Obama people

[Alcon]

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

Bother with what?

I think I presented a totally reasonable explanation of the methodology, which you clearly didn't know before this point.  Instead of taking it as new information, you seem to be ignoring it without considering it in your opinion whatsoever.

When someone vigorously demands sources and then "gives up" when someone presents one, it doesn't look like exhaustion; it looks like attrition.

[SomeLawStudent]

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

Bother with what?

I think I presented a totally reasonable explanation of the methodology, which you clearly didn't know before this point.  Instead of taking it as new information, you seem to be ignoring it without considering it in your opinion whatsoever.

When someone vigorously demands sources and then "gives up" when someone presents one, it doesn't look like exhaustion; it looks like attrition.

I provided sources to prove a point, you provided nothing.  hope this helps.

[Nym90]

In my experience, the argument that white working class voters are too racist to vote for a black candidate is being advanced mostly by Republicans to ridiucule Obama as unelectable.

Yes, many blacks are voting for Obama largely out of racism. I don't recall seeing much of anyone deny that. Certainly it cuts both ways, but the Clintons aren't helping anything by trying to make Obama's race an issue in the campaign.

[SomeLawStudent]

In my experience, the argument that white working class voters are too racist to vote for a black candidate is being advanced mostly by Republicans to ridiucule Obama as unelectable.

Yes, many blacks are voting for Obama largely out of racism. I don't recall seeing much of anyone deny that. Certainly it cuts both ways, but the Clintons aren't helping anything by trying to make Obama's race an issue in the campaign.

ok THANK YOU.  This is the most honest and level-headed post I have read all day.  This was all I was asking for, an admission that it cuts both ways. 

[Joe Republic]

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

I can't really see what the problem is here.

1. You claimed (off-handedly, but still) that Obama is the most liberal senator.
2. I called you on it.
3. Eventually you posted some evidence to support the claim.
4. By the time I came to discredit your source, two people had already done so.  I see no need to provide more evidence when both people had already covered enough of an argument against the National Journal ranking.
5. You've now asked me to provide an alternative ranking which could be considered "better" than the NJ.  My argument right from the beginning is that no ranking is credible, as all are inherently flawed.
6. You've given up.

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

Bother with what?

I think I presented a totally reasonable explanation of the methodology, which you clearly didn't know before this point.  Instead of taking it as new information, you seem to be ignoring it without considering it in your opinion whatsoever.

When someone vigorously demands sources and then "gives up" when someone presents one, it doesn't look like exhaustion; it looks like attrition.

I provided sources to prove a point, you provided nothing.  hope this helps.

Yes he did!  Reply #47 in this thread.

[Alcon]

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

Bother with what?

I think I presented a totally reasonable explanation of the methodology, which you clearly didn't know before this point.  Instead of taking it as new information, you seem to be ignoring it without considering it in your opinion whatsoever.

When someone vigorously demands sources and then "gives up" when someone presents one, it doesn't look like exhaustion; it looks like attrition.

I provided sources to prove a point, you provided nothing.  hope this helps.

I provided a link to the National Journal's own web site with the vote breakdowns.  Good Lord, what do you want from me?

[JSojourner]

Who got the midget vote?  Did anyone actively court midgets/dwarves/little people?

[SomeLawStudent]

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

I can't really see what the problem is here.

1. You claimed (off-handedly, but still) that Obama is the most liberal senator.
2. I called you on it.
3. Eventually you posted some evidence to support the claim.
4. By the time I came to discredit your source, two people had already done so.  I see no need to provide more evidence when both people had already covered enough of an argument against the National Journal ranking.
5. You've now asked me to provide an alternative ranking which could be considered "better" than the NJ.  My argument right from the beginning is that no ranking is credible, as all are inherently flawed.
6. You've given up.

LOL.  I'm just not going to bother anymore. 

Bother with what?

I think I presented a totally reasonable explanation of the methodology, which you clearly didn't know before this point.  Instead of taking it as new information, you seem to be ignoring it without considering it in your opinion whatsoever.

