View Full Version : Poll Fight!
I'm layin' this track down for my main Poll Smoker, CA:
Seems there's a dust-up bewteen 538 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) and Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/). It began (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html) with:
I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.
Unfortunately, that is not a choice you have at RCP. Their partisan leaning is infused into their numbers. If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not.
And progressed (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/rcp-follow-up.html) to:
It is clear to me that there is substantial subjectivity in how RCP selects the polls to include in its averages. RCP does not publish an FAQ, or any other set of standards. Nor, in my conversation with John, was he willing to articulate one. In my view, the fact that RCP does not disclose a set of standards means ipso facto that they are making judgment calls -- that there is some subjectivity involved -- in how their polls are selected.
All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.
-edit-
I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2008, 18:28
Real clear politics is a great site. Do you really believe that they are excessively biased? You realize that the new site is attempting to take business away from RCP, right?
From the 538 Faq:
"What is your political affiliation? My state (CA) has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama (Ch-IL)."
Its good that we are getting away from partisanship. All of those non-partisan Obama supporters. You'll fit right in.
Do you have any response to the charges 538 makes? Sure, they're competing poll sites. So what? Doesn't address the issues being raised in the slightest.
-edit-
You do read what I post before you respond, right?
From the 538 Faq:
"What is your political affiliation? My state (CA) has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama (Ch-IL)."
I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.
I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?
Gah.org kicks both their butts! ~;)
Strike For The South
10-03-2008, 18:38
hehehehehehe. This is funny simply because people who run internet polling sites are slamming each-other. You have to take all this with a grain of salt anyway Human surveys are always subject to bias no matter what.
538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?
I'm kind of with Tuff, in that it seems a bit like an up-and-comer trying to throw some mud on a bigger competitor. Just because this guy claims they have intrinsic bias doesn't make it so. He needs to build a better case than that.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2008, 18:46
RCP selects major polls and combines them together by population. Are you suggesting that RCP is using uncouth methods to combine polls? Are they part of the vast right-wing conspiracy do you think?
The reality is that you would prefer a polling site maintained by Obama supporters and I support a polling site maintained by centerist guys. I don't detect a bias in RCP averages, but I wouldn't because I am par of the Republican hate machine.
538 has a faq. Hurry up RCP, close up shop because you've been sniffed out!
What more do you need? RCP combines major polls by population and gets averages. How hard is that? What polls!!!? Where do they come from!!!?
Looking closer into the sites, 538 has biased editorial accompanying their polls whereas RCP has very little editorial anywhere near the polls. Jay Cost is a mastermind and is a major draw to RCP. Only time will tell if 538 has a mind like that on staff. Also, 538 says that they "handicap" polling averages within the larger average based on their subjective view of accuracy in polling historically. They claim this, but I don't see an explanation as to what qualifies polling as accurate or not before an election. Maybe I just missed it, but I'd like to see what each poll's handicap is and how they were rated.
538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?
RCP selects major polls and combines them together by population. Are you suggesting that RCP is using uncouth methods to combine polls? Are they part of the vast right-wing conspiracy do you think?
I agree with 538 this far: RCP does not disclose its methodology, certainly not in a way that would allay any worries about statistical shenanigans. As for RCP being part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, I'll help out if you need some more straw to stuff in that man you're building.
Crazed Rabbit
10-03-2008, 19:37
All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.
-edit-
I am an idiot. If I had been thinking at all, I would have included a poll. I mean, come on, it's a post about polls, how can I not include one?
What? Two sites go at each other, and you present one side of the argument and act like that's the whole story?
The charges are based more on the gut feeling of a Obama supporter than hard facts.
I don't see how 538 has proven anything.
CR
I agree with 538 this far: RCP does not disclose its methodologyNeither do many of the polls that both entities average. That doesn't make any claims of bias against these polls automatically valid.
In fact, as I've said before, I really don't think averaging polls like this has any real statistical validity- so it's kind of hard to get worked up about it either way. :shrug:
Don Corleone
10-03-2008, 21:15
I don't know enough to say whether RCP is in the tank for McCain as 538 is alleging or not.
