody (that I saw anyway) implied that. They just use different methods than everyone else. In particular, they rely almost exclusively on land-lines, which younger folk are less and less likely to have every year.

      The issue here isn't that Rassmussen's methods are dishonest. It is that the politicians who purposely find the one pollster whose methods make them look best and quote it exclusively are being dishonest. The old saw is "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics."

  62. If you RTFA... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    you'd see that a lot of mainstream media outlets use the same polling company...and none of them realized they were being defrauded. They're not some fly by night outfit, they had a good rep in the industry.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  63. Hey, it's Open Source Poll Data by brennanw · · Score: 1

    The people who were investigating these anomalies were able to do so because The Daily Kos made sure that the crosstabs of all the poll data were made available when each poll was published.

    So I *do* give them credit, because they made sure that the information behind the information being presented was available for people review in order to determine its accuracy. It sort of sounds like... I don't know... providing the source code along with the application and letting the users submit bug reports and patches.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  64. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    You have to be careful where you put the hyphen

    Gay-unicorn rapist Gay unicorn-rapist

    I meant the one I typed, which is a gay who rapes unicorns. But that did make me grin, and I'm sure the right wing would gladly accuse you of both in a heartbeat.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  65. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every Single Health Care Reform Idea is... ... a Republican idea.

    You seem to forget that the National health reform model is modeled after the Massachusetts one, instigated by Mitt Romney, a Republican.

    The Republican Party is only out for itself. If it's their idea,

    Oh fuckit. I'm not writing this for the billionth time. Fuck the GOP, Fuck the Teabaggers, and Fuck you and your fucking short term memory.

    --
    BMO

  66. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    ... but my fellow Tea Partiers complain pretty loudly, e.g., here: here.

    Paul B.

    Dude, the mods are constantly on the lookout for C4L folks posting on here. If you keep that signature (

    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

    ), be prepared for quick "Troll" or "Offtopic" mods, regardless of what you may have to say.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  67. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this logic, since Dr. Dre frequently called Eazy-E "nigger", there's no African-American that can ever
    object to the use of "nigger". Good to know...

  68. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    And, what a surprise, even Wikipedia backs that up (with a picture and everything)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22

    Weird... misinformation on Wikipedia disparaging a conservative movement. Whodathunkit?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  69. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did you know the original Teabaggers were protesting the fact that the wealthy British lowered taxes on their own tea below the taxes on the colonial tea?

    That's a pretty inaccurate depiction of the Tea Act and why the colonists opposed it. In essence, the British government was protecting it's own favored company (East India Company), in favor of other traders (and smugglers, because tea carried a hefty tax). So actually the colonists favored free trade instead of crony capitalism (or fascism, if you prefer), and when the British government tried to pass laws that provided monopolies for East India, the colonists rebelled.

    I think that's a pretty good analogy with motivations of the modern-day Tea Party protesters.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  70. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine) In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.

    I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  71. Polling is as important as voting! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding?

    I answer nearly ever pollster that calls me. Note that I tell telemarketers to fuck off, but pollsters can have 15-20 minutes of my day almost any time -- and if I'm busy, they'll call me back at whatever time I tell them I'll be free next.

    I think it's important to have my opinion counted, especially when they're asking me what kind of food I want in my local supermarket. You know those nutritious, tasty, inexpensive frozen dinners we've been seeing more and more of? Yeah, you're welcome.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Polling is as important as voting! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Alas. I haven't had a landline since the 1900s. :(

  72. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Thanks for support, dude! And for your informative other comments -- I was just so disgusted with that bmo character that decided not to feed this troll!

    And I have had my C4L signature since it replaced my "Ron Paul 2008" one, and still have karma to burn, so I guess I'll keep it for now! ;)

    Of course we both know who were the original (modern) Tea Party folks, and, for the record, I am not that happy to see likes of Sarah Palin try to highjack that movement, and GOP "establishment" infiltrating it, but this fine point does not necessarily fit simple black and white view of our liberal friends here. This is why they prefer to use slurs instead of, say, reading the link I've posted and questioning the simplicity of left/right division.

