| 140 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
6/07/09 9:08:31 PM#101
Originally posted by viiiviii
Actually, you missed what he was posting about. Unless you're trolling still. I understood EXACTLY what point he was trying to make. It's the same point he always makes over and over again.... |
|
|
6/07/09 9:13:36 PM#102
There is a difference between showing respect to other people, cultures and nations and apologizing for 'being ourselves'. Nevertheless if you can't look critically at yourself you're never going to improve so believing blindly that WE NUMBER ONE while failing to admit shortcomings, failures, and wrong doings of our system is feeble-minded. To admit when you are wrong is probably one of the best things you can do because it lets you move forward. More directly it is like this: how can you approach a negotiation and make nothing but demands while giving nothing in return? Furthermore how can you lecture someone on what they do wrong while at the same time denying you do things wrong too? It shows no respect and people are not going to respond positively to it. More fundamentally there is a difference between being arrogant and being proud.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
6/07/09 9:20:40 PM#103
Originally posted by Squirt5
All good points. But, we have no business in the Middle-East. That is the only solution. Trade with them, fine. Impose our will, fight wars for Israel, make allies which will piss somebody off, not fine. But this is a course of action, I don't have an army of spiffy speechwriters. Words > Action it seems. |
|
|
6/07/09 9:34:54 PM#104
Originally posted by keltic1701 I understood EXACTLY what point he was trying to make. It's the same point he always makes over and over again....
BTW his approval rating is 53% not 63% HUGE difference. I'll use the same source you used so there is no excuses or debate. |
|
|
6/07/09 9:53:05 PM#105
Originally posted by viiiviii I understood EXACTLY what point he was trying to make. It's the same point he always makes over and over again....
BTW his approval rating is 53% not 63% HUGE difference. I'll use the same source you used so there is no excuses or debate. If YOU were paying attention you would know that I was referring to the Gallop poll NOT the Rasmussen pool. Also the results of polls can vary depending on the question(s) asked and the demographics of the people being polled. Either way both show an approval rating of over 50%. Any President would give his first born for numbers like that! Especially our last President during his second term when the wheels fell off of his presidency. The main point was that a poster had deliberately left that little result out to reflect his point of view. I simply was reminding him that he....must have forgotten to put the results of THAT poll in his post. <grin>
|
|
|
6/07/09 9:58:01 PM#106
He was adding the stats that were left out by another poster. The "approval" rating was already posted, he pointed out the stats that were purposely not quoted because they look bad for bama. But to rationalize with ourselves, yep, 53% is higher than 50%. Great point.
Another thing, stop the Bush crap. I'm not distracted ok? You want to talk about Bush, start a new thread. I'll be more than happy to bash Bush in your thread. |
|
|
6/07/09 10:18:06 PM#107
Originally posted by Fishermage
30% or so is a pretty substantial minority: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Evidently not that substantial. It's only a few points more than Bush's approval rated before he left office and I don't hear anyone crowing about that! When you hit 40+% then we can talk a substantial minority. |
|
|
6/07/09 10:30:43 PM#108
Originally posted by xxvicexx
|
|
|
6/07/09 11:49:44 PM#109
Originally posted by keltic1701
30% or so is a pretty substantial minority: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Evidently not that substantial. It's only a few points more than Bush's approval rated before he left office and I don't hear anyone crowing about that! When you hit 40+% then we can talk a substantial minority.
This is not about Bush but about what you said, which was false. 30% is anything but a very, very, very small minority. I still say it's a pretty substantial minority in the context of your false statement. |
|
|
6/08/09 8:26:46 AM#110
Originally posted by Fishermage
Evidently not that substantial. It's only a few points more than Bush's approval rated before he left office and I don't hear anyone crowing about that! When you hit 40+% then we can talk a substantial minority.
