Interesting thing on Red and Blue States

[Sharpieman]

I was watching the Daily Show last night and they made a very interesting point about the election. First off, the states that banned gay marriage this year were mostly Red states and have the least amount of gay people in their states. Also, red states were states that weren't really targeted for terrorism (I doubt the terrorists want to go after Nebraska or Utah). States that are most frequently talked about being attacked, California and New York were blue. A Daily Show correspondent, Stephen Colbert was rather cynical and sarcastic in saying that since the red states were so removed from gays and the threat of terrorism, they obviously have the perception to make the right choices.

[Ksyrup]

California and NY are historically Democrat states, aren't they? I mean, when I start with an EV map, I pencil in those numbers on the Dem side before I even begin an analysis.

[Bomber]

I laughed when I heard the joke, but it was a joke.

[Sharpieman]

Well it was meant to be a joke, and I understand that CA and NY are traditionally democratic. But I did think that there was some truth to this when it comes to gay marriage.

[Wolfpack]

Errumm...Michigan is a blue state and it voted overwhelming for the marriage amendment. I think the moral issue thing is a bit of a wash as it seemed the marriage amendments in pretty much all the states that proposed it red or blue did so by about the same percentage (60-65%).

True, perhaps on the terrorism point, but only somewhat so. Of the ten most populous states in the country (and thus, the biggest populations serving as terrorist targets), CA, NY, IL, NJ, PA, and MI went with Kerry while TX, FL, GA, and OH went with Bush. Michael Moore made a famously stupid remark complaining about UBL attacking NY on 9/11, something like "Why attack us? We're Democrats! We hate Bush!" As if attacking Omaha or Houston or Jacksonville would be something better from his perspective. I've also read things about the last UBL tape before the election making threats against states that voted for Bush. Hard to tell if that's an empty threat or not as there have been no attacks since 9/11. (Somewhat surprising since I would think suicide bombings could be effective and easier to achieve, but doesn't generate the world-changing spectacular casualty counts such as a 9/11 attack would.)

It's probably more accurate that NYC, LA, and DC are the highest profile targets, and are also deep blue Democratic, rather than suggesting this sort of thing is targeted at states.

[Sharpieman]

Michigan was the only blue state that the marriage amendment was proposed, so thats one state. BTW, I think it would be interesting to see which states actually have a significant gay population, I know nothing about Michigan's gay scene so I can't estimate on that, but I highly doubt southern red states have a significant gay population.

My point is this, those states without significant gay populations ovbiously don't have the perspective that many do in states with significan gay populations. The people in those southern states don't have exposure to gay people and gay couples, thus they probably lack the understanding and tolerance for those lifestyles.

[GoldenEagle]

If you are trying to say that most gays are liberals then you are correct. Other than that, I think you are stating the obvious.

[John Galt]

California and NY are historically Democrat states, aren't they? I mean, when I start with an EV map, I pencil in those numbers on the Dem side before I even begin an analysis.

The polls tend to show that people in DC and NY especially have less confidence in Bush's terrorism policy and feel less safe now. It is strange that the strongest supporters of Bush's terrorism policy do not live in targetted areas (and don't fear the reprisals).

[GoldenEagle]

The polls tend to show that people in DC and NY especially have less confidence in Bush's terrorism policy and feel less safe now. It is strange that the strongest supporters of Bush's terrorism policy do not live in targetted areas (and don't fear the reprisals).
And you think that has nothing to do with these areas being primarily democratic?

[henry296]

And you think that has nothing to do with these areas being primarily democratic?

Since they were primarily democratic well before terrorism was a national issue, probably not.

[John Galt]

And you think that has nothing to do with these areas being primarily democratic?

I'm saying the numbers show people feel less safe than they did in 2001. That accounts for the high democratic baseline.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm saying the numbers show people feel less safe than they did in 2001. That accounts for the high democratic baseline.

You'd honestly feel safer from terrorism if John Kerry had been elected???

[Ben E Lou]

Errumm...Michigan is a blue state and it voted overwhelming for the marriage amendment. I think the moral issue thing is a bit of a wash as it seemed the marriage amendments in pretty much all the states that proposed it red or blue did so by about the same percentage (60-65%).Two words: black people.