    Paul B.

  73. No, Defense Spending Really Is Huge by BBCWatcher · · Score: 1

    That $663.8B figure is the President's request for FY2010. Congress increased that amount to $680B, and that's now law. But the budget is still short for Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's another $33B supplemental pending for FY2010. (Although Representative Lowey trimmed that to about $30B, so let's go with that.) That brings the total to $710B. And that's just the Department of Defense. Defense-related spending outside the DoD budget is a minimum of $200B. Let's round that total down to a total of $900B. And there you have it: defense spending is about two thirds of discretionary federal spending. The previous poster is correct.

  74. metamoderation and moderation by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Given the fact that nearly every time I mention this problem I'm slapped with a troll mod, as well as some of the other issues mentioned here (most of which I've also seen) I suspect that somebody (or more than one somebody) with unlimited or nearly unlimited mod points has a stick up their sphincter about this issue. There's a theoretical foundation for understanding why somebody slaps Trolls down on stuff they don't agree with, but why on Earth would they slap them down so reliably on "fix the damn moderation system" posts? Only if they're an Slashdot Editor, I suspect.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:metamoderation and moderation by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      One possible solution to this issue would be to have Troll and Flamebait mods be named (e.g. not anonymous). Right in the metadata should be the name of the person who assigned that mod point. I'd happily fess up to any such mods that I post.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    2. Re:metamoderation and moderation by dargaud · · Score: 1

      One possible solution to this issue would be to have Troll and Flamebait mods be named

      Another one would be to add a [StronglyDisagreeAndWishToSuppress] mod...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  75. Re:i get mod bombed all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sometimes i'll look at my list of comments, and there will be an across the board "flamebait" or "offtopic" for 10 comments, across all commentary and different threads, all at the same time

    Ever stop to think that maybe you've just been consistently posting flamebait or off-topic comments?

  76. Re:Commence Right-Wing Yank-Fest by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites

    Wrong. But thanks for putting so much independent-minded thinking into the matter.

    In other words, politics as usual.

    An excellent summary of your previous wild-assed guess.

    You don't even give a single example of anything.

    So says the person who can't come up with an example of the "left-leaning slashdot" that they moaned about in another post. So says also the same person who attempted to paraphrase a study that they couldn't be bothered to cite.

    Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively

    Have you looked in a mirror, or read your own posts, recently? I suspect not.

    I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.

    So kind of you to be so thoroughly impartial, non-judgemental, and unassuming.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  77. OK, I'll bite it! :) by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Have you read the link that I have posted? Do you have anything better to say than calling people names?

    Do not you realise that there is a rather large chunk of what one would call libertarians (or which I am one) willing to work with both Left and Right to solve the immediate problems that we are having right now, and try to resolve our differences later, maybe "agreeing to disagree", maybe just finding a better social order and using it to step up as species? ;)

    I was offering the GP guy my hand, and now you seem to refuse to take it for pure ideological reasons, without stopping to think -- do you think it's right? What happened to 'question the authority?" thing, is it irrelevant now that Your Guy looks like he is holding the strings, and you are willing to support *whatever* he is up to?

    Do you really support continuation of both wars (one somewhat declared, another one not), continuation of executive power special privileges, *new* PATRIOT act, absence of any move to de-criminalize recreational drugs, bailouts of huge corporations, making people pay through their nose for their health insurance, printing trillions of dollars of new money (if infusion of money into economy is *really* a solution, why not cancelling income tax for a year, instead of giving your buddies those trillions to "distribute", while taking a percentage off it? :) )?

    Anyway... I think it was wrong of me to try to convert you (and yes, I did mean *you*, BMO!) Now play by play:

    > A traitor scum liberal

    What people used to be call "liberal" is now "libertarian", for the last century and half or so... What is not called "liberal" is more like a "socialist". And, if you have ever read my posting history, I come from *Soviet Russia*, really, so I know what happens under those rules, and I do not like it!