This is not about Bush but about what you said, which was false. 30% is anything but a very, very, very small minority. I still say it's a pretty substantial minority in the context of your false statement. I used the Bush poll to put your claim of 30% as being a substantial minority in to perspective. Let's try a different approach shall we? You want change for a 100 dollar bill, I give you back 30 dollars. It's still 30% but would you be able to buy as much with 30 dollars as you could with 100 dollars or 40 or 50? I think not. 30 dollars is still 30% of 100 dollars. You might be able to buy a few thing with it but not as much as you could with 100 dollars or even 40 dollars. The 30% will not buy you the political clout that 70% or even 40% will. 70% will most times trumps 30% in any democratic political arena. Those are cold, plain facts Fish. And trying to bend them to fit an opposing position will not make those facts any different. |
|
|
6/08/09 9:37:36 AM#111
Originally posted by keltic1701
Evidently not that substantial. It's only a few points more than Bush's approval rated before he left office and I don't hear anyone crowing about that! When you hit 40+% then we can talk a substantial minority.
This is not about Bush but about what you said, which was false. 30% is anything but a very, very, very small minority. I still say it's a pretty substantial minority in the context of your false statement. I used the Bush poll to put your claim of 30% as being a substantial minority in to perspective. Let's try a different approach shall we? You want change for a 100 dollar bill, I give you back 30 dollars. It's still 30% but would you be able to buy as much with 30 dollars as you could with 100 dollars or 40 or 50? I think not. 30 dollars is still 30% of 100 dollars. You might be able to buy a few thing with it but not as much as you could with 100 dollars or even 40 dollars. The 30% will not buy you the political clout that 70% or even 40% will. 70% will most times trumps 30% in any democratic political arena. Those are cold, plain facts Fish. And trying to bend them to fit an opposing position will not make those facts any different.
Look at it from any perspective you want, argue for as long as you like to argue, 30% will never be a very, very, very small minority and will always be a substantial minority, relatively speaking. |
|
|
6/08/09 10:35:29 AM#112
Will Smith > Obama |
|
|
6/08/09 11:05:30 AM#113
Originally posted by Fishermage
This is not about Bush but about what you said, which was false. 30% is anything but a very, very, very small minority. I still say it's a pretty substantial minority in the context of your false statement. I used the Bush poll to put your claim of 30% as being a substantial minority in to perspective. Let's try a different approach shall we? You want change for a 100 dollar bill, I give you back 30 dollars. It's still 30% but would you be able to buy as much with 30 dollars as you could with 100 dollars or 40 or 50? I think not. 30 dollars is still 30% of 100 dollars. You might be able to buy a few thing with it but not as much as you could with 100 dollars or even 40 dollars. The 30% will not buy you the political clout that 70% or even 40% will. 70% will most times trumps 30% in any democratic political arena. Those are cold, plain facts Fish. And trying to bend them to fit an opposing position will not make those facts any different.
Look at it from any perspective you want, argue for as long as you like to argue, 30% will never be a very, very, very small minority and will always be a substantial minority, relatively speaking. Perhaps from your unique perspective 30% is a substantial, to everyone else, it isn't. If other political minority views joined some sort of coalition then they would have a stronger voice, but 30% alone is the political hinterlands as presidential job approval goes. |
|
|
6/08/09 11:14:04 AM#114
Originally posted by keltic1701
This is not about Bush but about what you said, which was false. 30% is anything but a very, very, very small minority. I still say it's a pretty substantial minority in the context of your false statement. I used the Bush poll to put your claim of 30% as being a substantial minority in to perspective. Let's try a different approach shall we? You want change for a 100 dollar bill, I give you back 30 dollars. It's still 30% but would you be able to buy as much with 30 dollars as you could with 100 dollars or 40 or 50? I think not. 30 dollars is still 30% of 100 dollars. You might be able to buy a few thing with it but not as much as you could with 100 dollars or even 40 dollars. The 30% will not buy you the political clout that 70% or even 40% will. 70% will most times trumps 30% in any democratic political arena. Those are cold, plain facts Fish. And trying to bend them to fit an opposing position will not make those facts any different.
Look at it from any perspective you want, argue for as long as you like to argue, 30% will never be a very, very, very small minority and will always be a substantial minority, relatively speaking. Perhaps from your unique perspective 30% is a substantial, to everyone else, it isn't. If other political minority views joined some sort of coalition then they would have a stronger voice, but 30% alone is the political hinterlands as presidential job approval goes.