I haven't seen any numbers on it, but I'd be willing to bet that blacks voted heavily for Kerry--and heavily in favor of gay marriage bans. Going to see if I can find something on it right now...

[cuervo72]

I believe Peter Jennings discussed this with Tavis Smiley on the ABC election broadcast (btw, I'm guessing Peter votes against asking Tavis back - the exchanges seemed less than smooth to me).

[John Galt]

You'd honestly feel safer from terrorism if John Kerry had been elected???

I don't live in NY anymore, but I would answer a definite, YES!!! I think Bush's policies are creating more terrorists everyday and the long run effect will be more attacks in the US.

[Sharpieman]

If you are trying to say that most gays are liberals then you are correct. Other than that, I think you are stating the obvious.
Wow, I guess people actually agree that southerners and those who have small populations of gay people don't understand gays and are scared of them. See my whole whole point is that if they understood gay relationships and gay people, they would be more inclined to vote against gay marriage bans. I don't think its so much this issue of being gay is a sin or its against moral values or whatever, its just a lack of understanding the situation.

[GoldenEagle]

So you disagree with me that gays are liberals?

[Arles]

Wow, I guess people actually agree that southerners and those who have small populations of gay people don't understand gays and are scared of them. See my whole whole point is that if they understood gay relationships and gay people, they would be more inclined to vote against gay marriage bans. I don't think its so much this issue of being gay is a sin or its against moral values or whatever, its just a lack of understanding the situation.
I actually agree to a point with this, although I think there are certain religious issues at play as well. You could also reverse your logic and state that if New York and California were around more conservative and openly religious people, maybe they would be less afraid of Bush's religious background.

[tategter]

Wow, I guess people actually agree that southerners and those who have small populations of gay people don't understand gays and are scared of them. See my whole whole point is that if they understood gay relationships and gay people, they would be more inclined to vote against gay marriage bans. I don't think its so much this issue of being gay is a sin or its against moral values or whatever, its just a lack of understanding the situation.

Or to put it another way, it is human nature to fear what we don't understand.

[Franklinnoble]

I don't live in NY anymore, but I would answer a definite, YES!!! I think Bush's policies are creating more terrorists everyday and the long run effect will be more attacks in the US.

So we should start appeasing the terrorists then?

Muslim extremists hate us. They hate us no matter who's in charge. All we can do is take them down. I think George W. Bush will do a better job than John Kerry.

Say what you will about Iraq, but I'd rather have suicide bombers attacking armed marines in a foreign country than a shopping mall in Atlanta.

[John Galt]

So we should start appeasing the terrorists then?

Muslim extremists hate us. They hate us no matter who's in charge. All we can do is take them down. I think George W. Bush will do a better job than John Kerry.

Say what you will about Iraq, but I'd rather have suicide bombers attacking armed marines in a foreign country than a shopping mall in Atlanta.

As I've argued many times, there are many choices besides "appeasement." Also, using the spectre of WWII in every terrorism debate is counterproductive and uninformative.

And I believe there are now thousands more terrorists than there were on 9/11 and I believe the youth of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow throughout the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa because of the adventurist policies we pursue today.

[Ben E Lou]

Say what you will about Iraq, but I'd rather have suicide bombers attacking armed marines in a foreign country than a shopping mall in Atlanta.This isn't talked about much, and I doubt it was a "strategy" of going into Iraq, but it certainly has been a side benefit. It is almost as if we created a diversion in Iraq, and the terrorists bit.

After hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, it is stunning to me that terrorists haven't at least blown up a movie theater in the US on a Friday night. I believe the Bush administration is very serious about fighting terrorism, but I don't think our government is THAT good to have been able to prevent small-scale hit-and-run attacks from happening--the kind of stuff that would instill far more terror across the land than 9/11, imho. It is one thing when Washington and New York get hit; it is quite another if they'd been able to blow up a movie theater in Des Moines, a mall in Pittsburgh, a restaurant in Savannah, etc. No one would feel safe then. I almost have to believe that the terrorist networks have been weakened severely, and have focused their efforts in Iraq.