    > douchebag going-to-hell-athist

    Totally agnostic here, but when filling out forms and questionnaires (in Soviet Russia we used to call them "anckettes") offered by *your* government, I wrote in "Taoist" in religion section.

    > communist

    See above

    > nazi socialist

    Do you mean Nationalsozialismus, or the International Socialism? Do you think there is really that much difference between them?

    > jew

    Hmm, funny -- I thought it's the "left wing" that have problems with Jews (and take side of Palestinians), me, personally, have no opinion on that ancient struggle and would just leave people to resolve their difficulties themselves.... Agreed? ;)

    > from Canada (or something)

    Funny that I am typing this from Canada, but I am not here for political reasons, only job-related ones...

    > as described by the incessant idiocy on the Right.

    Do I still sound like an idiot? or do you want to find out how it is possible for me to have a consistent set of views without resorting to "Obama is always right!" thing? (Which would contradict the above-mentioned "question authority" thing, but it's apparently OK for you, not for me).

    Willing to down-mode, or engage in real discussion?

    Paul B.

    1. Re:OK, I'll bite it! :) by bmo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you really support continuation of both wars (one somewhat declared, another one not)

      No.

      continuation of executive power special privileges

      What do you mean by "special" - the ones invented by Bush or earlier ones? It's funny how the party in power doesn't like to give it up and that the Tea Partiers had no problem with Bush exercising his.

      , *new* PATRIOT act

      What "new" patriot act? Enacted under Bush, that the Tea Party has no problem with? It's the same old thing. But I was *UNAMERICAN* for not backing it when it was enacted. Because the terrorists would win if we didn't curtail our rights. *spit*

      absence of any move to de-criminalize recreational drugs

      What has this got to do with anything? Of course I want drugs decriminalized. I'm tired of paying for people to be in prison for non-violent offenses. But I'm not going to hold my breath. And it sure doesn't look like the Tea Partiers are behind this anyway.

      , bailouts of huge corporations,

      Yeah? That was done by a "conservative" president, who the Tea Party alleges did no wrong. And oh, look, even Reagan bailed out Chrysler.

      No. I'm not in favor of it. But I'm also in favor of *real* regulation so we *don't* have to keep bailing out the financial institutions. Funny though, the Tea Partiers and the GOP want Wall Street just go on like nothing ever happened. And then we will have no choice but to bail them out again, and again and again.

      making people pay through their nose for their health insurance

      I am in favor of Single Payer. Take out the friggin' insurance companies that screw small businesses and make it impossible for me to open a business because I need health insurance to live and I am utterly priced out/uninsurable by myself.

      The hysteria surrounding Single Payer is puzzling to me, because EVERY SINGLE GRAY HAIRED TEA PARTIER belongs to a Single Payer Healthcare System. Indeed, study after study has shown that Medicare has been more efficient than even the most miserly for-profit insurance companies like United Health, the most evil one I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with.

      We, as a nation, pay TWICE as much per capita for health care RIGHT NOW and every other major industrialized nation with Single Payer is healthier as a whole and pays LESS THAN HALF WHAT WE DO.

      We also need to make it so that doctors don't put themselves into HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of DEBT just to serve humanity. This more than *anything* is responsible for the insane growth of doctors' fees. They all have to pay back their incredible loans for DECADES. Nobody wants to be a GP anymore. Those who do are SAINTS because they don't make nearly what a specialist does and thus drive around in shitty old cars. I know, my GP has a 10 year old minivan.

      Other industrialized countries value doctors and pay for them to go through school. We should too. Money should not be a barrier to education, because more education brings more value to the overall economy.

      printing trillions of dollars of new money

      Oh look, it's a "gold standard" guy. Really, this is a bogus argument especially since the Euro is down against the Dollar and has been for some time. What hurts America most is China's refusal to float their currency, thus subsidizing *every single import* into the US by fiat. Want manufacturing in the US to come back? Make China float their currency.