But, when it is the number for "strong disapproval," or the number that think "Obama sucks Donkey nuts," and one is making a comparison with someone else's false statement (calling 30% very, very, very small), it certainly IS substantial. Once can jump out of context and make anything into anything when one is discussing relative things. That being said, when the first person falsely calls something "very, very, very small" and the other person shows the number as 30% and in that context says that it is a "substantial amount," in that context and in the comparison being drawn, it most certainly is. Dance as much as you want, you were the one who made the false statement when you said 30% was very, very, very small. It isn't. |
|
|
6/08/09 11:17:29 AM#115
Is 30%, as you say, "substantial," however?
Brief Aside: The Republicans (conservatives) are the boogeyman they fear and denounce in terms of (a) growing government, (b) taking-away rights, and (c) torture dungeons. These Republicans are doing what is known as "projecting" onto Obama. Worse, the biggest critcism of Obama appears to be the continuation and acceleration of Bush economic, foreign, military policies that has resulted in ENORMOUS DEFICIT SPENDING and ENORMOUS GOVERNMENT GROWTH. Frankly, I am surprised, in fact, that these conservatives dislike Obama; his only defect appears to be that he is a (D) Democrat and not an (R) Republican to "regular conservatives" and their neoconservative cousins. |
|
|
6/08/09 11:31:06 AM#116
Originally posted by declaredemer
It is substantial when one is considering "strong disapproval" in relation to someone calling that same figure falsely as very, very, very small -- which it isn't. Even 10% isn't very, very, very small in my book. No matter how one wants to dance, 30% is substantial. In terms of what you said about Republicans -- all true -- only democrats are even worse, at least Obama is. This is the problem with ALL republicrats. The only difference is WHAT they want to piss our money away on and which rights and liberties they wish to take away. Anyone who is against the advancement of socialism and growth of statism would think Bush was a bad president and Obama is worse. Ta Da 30%. With many more disaapproving of his policies when they hear about them, but still giving the new president the benefit of the doubt, as the America people usually do at first. I hope this crazy gamble he is taking with the economy works out. It might. He might get growth high enough it'll outpace the inflation he is likely to cause; he might get growth high enough it'll pay off the deficit -- if that's what happens in the next ten years I'll cheer. I doubt it though. The government -caused boom and busts have been ratcheting up, and the chickens almost came home to roost this last time -- they surely will when the baby boomers all retire. This is the result of decades of the same failed policy. The situation gets worse with each bust, and Obama, his congress and the Fed are doing more of the same that caused the problems. This is the failure republicrat statism and socialism. We need change, not more of the same only worse. |
|
|
6/08/09 2:16:56 PM#117
substantial minority. Theres a nice phrase. Pretty much means a lot of very little. |
|
|
6/08/09 2:37:29 PM#118
You guys do realize Fisher probably typed this with a straight face, meaning that he either really believes 10% isn't very small at all, or he's just responding to be absurd. If he honestly believes that 1 out of 10 ANYTHING is not a very small number, how can you discuss things with anyone that has that viewpoint? .10
If you decide to debate him on anything ever again in the future, this above quote should be a clue if can't understand why you don't seem to be getting anywhere with facts. I hope you don't take that as a flame Fisher, because it's not meant to be. But not understanding (or acknowledging) that 10% of anything is very small shows you are just being difficult for sport and detest conceding a correct point of view not your own, or just not grounded in reality. And you don't strike me as the "non reality" type. |
|
|
6/08/09 2:50:25 PM#119
Originally posted by Rayx0r
Actually, in this context, It means more than half of less than 50%. Anything up to 25% can technicaly be called not a substantial minority. But when you have achieved a clear majority among the minority, that's certainly substantial.
|
|
|
6/08/09 3:18:32 PM#120
Group A has 49.0% Group B has 26.0% Group C has 25.0% Group B does not have a "substantial minority". No one in this group has a "substantial minority" so you aren't correct here, technically or otherwise. Any group other than A is just a minority where one isn't "substantially" bigger than the other.
|
|