But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.
This is the equivalent, to me, of an open-source developer getting pissed at Microsoft for not disclosing the source code for a new killer app.
m52nickerson
10-03-2008, 21:22
I don't know enough to say whether RCP is in the tank for McCain as 538 is alleging or not.
But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.
This is the equivalent, to me, of an open-source developer getting pissed at Microsoft for not disclosing the source code for a new killer app.
Being an Obama supporter even the notion that RCP shows favor to McCain is more reason to go to that site. If Obama is leading in the polls on a McCain+ site that means to me Obama really is leading.
But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.
This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.
ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.
Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]
What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.
No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2008, 22:19
This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.
ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.
Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]
What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.
No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.
It really sounds like you are stretching this thing. I'm glad that you've brought 538 to our attention. It is one more site to bounce numbers off of. Maybe I'll average RCP with 538 and be sure to disclose my methodology!
PanzerJaeger
10-03-2008, 23:38
All I can say to Real Clear Politics is you been served! Yo, man, that's the last time I cite your poll averages, beyotch.
I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.
Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters? :yes:
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2008, 23:41
Sink any endeavour not run by exclusively by Obama supporters. All are suspect.
I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.
Just keepin' it real, yo. Layin a phat track down for my poll-loving homies, gettin' the shiv from the Backroom Republican posse. Just kick it, my nizzle.
seireikhaan
10-04-2008, 02:36
I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.
Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters? :yes:
Speaking of an echo chamber...:no:
Big_John
10-04-2008, 04:56
wow. never thought i'd see panties all a-bunched over a couple of polls. get some air, fellas.
oh and btw.. microsoft makes killer apps???
CountArach
10-04-2008, 09:38
Haha, thanks Lemur! I've been following this as well. Frankly I never really like RCP. I prefer Pollster.com if I just want aggregates.
538 throwing out a bunch of claims doesn't really prove anything at all does it? Just because they make a bunch of charges that may or may not have any factual basis, the RCP team is obligated to respond?
Did you read the stuff he posted? The polls that RCP chose were cherry picked because they were not supportive of the narrative that RCP wanted to construct. Even if that is not true you must admit that the following is suspicious:
As long as we're having fun with this, how about Alaska? Anchorage-based pollster Ivan Moore had released a poll in July, then showing just a 3-point race between McCain and Obama. We included it, Pollster.com included it, and RCP did not. But then last month, when the same firm released a fresh poll showing the profound effect that Sarah Palin had on the race (McCain +19), RCP decided they were a worthy pollster.
Regardless, Nate (From 538) has cleared up what he meant:
"However, it does not necessarily follow that these judgment calls reflect any deliberate partisan leaning, i.e. any "bias". "
Nate has managed to avoid bias several times in the past:
1) When his website guy (Sean) was posting attack pieces on McCain, he was ordered to stop.
2) When Nate was taking into account the likely effects of a convention bounce that would have flattened McCain's lead, he put it to vote on whether to keep it or not - the public voted against keeping it and Nate scrapped it.
3) If you look at the Super Tracker on the right, you will see that he had McCain leading for a long time.
I'm glad Nate called RCP out on what they did, it will only increase the quality of their analysis and polling trends.
It really sounds like you are stretching this thing. I'm glad that you've brought 538 to our attention. It is one more site to bounce numbers off of. Maybe I'll average RCP with 538 and be sure to disclose my methodology!
Try Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/polls/) as well. They have great maps and you can customise them to choose which polling companies you want to leave out of it (I, for example, choose to leave out the Internet polling because it is incredibly inaccurate and not weighted very well).
KukriKhan
10-04-2008, 13:10
Just a poll-related question:
Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled? I've never gotten a phone call, in 39 years of being a voter (I'm not complaining about that; I just wonder: Who does get called?) Do those who do get called, get called repeatedly?
How long do the calls last? If you've been polled, are you satisfied that your views have been represented?
OK, that's more than 'a question'. Sorry.