[Franklinnoble]

This isn't talked about much, and I doubt it was a "strategy" of going into Iraq, but it certainly has been a side benefit. It is almost as if we created a diversion in Iraq, and the terrorists bit.

After hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, it is stunning to me that terrorists haven't at least blown up a movie theater in the US on a Friday night. I believe the Bush administration is very serious about fighting terrorism, but I don't think our government is THAT good to have been able to prevent small-scale hit-and-run attacks from happening--the kind of stuff that would instill far more terror across the land than 9/11, imho. It is one thing when Washington and New York get hit; it is quite another if they'd been able to blow up a movie theater in Des Moines, a mall in Pittsburgh, a restaurant in Savannah, etc. No one would feel safe then. I almost have to believe that the terrorist networks have been weakened severely, and have focused their efforts in Iraq.

Agreed.

[GoldenEagle]

I hope they dont read FOFC.

[John Galt]

This isn't talked about much, and I doubt it was a "strategy" of going into Iraq, but it certainly has been a side benefit. It is almost as if we created a diversion in Iraq, and the terrorists bit.

After hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, it is stunning to me that terrorists haven't at least blown up a movie theater in the US on a Friday night. I believe the Bush administration is very serious about fighting terrorism, but I don't think our government is THAT good to have been able to prevent small-scale hit-and-run attacks from happening--the kind of stuff that would instill far more terror across the land than 9/11, imho. It is one thing when Washington and New York get hit; it is quite another if they'd been able to blow up a movie theater in Des Moines, a mall in Pittsburgh, a restaurant in Savannah, etc. No one would feel safe then. I almost have to believe that the terrorist networks have been weakened severely, and have focused their efforts in Iraq.

I would be very surprised if an Al Qaeda terrorist ever attacked a non-symbolic, purely civilian target in the US. I think they recognize that such an attack would create more sympathy for the US without accomplishing much (witness the effect of the school hostage incident in Chechnya). Al Qaeda is an organization with political goals and has shown that it attacks targets with symbolic value (WTC as symbols of capitalism, the Pentagon and USS Cole as military targets, and embassies as symbols of US influence).

Attacks in Israel are designed for a different purpose than those in the US (and probably aren't Al Qaeda sponsored). And I would doubt that pure mass killings would be a goal here. But I could be wrong.

[Wolfpack]

The other thing working to our advantage there is the ego of the opposing side. We're the US, after all. We are a massive target. Why kill a dozen when 3,000 will be that much more spectacular? Show the capability of delivering strong punches to the last superpower. I can't think they haven't considered trying to do suicide bombings at a mall or theater. I just think they don't think it's a big enough attack.

The other interesting thing is that they hit the WTC and the Pentagon, not exactly high concentrations of children save for those that were unfortunately on the planes. Attacking a mall or a theater or any other basic suburban target would entail likely large casualties among children. Americans would be much more willing to start levelling cities in the Middle East if their children start getting hurt. I would have to think (or at least hope) that has been somewhat of a deterrent to these small-scale attacks as well.

[Franklinnoble]

I would be very surprised if an Al Qaeda terrorist ever attacked a non-symbolic, purely civilian target in the US. I think they recognize that such an attack would create more sympathy for the US without accomplishing much (witness the effect of the school hostage incident in Chechnya). Al Qaeda is an organization with political goals and has shown that it attacks targets with symbolic value (WTC as symbols of capitalism, the Pentagon and USS Cole as military targets, and embassies as symbols of US influence).

Attacks in Israel are designed for a different purpose than those in the US (and probably aren't Al Qaeda sponsored). And I would doubt that pure mass killings would be a goal here. But I could be wrong.

Maybe, maybe not.

If I were Osama Bin Laden, I'd want to cripple the US by any means necessary. Repeated attacks on suburban American targets would probably seriously f*ck the U.S. economy.

[SlapBone]

The polls tend to show that people in DC and NY especially have less confidence in Bush's terrorism policy and feel less safe now. It is strange that the strongest supporters of Bush's terrorism policy do not live in targetted areas (and don't fear the reprisals).