      (if infusion of money into economy is *really* a solution, why not cancelling income tax for a year, instead of giving your buddies those trillions to "distribute", while taking a percentage off it? :) )?

      Are you serious? I'll ask you this and give you my opinion at the end of this message: Do you think the tax policies of the 1950s were good? The 1950s were a spectacularly good economy wise.

      Do you have anything better to say than calling people names?

      You dare say that, after all the name

    2. Re:OK, I'll bite it! :) by bmo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yeah, and one last thing.

      Where were the Tea Partiers when Bush suspended Habeas Corpus? Where was the outrage? The silence on the right was *deafening.*

      The Tea Party is full of hypocritical scumbags who would rather fling rhetoric and call people like me a *traitor* of all things.

      So fuck them. Fuck them with a glass-encrusted dildo.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:OK, I'll bite it! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 1950s, the top tax bracket for the rich was 90 percent. We should go back to that.

      In the 1950s, the US didn't really have any competitors. It has a world full of them now. Try that now, and watch how fast the rich migrate to friendlier climates.

      Which puts me squarely opposite from the Tea Party who would have me *shot* should violent revolution arise. And to listen to them, they would like violent revolution very much.

      As well they should. Exactly what do clowns like you contribute besides sticking your hand out, disrupting society, and making life rough on people who are actually trying to do something useful?

    4. Re:OK, I'll bite it! :) by bmo · · Score: 1

      "As well they should. "

      Really.

      Well then fuck you too, Mr Anonymous Coward "I can't be bothered to stand behind my words" asshole.

      The name Anonymous Coward is pretty fitting in this regard.

      --
      BMO

  78. Gawrsh! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    A bunch of ideologues made some shit up? Wow. Color me astonished.

  79. I guess I have to walk the walk... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Did replied to BMO dude here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702634&cid=32740516 -- as much as I hated it, maybe it still has a chance to change someone's mind, or at least crack it open just a little bit. However minuscule... :(

    Good luck!

    Paul B.

    P.S. Since I like you, here is my e-mail: p-b;u=n*y'kATgmail.cammm :)

  80. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sure bmo, like most Republicans supported Romney Care. Romney's probably taken himself out of contention as a future Republican nominee because of Romney Care. Are you claiming the Tea Parties supported Romney Care or Obamacare? Was this post from you even for real, or was it a joke?

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  81. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it's hilarious that this is modded troll by the butthurt teabaggers.

    Here, mod this one down while you're at it.

    Here's a clue: SARAH PALIN WILL NEVER SLEEP WITH YOU. STOP WORSHIPING HER AS IF SHE WILL.

    *snicker*

    --
    BMO

  82. 1.475 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, can someone who knows something about statistics please explain this to me? After presenting the difference in margin in the "Attitude toward Obama among "Independents" and "Other"" table, the authors write

    The actual average of the square of the weekly change in the difference between these reported margins was 1.475.

    How do they arrive at this figure? The differences between the reported margins are, in order, -3, -3, -4, -2, +3, +3, +3, +3. Ergo, the weekly changes are 0, -1, +2, +5, 0, 0, 0. The squares of that are 0, 1, 4, 25, 0, 0, 0. And finally, the average of that is (1+4+25)/7 = ~4.285714...

    How did they arrive at 1.475? Did I misunderstand something? I'm assuming that maybe they're using a different calculation, but I cannot figure out where I'm misinterpreting what they write. Worse, I cannot conceive of a calculation that would actually yield a value of 1.475 at all.

    Help?

  83. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, what a surprise, even Wikipedia backs that up (with a picture and everything)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22

    Weird... misinformation on Wikipedia disparaging a conservative movement. Whodathunkit?

    Except that it's true, as numerous other posts have pointed out, and as the National Review has even said in a story of its own. A lot of the teabaggers couldn't even answer basic questions about the government or their own signs. Why am I not surprised that they were using that term for themselves?

  84. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine) In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.

    I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.