CountArach
10-04-2008, 13:14
Just a poll-related question:
Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled? I've never gotten a phone call, in 39 years of being a voter (I'm not complaining about that; I just wonder: Who does get called?) Do those who do get called, get called repeatedly?
How long do the calls last? If you've been polled, are you satisfied that your views have been represented?
OK, that's more than 'a question'. Sorry.
I have never been polled, but my father has been. The call was probably 10-15 minutes because they asked him other things in regards to market research, such as electricity and telecommunications providers and satisfaction.
Has anyone who reads this ever been politically polled?
Yup. Once while I was living in Brooklyn. Luckily they called when I was not busy, not having dinner and not at work. They asked me vey general questions about the 2004 election for about twenty minutes. I Never asked who they were with, which was stupid of me.
Big_John
10-04-2008, 18:42
Yup. Once while I was living in Brooklyn. Luckily they called when I was not busy, not having dinner and not at work. They asked me vey general questions about the 2004 election for about twenty minutes. I Never asked who they were with, which was stupid of me.
you fool! they could have been chinese spies! what have you done? :fainting:
Gregoshi
10-04-2008, 19:21
I've gotten three calls in the past month or two wanting me to answer questions about today's issues. I stopped all three calls right at the start so I don't know if they were politically based or not. I remember one was supposedly about healthcare. Just thought it was coincidence that I was suddenly getting these survey calls when I hadn't before.
On the subject of calls, I got a call back in August from the Republican party. The lady asked me if I knew who I was voting for this fall. I told her I didn't know yet. Then she thanked me and hung up. No sales pitch or anything. I was rather stunned considering I'm registered as a Republican. Guess I didn't give the right answer. Gosh golly darn it.
Koga No Goshi
10-04-2008, 22:17
I'm not sure what you were attempting here, but please stop.
Actually, to bring my post on topic, that could be applied to this entire thread. This is yet another example of the Obama echo chamber - Obama supporters repeating some lame accusations by some others, trying to drum up a controversy. I wonder if this has made it on to Kos yet. Is it any surprise that the OP would rather get his polling data from Obama supporters? :yes:
You are funny.
Let's see....
Faux indignation over flag lapel pins
Faux indignation over "lipstick on a pig"
Faux indignation over Kerry mentioning Cheney's openly lesbian daughter (who the GOP had been using as a prop for how open minded they were, even though they didn't bring her on stage with the rest of Cheney's family at the convention)
If you are Republican, Panzer, don't start mudfights over the other party "repeating lame accusations, trying to drum up controversy." You will lose, every time.
Oh and i forgot a big one:
Faux indignation over sexism, AFTER Clinton lost the primary, and then again after Palin was picked.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 08:59
You are funny.
Let's see....
Faux indignation over flag lapel pins
Faux indignation over "lipstick on a pig"
Faux indignation over Kerry mentioning Cheney's openly lesbian daughter (who the GOP had been using as a prop for how open minded they were, even though they didn't bring her on stage with the rest of Cheney's family at the convention)
If you are Republican, Panzer, don't start mudfights over the other party "repeating lame accusations, trying to drum up controversy." You will lose, every time.
Oh and i forgot a big one:
Faux indignation over sexism, AFTER Clinton lost the primary, and then again after Palin was picked.
:laugh4:
Anyway, I think I need to be reminded again that Barack Obama is black and how amazing that is and how racist it is to mention it in any other light.. Lemy hasn't hit me with the racist tag in a while! :2thumbsup:
Koga No Goshi
10-05-2008, 09:10
:laugh4:
Anyway, I think I need to be reminded again that Barack Obama is black and how amazing that is and how racist it is to mention it in any other light.. Lemy hasn't hit me with the racist tag in a while! :2thumbsup:
Have I ever said such a thing? I don't recall seeing anyone reacting that way around here. The only instance I can think of whatsoever is Roseanne Barr on Real Time saying that she thought Palin's sneering tone when talking about "community organizing" was borderline/code racist. Her opinion of course, not the DNC's. So I don't know what "cult" of people calling anyone who criticizes Obama racist has been assaulting you.
stuff
Interesting how hard you work to turn every thread into a referendum on yourself. Narcissism much? Do you even care about the subject of this thread, or is this just another chance for you to see how much off-topic trolling you can do before getting a warning?