When someone vigorously demands sources and then "gives up" when someone presents one, it doesn't look like exhaustion; it looks like attrition.

I provided sources to prove a point, you provided nothing.  hope this helps.

Yes he did!  Reply #47 in this thread.

LOL - I believe in the ranking I cited and not the blogs used to refute it.  Hope this Helps. 

[Alcon]

LOL - I believe in the ranking I cited and not the blogs used to refute it.  Hope this Helps. 

By "the blogs used to refute it"...you mean the original contents of the study itself, posted on the National Journal's web site?  Damn.  Guilty as charged.

Apparently you didn't bother to click the source I provided, or read the URL.  Now, if there were ever a sign that you were arguing to your own ends, that would be it.

[SomeLawStudent]

LOL - I believe in the ranking I cited and not the blogs used to refute it.  Hope this Helps. 

By "the blogs used to refute it"...you mean the original contents of the study itself, posted on the National Journal's web site?  Damn.  Guilty as charged.

Apparently you didn't bother to click the source I provided, or read the URL.  Now, if there were ever a sign that you were arguing to your own ends, that would be it.

I was referring to the Monkey Cage Blog.

[Flying Dog]

You know what scares me?

I was over at my Uncle's house this Sunday for a Confirmation party. We were eating dinner and the topic of conversation wandered over to the Presidential election. My aunt asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. Then my great-uncle looked over at me like I belonged in asylum. His first words were, "You know Obama's a Muslim, don't you?"

[Franzl]

You know what scares me?

I was over at my Uncle's house this Sunday for a Confirmation party. We were eating dinner and the topic of conversation wandered over to the Presidential election. My aunt asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. Then my great-uncle looked over at me like I belonged in asylum. His first words were, "You know Obama's a Muslim, don't you?"

Wasn't there some poll where 20% thought that?

[Beet]

LOL - I believe in the ranking I cited and not the blogs used to refute it.  Hope this Helps. 

By "the blogs used to refute it"...you mean the original contents of the study itself, posted on the National Journal's web site?  Damn.  Guilty as charged.

Apparently you didn't bother to click the source I provided, or read the URL.  Now, if there were ever a sign that you were arguing to your own ends, that would be it.

I was referring to the Monkey Cage Blog.

Dude, just because I linked to the Monkey Cage doesn't mean the original source is the Monkey Cage... the post refers to the Senators' DW-NOMINATE scores (which can be found here http://voteview.com/), which is hardly a methodology that some politically motivated individuals pulled out of their ass. Do a google search for "DW-NOMINATE"... it is the standard that political scientists use to ideologically rank members of legislatures.

[Flying Dog]

You know what scares me?

I was over at my Uncle's house this Sunday for a Confirmation party. We were eating dinner and the topic of conversation wandered over to the Presidential election. My aunt asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. Then my great-uncle looked over at me like I belonged in asylum. His first words were, "You know Obama's a Muslim, don't you?"

Wasn't there some poll where 20% thought that?

I think it was 16% but it scares me that my Great-Uncle, a man I love and respect, believes that crap.

What's more insane is that after that, he attacked Obama on being a radical rev. Wright supporter and a member of a cultish Church.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You know what scares me?

I was over at my Uncle's house this Sunday for a Confirmation party. We were eating dinner and the topic of conversation wandered over to the Presidential election. My aunt asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. Then my great-uncle looked over at me like I belonged in asylum. His first words were, "You know Obama's a Muslim, don't you?"

Wasn't there some poll where 20% thought that?

I think it was 16% but it scares me that my Great-Uncle, a man I love and respect, believes that crap.

What's more insane is that after that, he attacked Obama on being a radical rev. Wright supporter and a member of a cultish Church.

So, Wright is Obama's Imam?

[Gustaf]

Stop having the f'in nerve to compare blacks and whites in f'in America!

Christ. 

I agree. They ARE very different, after all. I mean, you can't actually compare people of different races with each other like if they were all humans. That would be...non-racist...