    Only since the introduction of the Halo games really. Older folks could be forgiven for not knowing what it meant, but since they've quite regularly been calling others much much worse things, and even carried signs calling for those who disagree with them to be shot, among other violent acts, I think others can be forgiven for adopting that admittedly juvenile term for them. At least we're not calling for them to be murdered, as they seem to want to do to those who don't share their opinions.

  85. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, that was one of the issues that finally pushed me away from the party. I couldn't stand listening to alleged conservatives backing Romney's health reforms when they were blatantly anti-conservative.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  86. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is late but...

    The fact is that the "tea party" and those that back it were utterly silent.

    They were utterly silent when GWB enacted the PATRIOT Act and people like me are *traitors* for opposing it.

    They were utterly silent when GWB suspended Habeas Corpus. Hello?

    They are *utterly blind* when a Republican does something that is supposedly against their principles, but when a Democrat adopts a Republican idea, woe be unto him. He's a TRAITOR to the US.

    They're just a branch of Republicanism and nothing more.

    --
    BMO

  87. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine) In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.

    I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.

    It isn't and nobody said it was. The term, however, is.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  88. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.

    Only since the introduction of the Halo games really.

    Ah ha! Proof that video games really are corrupting our youth!

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  89. Ah, the old "both sides are just as bad" argument by Benfea · · Score: 1

    While I am deeply disappointed in Kos over this, to argue that both sides are just as bad in this regard is fatuous just on the face of it. Call me back when MSNBC argues in a court of law that it is their constitutional right to fire reporters for refusing to lie.

  90. That's an ignorant argument by Benfea · · Score: 1

    Most of the time that argument is used, it is to imply that ALL data that involves statistical analysis must be false (unless they happen to agree with whatever swill FOX News is pushing), and that we should only trust in anecdotal evidence provided it comes from a sufficiently extremist right wing blowhard.

    Statistical analysis is the more reliable means of getting at the truth precisely because it is possible to uncover misleading and inappropriate things like what happened with this Kos pollster. That's why science relies on statistical analysis instead of "'cause Rush said so".

    If someone provides you an answer that is the result of statistical analysis but refused to provide enough information for you to verify their conclusions (data, analysis methods used, etc.), then you can assume the conclusion is bad.

  91. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Informative

    By your standards the democrats are in favor of restarting the holocaust, using hamas as the new nazis. After all, some are (just read dailykos for a bit).

    And generally, none of them say anything when hamas makes statements about restarting the holocaust. And everytime anyone suggests that maybe hamas should be taught a lesson "democrats" (let's throw everyone in one basket like you so seem to enjoy) rant on and on about how "victimized" those poor genocidal maniacs are.

    And let's not pretend that the lunatics of, say dailykos or democratic underground, don't know perfectly well that what they're saying about gazans is simply a lie.

  92. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.

    He didn't say it was a commonplace *practice* he said it was common slang. But, of course, being an idiotic delusional lying teabagging piece of shit honesty is like kryptonite to you douchebags even when your lie is that blatant, obvious and in writing.

    No shame, no decency, no integrity is the motto of your movement.

  93. You are a Gentleman and a Scholar. by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Thanks for providing evidence that there is intelligent life, on Earth. I appreciate it.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  94. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by bmo · · Score: 1

    You missed the point entirely, but I don't expect much.

    Not after 15 years of this crap.

    The difference between random lunatics on Kos and elsewhere is that the Tea Party has money and is a political force. Random lunatics on Kos don't have any.

    But thanks for playing the "false equivocation" fallacy. Just more of the same.

    --
    BMO

  95. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

    I see nothing in your post disproving the references given in that article. As such, your post is worthless.

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  96. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Except your logic sucks. Dr. Dre wasn't the person who started referring to black people as "niggers". Whereas the teabaggers decided on the term teabagging of their own free will.

    Nice try.

  97. Re:I am not sure who those "teabaggers" are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't refute the source so you'd rather poison the well? Typical fundie cunt.