How's the "game," as you like to think of it, going?
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 14:29
Interesting how hard you work to turn every thread into a referendum on yourself. Narcissism much? Do you even care about the subject of this thread, or is this just another chance for you to see how much off-topic trolling you can do before getting a warning?
How's the "game," as you like to think of it, going?
Why such a sour puss this morning? :drama1:
You know I'll alway's be your beyotch. ~:flirt:
Why such a sour puss this morning? :drama1:
Well, see, I have this fascist southerner who follows me from thread to thread trolling as hard as he dares. He doesn't seem to care about the topics, just exercises a juvenile curiosity about how provocative he can be without getting banned from the forum. He should probably get a hobby or discover girls.
Face it, kid, you don't give a damn about polling methodology and you have no informed opinion on the subject. The only posts you have made in this thread have been pure troll. Something which I'm sure you're quite proud about.
Have you ever considered how embarrassing it must be to have you as a supporter? If I were a Backroom Republican, I'd be backpedaling away from you and your retrograde views as fast as my feet would carry me. Frankly, any G.O.P.-supporting Orgahs out to be dismayed when you weigh in on their side.
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2008, 14:40
Well, see, I have this fascist southerner who follows me from thread to thread trolling as hard as he dares. He doesn't seem to care about the topics, just exercises a juvenile curiosity about how provocative he can be without getting banned from the forum. He should probably get a hobby or discover girls.
Face it, kid, you don't give a damn about polling methodology and you have no informed opinion on the subject. The only posts you have made in this thread have been pure troll. Something which I'm sure you're quite proud about.
Have you ever considered how embarrassing it must be to have you as a supporter? If I were a Backroom Republican, I'd be backpedaling away from you and your retrograde views as fast as my feet would carry me. Frankly, any G.O.P.-supporting Orgahs out to be dismayed when you weigh in on their side.
Terrible. Nobody is embarrassed of PJ. We can't have an in depth knowledge of everything, but arguing about it helps my understanding, for example. I learn best through argument.
Banquo's Ghost
10-05-2008, 14:42
Gentlemen,
Let's return to topic rather than discuss personalities.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 14:51
[flirtations..] to return your thread to its topic, I'd urge you to consider that possibility that you may have fallen for some clever marketing. :shrug:
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 14:53
Gentlemen,
Let's return to topic rather than discuss personalities.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Oops. Do you want me to edit that last one..? :oops:
I'd urge you to consider that possibility that you may have fallen for some clever marketing. :shrug:
The moment you can respond to or even summarize any of the objections made by 538, we can talk.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 15:28
The moment you can respond to or even summarize any of the objections made by 538, we can talk.
It's really difficult to find a bias for McCain as RCP's average has consistently been in line with other major polls and averages. Show me where RCP has differed in any meaningful way from Gallup, Rasmussen, or even 538. They all reflect the same ups and downs for the candidates. Not to mention that by simply clicking (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) on the average, RCP fully discloses the polls that comprise it - so it is not as if they are unusually secretive about their methods.
If 538 seriously believes RCP slants to the right, shouldn't their averages reflect that? That the guy came out almost immediately and altered (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/rcp-follow-up.html) his original "opinion" only reinforces my suspicion that he was just throwing some red meat out there to cast doubt on RCP. Its pretty much the same strategy cable news has taken. Polarize and divide. Where do you think all the Obama supporters who get word of this story will be going in the future for their polling?
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2008, 15:33
To be honest, and I'm not a pollster - I would take any poll that has not been suspected of cooking numbers (and hopefully, polling organizations with not unreliable numbers in past elections) and combine them by sample size to other applicable polls. I would only use polls with the largest samples, because smaller samples are suspect.
I really don't like the idea of Handicapping results that 538 suggests.
In the end - RCP tells you whose polls they are using, how many participants there were, where the poll was conducted and averages it in to other similar polls... On top of that Obama is taking the cake by a high but responsible and likely number...