We're dooooomed...DOOOOOOOMED I TELL YA !!!

edit: "doomed" needed more Os

[John Galt]

How many civilians died in WTC? That's right everyone who died in WTC was a pure civilian you heartless pinko.

Why don't you try to read before calling people names?

[SlapBone]

Why don't you try to read before calling people names?

Sorry i re-read and deleted before you posted.

[Ryan S]

California and NY are historically Democrat states, aren't they?
Only since '92 for California. In the ten elections before that they voted Republican nine times.

[tategter]

Maybe, maybe not.

If I were Osama Bin Laden, I'd want to cripple the US by any means necessary. Repeated attacks on suburban American targets would probably seriously f*ck the U.S. economy.

Agreed. If Osama wanted to really geek the US economy he should try to kill Christmas by targeting large malls. (I hope Laden doesn't read FOFC)

[Bomber]

So you disagree with me that gays are liberals?

Mary Cheney says hello.

[Aardvark]

Also, red states were states that weren't really targeted for terrorism (I doubt the terrorists want to go after Nebraska or Utah). States that are most frequently talked about being attacked, California and New York were blue.

After 9/11, my Republican in-laws in Nebraska were afraid to go to the mall. When I was on a business trip to Camp Dodge (in Iowa), one of the guys there (who was a former Intel Officer) said that he was worried about the lax security, and that a single satchel charge placed outside a particular building could kill off the entire leadership of the Iowa Army National Guard. My (internal) response was, so what.

Of course, those red states are getting much more per capita in homeland defense money than the blue states...

[andy m]

http://www.delanocollection.com/images/progress_hahaha.jpg

[Franklinnoble]

http://www.delanocollection.com/images/progress_hahaha.jpg

Slaves vote for Bush. Got it. Thanks!

[MJ4H]

no no slave owners.

[Bomber]

Its kind of sad that are country is still so divided, but don't you think that's taking it to this to the extreme?

[Franklinnoble]

no no slave owners.

I believe blacks have had the right to vote since the 15th Amendment.

In fact, there is some truth in the assertion that the Republican party pushed the amendment at the time to ensure that Grant got elected. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h415.html

It appears that they are still reaping the benefits...

[Dutch]

Wasn't Lincoln a Republican?

[Bomber]

Wasn't Lincoln a Republican?

Yes, but it was a different party then. The Democratic party was still Andrew Jackson's party.

[Franklinnoble]

Yes, but it was a different party then. The Democratic party was still Andrew Jackson's party.

:confused:

Andrew Jackson - Born 1767, Died 1845. President from 1829-1837

Abraham Lincoln - Born 1809, Died 1865. President from 1861-1865

How could it have been Jacskon's party if Jackson had been dead for 16 years prior to Lincoln taking office?

[Bomber]

:confused:

Andrew Jackson - Born 1767, Died 1845. President from 1829-1837

Abraham Lincoln - Born 1809, Died 1865. President from 1861-1865

How could it have been Jacskon's party if Jackson had been dead for 16 years prior to Lincoln taking office?

Get a history book. Jackson founded the Democratic Party, it branched off of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. The Whigs became the opposition party, but eventually disbanded and were replaced by the Republican Party. When Lincoln, the first Republican Party President, was elected the Democratic Party was still operating under much of Jackson's ideas. Neither the Democratic party, nor the Republican party were the same as they are today. Just a simple look at where they were based geographically would tell you that.

[MJ4H]

I believe blacks have had the right to vote since the 15th Amendment.



well i think most of them voted for kerry ;) (89% or so?)

[Dutch]

well i think most of them voted for kerry ;) (89% or so?)

Why?

[Bomber]

Why?

Why did blacks vote for Kerry?

[Dutch]

Why did blacks vote for Kerry?

Yes.

[Franklinnoble]

Get a history book. Jackson founded the Democratic Party, it branched off of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. The Whigs became the opposition party, but eventually disbanded and were replaced by the Republican Party. When Lincoln, the first Republican Party President, was elected the Democratic Party was still operating under much of Jackson's ideas. Neither the Democratic party, nor the Republican party were the same as they are today. Just a simple look at where they were based geographically would tell you that.