[SomeLawStudent]

LOL - I believe in the ranking I cited and not the blogs used to refute it.  Hope this Helps. 

By "the blogs used to refute it"...you mean the original contents of the study itself, posted on the National Journal's web site?  Damn.  Guilty as charged.

Apparently you didn't bother to click the source I provided, or read the URL.  Now, if there were ever a sign that you were arguing to your own ends, that would be it.

I was referring to the Monkey Cage Blog.

Dude, just because I linked to the Monkey Cage doesn't mean the original source is the Monkey Cage... the post refers to the Senators' DW-NOMINATE scores (which can be found here http://voteview.com/), which is hardly a methodology that some politically motivated individuals pulled out of their ass. Do a google search for "DW-NOMINATE"... it is the standard that political scientists use to ideologically rank members of legislatures.

So are you actually saying you don't think Obama is more Liberal than Hillary Clinton?

[Sam Spade]

This thread is pretty funny.  For other possible responses, see my sig.

[Alcon]

So are you actually saying you don't think Obama is more Liberal than Hillary Clinton?

Begging the question.  You're a law student!  You know better than that, man.

Do you have any response to my pointing out that they had no net difference, yet the nature of the votes they turned out for sent one to #1 and the other to #16?  That seems like a legitimate metric to you?

Maybe Obama is more liberal than Clinton.  But when you use a link to prove that he's the #1 most liberal Senator (whatever that means), and then you defend it with what's essentially, I don't have objective proof but you can't really believe that it's not true?, what do you expect?

And this is after you demanded a citation from us...

[Flying Dog]

This thread is pretty funny.  For other possible responses, see my sig.

That statement can mean anything you want it too.

I see why you have it, then.

[Sam Spade]

This thread is pretty funny.  For other possible responses, see my sig.

That statement can mean anything you want it too.

I see why you have it, then.

With the Clintons out of the political spectrum, although they're not really out of the political spectrum (they can still deep-six people), we are entering an political age where there is lots of risk and, I suspect, very little gain, if things continue the way they are.

[SomeLawStudent]

So are you actually saying you don't think Obama is more Liberal than Hillary Clinton?

Begging the question.  You're a law student!  You know better than that, man.

Do you have any response to my pointing out that they had no net difference, yet the nature of the votes they turned out for sent one to #1 and the other to #16?  That seems like a legitimate metric to you?

Maybe Obama is more liberal than Clinton.  But when you use a link to prove that he's the #1 most liberal Senator (whatever that means), and then you defend it with what's essentially, I don't have objective proof but you can't really believe that it's not true?, what do you expect?

And this is after you demanded a citation from us...

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."  Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  Which was the entire point of this discussion to begin with, since he's less appealing to moderates.  Lastly, I am not a law student anymore, I just forgot to change this moniker. 

[Flying Dog]

This thread is pretty funny.  For other possible responses, see my sig.

That statement can mean anything you want it too.

I see why you have it, then.

With the Clintons out of the political spectrum, although they're not really out of the political spectrum (they can still deep-six people), we are entering an political age where there is lots of risk and, I suspect, very little gain, if things continue the way they are.

Perhaps. But what's life with no risks?

[Sam Spade]

This thread is pretty funny.  For other possible responses, see my sig.

That statement can mean anything you want it too.

I see why you have it, then.

With the Clintons out of the political spectrum, although they're not really out of the political spectrum (they can still deep-six people), we are entering an political age where there is lots of risk and, I suspect, very little gain, if things continue the way they are.

Perhaps. But what's life with no risks?

Boring.  But we must always keep in mind the possible consequences, something this present generation seems incapable of doing (probably has to do with how they were raised).  Henceforth, my sig.

[Joe Republic]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."

Our (well, Alcon's) source refutes your source, and you haven't yet defended your source from the refutation.

Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

I guess I am, because I don't personally believe it is possible to be "more liberal" in any quantitative sense (e.g. a ranking).  I believe ideology is purely qualitative, and therefore virtually impossible to measure in any non-arbitrary way.