I just can't see how they are loading the decks. We will see whose projections were more accurate after the election, i guess.
BTW, Lemur. Read the comments section under Nate Silver's follow-up post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/rcp-follow-up.html). I checked RCP comments section and found an ideologically split clientele. It can be mildly telling as to whom each site caters to, no?
With the people who are so vehmently defending RCP and not knowing the site itself, I can only come to one conclusion....
These are the same people who say Fox isn't biased in the same vehment ways. ^^
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2008, 15:49
With the people who are so vehmently defending RCP and not knowing the site itself, I can only come to one conclusion....
These are the same people who say Fox isn't biased in the same vehment ways. ^^
What are you talking about? Fox is biased to a varying degree. I agree that their message is center-right, with minor exceptions. Fox & friends is a show about pro-McCain talking points. I can see this.
I don't detect any perceivable slant in RCP coverage or polling results. They have Obama leading by an average of 6pts in the popular and here is their latest electoral map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/). You can clearly see what polls they've included, when they were taken, and the sample size.
They host articles from Estrich, Kruggman, Clift, Dowd, Stephanopoulos, Huffington - and Kristol, Noonan, Fukuyama, Krauthammer, Sowell, Will, Rove.
That the guy came out almost immediately and altered (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/rcp-follow-up.html) his original "opinion" only reinforces my suspicion that he was just throwing some red meat out there to cast doubt on RCP.
Yes, I can see how a person adding to, modifying or clarifying his position must strike you as fatal weakness. It may even qualify as "blinking." And we wouldn't want to blink, now would we? We all know what terrorists do when we blink. By all means, let us celebrate fixed certainty and steely determination.
I salute your attempt to seem to be on-topic, however.
They host articles from Estrich, Kruggman, Clift, Dowd, Stephanopoulos, Huffington - and Kristol, Noonan, Fukuyama, Krauthammer, Sowell, Will, Rove.
538 made abundantly clear that they were not talking about editorials, both in articles I linked to and in quotes I pulled out and re-printed here. So this is kinda ... irrelevant ...
In the final analysis, I really did post this for the benefit of CA, an Orgah who actually cares deeply about polls and statistical math. I never imagined it would turn into a rightwing ideological scrum the way it has. To modify JAG's point, it's kinda suspicious that a simple poll-site fight should provoke such a mighty, unified rightwing backlash. It's not like I said something mean about Matt Drudge or Rush Limbaugh.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 16:08
Yes, I can see how a person adding to, modifying or clarifying his position must strike you as fatal weakness. It may even qualify as "blinking." And we wouldn't want to blink, now would we? We all know what terrorists do when we blink. By all means, let us celebrate fixed certainty and steely determination.
:laugh4:
You ignore all the substantive points I made for this drivel and somehow I'm the troll?[Not to mention Tuff's attempts to have an on topic discussion with you.] Maybe you're just the consumate victim... ~;)
n e ways, kisses boo, until next time! ~:flirt:
ICantSpellDawg
10-05-2008, 16:16
The true right wing gets most upset when people on the left attack moderate positions as extremist in an attempt to shift the center. That is where most of our frustration comes from.
If you were to attack a right wing position I would argue, but not with an indignant tone. It is when you attack things attempting to ride on the center that I am personally offended. If you were to attack Drudge or Fox as center-right-wing rags I would agree but maybe defend certain articles or its right to exist.
I get most upset when moderates are attacked as extremists because of the people who rally to their defense. It is a false argument. I try to defend people when I believe that they have been wronged, irrespective of ideology or lack of one.
I try to defend people when I believe that they have been wronged, irrespective of ideology or lack of one.
Fair enough, a noble position to take. I don't believe this is a case of that, but I respect where you're coming from.
You ignore all the substantive points I made
You made none. And you have consistently been incapable of even summarizing what the dispute is about. You're just trolling to troll.
n e ways, kisses boo, until next time! ~:flirt:
Back under the bridge, little troll.
Banquo's Ghost
10-05-2008, 17:12
To paraphrase the master;
This topic is tired and needs to be put down.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.