OMG.!11!1!11!1!11!1!11 I GOT PWN3D!!!!!!!! OMG WTF

[Bomber]

Yes.

I'll call them up and ask them for you. Hang on.

[Bomber]

OMG.!11!1!11!1!11!1!11 I GOT PWN3D!!!!!!!! OMG WTF

I know it was pretty sweet. I'm going to print it out and frame it on my wall.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Slaves vote for Bush. Got it. Thanks!

Made me LMAO, thanks
:)

[Dutch]

I'll call them up and ask them for you. Hang on.

So now your John Kerry?

[sabotai]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D

[Abe Sargent]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D


I think that we can safely call that spurious and move on.

-Anxiety

[Noop]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D
Well that explains alot...

[Sharpieman]

So you disagree with me that gays are liberals?
Not at all.

[Sharpieman]

Or to put it another way, it is human nature to fear what we don't understand.
So true, I think that a lot of you are hitting the point that one of the main reasons we are so divided is because we don't understand each other. I think if we could actually have some civil discourse in this country then politicans would become more moderate as opposed to running as a moderate and acting like a liberal or conservative. Unfortunately, the media has done a great job of increasing polarization and it doesn't help that our current leaders are fostering it either. I really don't see either side trying to make an attempt to work things out, its like a war of words out there in washington.

Also, on the gay issue, if people admit the cheif reason why they vote for a gay marriage banning or oppose gay marriage in the first place is because they don't understand it, I think they should make an effort to understand it instead of taking all their information from stereotypes and radical comments.

I totally agree that if California and New York understood religious zelots then maybe they would be less afraid of them. However, I don't believe that California and New York don't have a significant proportion of people who describe themselves as religious or spiritual (Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't have any evidence to support the claim that there isnt a population of religious or spiritual people in those states).

[GoldenEagle]

John Kerry wanted to tbe the 2nd black president.

[tanglewood]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D

A calculated average of that table gives an average IQ of 97.3. So the USA is on average dumber than the average? :confused:

Obviously BS.

[Dutch]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D

There is a very large difference between intelligence and wisdom. But I'm sure you knew that. :)

[Sharpieman]

Whats so bad about being an intellectual elite?

[Dutch]

They have no better idea how to make the USA a better country....but they sure think they do. Intellect vs. Wisdom. Also, I don't think you are one of them. They are elite afterall. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is a very large difference between intelligence and wisdom. But I'm sure you knew that. :)

Or, as a wise man once said
A LOT OF YOUNG WISE MEN ARE DEADER THAN A MOTHERFUCKER, AIN'T THEY?

[Sharpieman]

Sure...Wisdom...right...yea...

[Mr. Wednesday]

A calculated average of that table gives an average IQ of 97.3. So the USA is on average dumber than the average? :confused:

Obviously BS.You can't do a straight mean on that, the result would be meaningless. You have to weight it for population. If you do that, I have no idea where the average IQ comes out.

(Where should it come out, 100?)

[clintl]

I totally agree that if California and New York understood religious zelots then maybe they would be less afraid of them. However, I don't believe that California and New York don't have a significant proportion of people who describe themselves as religious or spiritual (Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't have any evidence to support the claim that there isnt a population of religious or spiritual people in those states).

California has its religious zealots. They just don't get elected statewide office. And among religious people, as far as I can tell, there are huge numbers of Christian liberals in California. The state is so diverse that there is no unifying spiritual ideology - which makes sense when you consider how recent California's population explosion was and all the places those people came from. Not just from all over the US, but Asia, Latin America, and more recently, Eastern Europe, too.

FWIW, along the whole Pacific Coast - not just California, but Oregon and Washington as well - religion is just not as big a part of the culture as it seems to be in other parts of the country.

[sabotai]

There is a very large difference between intelligence and wisdom. But I'm sure you knew that. :)

Uhhh....yeah....of course I did. I knew that. :)

[Glengoyne]

I'm saying the numbers show people feel less safe than they did in 2001. That accounts for the high democratic baseline.

Boy, and you criticize me for having a limited view of the world. The answers to those questions have little or nothing to do with the truth. Those are loaded questions, and they are perfect examples of the tail wagging the dog. Plain and simply, if you ask a Democrat if they feel safe now, they will tell you "no". It has much more to do with partisanship, than geography. The same thing follows with the economy. If you ask a Died in the wool partisan Democrat how that economy is doing, they will tell you it is circling the drain. This in the face of several months of news stating that the economy was growing.

I'm not saying this to be critical of Democrats, I think it plays both ways. If you ask a Died in the wool Republican how the economy is doing, they will likely say it is going great guns. If you ask me, I'd say it appears to be recovering nicely, and should rebound well.(That outlook is not at all based on who won the election).

[Glengoyne]

Whats so bad about being an intellectual elite?

I think the problem is, that it is something a number of people unhappy with the outcome of this election have labled themselves.

[randal7]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D

As amusing as that is, a google search shows 70-85 is below average intelligence, 85-115 is average, and 115+ is gifted. I find it hard to believe that the average intelligence for the entire state of Mississippi is below average, or that the average intelligence for the entire state of Connecticut is just shy of gifted. (That would mean that almost half the people in Connecticut are gifted intellects). Given that IQ is a bell curve and the vast majority (68%) of people should fall in the average intelligence range, seems pretty freaking unlikely. (Lest you think I am personally offended by this, my home state average is supposedly 104).

Link:
http://www.iqtest.com/faq.html

And I know most of you realise this, but there are always a few...

[mckerney]

You want something funny about the red and blue states? Check this out:

hxxp://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

:D

Yes, so people who vote for Kerry are more likely to fall for hoaxes. What's your point?

[John Galt]

Boy, and you criticize me for having a limited view of the world. The answers to those questions have little or nothing to do with the truth. Those are loaded questions, and they are perfect examples of the tail wagging the dog. Plain and simply, if you ask a Democrat if they feel safe now, they will tell you "no". It has much more to do with partisanship, than geography. The same thing follows with the economy. If you ask a Died in the wool partisan Democrat how that economy is doing, they will tell you it is circling the drain. This in the face of several months of news stating that the economy was growing.

I'm not saying this to be critical of Democrats, I think it plays both ways. If you ask a Died in the wool Republican how the economy is doing, they will likely say it is going great guns. If you ask me, I'd say it appears to be recovering nicely, and should rebound well.(That outlook is not at all based on who won the election).

I'm saying that people were asked the same question at two different times and the results show people feel less safe. Your indictment has nothing to do with that result. So, maybe my view of the world isn't so "limited" after all.

[andy m]

more random stuff that doesn't mean anything but is vaguely amusing:

hxxp://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm

[Glengoyne]

I'm saying that people were asked the same question at two different times and the results show people feel less safe. Your indictment has nothing to do with that result. So, maybe my view of the world isn't so "limited" after all.

I see where you are coming from, but I believe that question is too loaded to have any real merit. IF someone supported Kerry, I believe they would almost certainly say they felt less safe. To say otherwise, would be to commend the President. I think all the growing percentage of people answering that question measures is the growing percentage of people supporting Kerry.

[GrantDawg]

Yes, so people who vote for Kerry are more likely to fall for hoaxes. What's your point?
That, my friend, was too funny.

[John Galt]

I see where you are coming from, but I believe that question is too loaded to have any real merit. IF someone supported Kerry, I believe they would almost certainly say they felt less safe. To say otherwise, would be to commend the President. I think all the growing percentage of people answering that question measures is the growing percentage of people supporting Kerry.

So, you ignore the fact that those people most affected by domestic terrorism are more afraid of it now? And your basis for doing this is just your intuition that they are being partisan? Is there any possible proof for you to believe that Bush's policies have not made people in potential target cities feel any safer (or do you just "know" it isn't true)?

[Glengoyne]

So, you ignore the fact that those people most affected by domestic terrorism are more afraid of it now? And your basis for doing this is just your intuition that they are being partisan? Is there any possible proof for you to believe that Bush's policies have not made people in potential target cities feel any safer (or do you just "know" it isn't true)?

Well Yes and no. I'm not ignoring that "fact", I'm simply assigning a small amount of weight to it, because I believe it was a "fact" arrived at in error. My intuition does tell me that the question is too loaded to shed any real light on peoples feelings. As for what it would take for me to give more weight to that assertion. I'd say a better poll question, or actually a better set of poll questions. I'm not a statistician or a pollster, but I recognize a loaded question when I see one.

[John Galt]

Well Yes and no. I'm not ignoring that "fact", I'm simply assigning a small amount of weight to it, because I believe it was a "fact" arrived at in error. My intuition does tell me that the question is too loaded to shed any real light on peoples feelings. As for what it would take for me to give more weight to that assertion. I'd say a better poll question, or actually a better set of poll questions. I'm not a statistician or a pollster, but I recognize a loaded question when I see one.

These were the questions by various organizations:

"How worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all?"

"How satisfied are you with the way things are going for the U.S. in the war on terrorism: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?"

"Do you think that, as a country, we are more safe, about as safe, or less safe than we were before September 11th?"

"Do you think the policies of the Bush Administration have made the United States safer from terrorism, less safe from terrorism, or have the policies of the Bush Administration not affected the U.S.' safety from terrorism?"

"How likely do you think it is that there will be another terrorist attack in the United States within the next few months: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?"

"How worried are you that there will soon be another terrorist attack in the United States: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not at all worried?"

How would you word those questions better? How are they loaded against Bush?

[Subby]

The polls tend to show that people in DC and NY especially have less confidence in Bush's terrorism policy and feel less safe now. It is strange that the strongest supporters of Bush's terrorism policy do not live in targetted areas (and don't fear the reprisals). That's a tough one. As someone who lives 8 miles from DC and works 3 blocks from the White House, I think I feel less safe because of 9-11, not because of any resultant foreign policy from the Bush Administration.

Now, this is certainly just my own limited worldview and the numbers you reference may indeed hold out - but I wonder what the real root causes of those feelings are.

Heck, I don't really think about it anymore...one advantage of numerous orange level alert/false alarms is that I have been numbed to the possibilities. I certainly didn't feel that way three years ago, however...

[sabotai]

Some of you need to lighten up. You're taking what I posted way too seriously. I posted it because I thought it was amusing, not truthful.

[Glengoyne]

How would you word those questions better? How are they loaded against Bush?

John... Some people will be honest...My opinion is that most will give their partisan slant.

Since you asked though, The obvious litmus test question to ask would have been "who do you support in the upcoming election?" or "what are the chances you will vote for President Bush in 2004".

You can give it all the weight you want, I'm just not putting much stock in it being more than a likely slanted statistic.

[John Galt]

John... Some people will be honest...My opinion is that most will give their partisan slant.

Since you asked though, The obvious litmus test question to ask would have been "who do you support in the upcoming election?" or "what are the chances you will vote for President Bush in 2004".

You can give it all the weight you want, I'm just not putting much stock in it being more than a likely slanted statistic.

I give up. People were given the same questions at two different periods of time and more people felt unsafe the second time around. If you dismiss these as partisanship then you have so thoroughly insulated yourself into your worldview that nothing can change your mind.

[Warhammer]

Not having RTFA and checked the list of questions, it is a common practice to try and slant questions in a poll and ask a series of control questions to see how the person being polled reacts to the line of questioning.

It's sort of like being asking someone a series of questions you know they will answer yes to, and then throwing them one that you're not sure of, and hope that their previously, positive (or as the case may be, negative) answer will roll on in.

[Thul]

Until Rudy runs in 2008. That should make NY interesting....

California and NY are historically Democrat states, aren't they? I mean, when I start with an EV map, I pencil in those numbers on the Dem side before I even begin an analysis.

[Wolfpack]

I don't know that Rudy can run at the national level as a Republican. Same goes for Ah-nold. Both are immensely popular with the mushy middle of America, but their pro-choice stances will steepen that hill climb quite a bit for them (let alone the current lack of an amendment that would alow Schwarzenegger to run).

I seriously doubt Rudy would even make NY competitive anyway. Before he achieved legendary status for his handling of 9/11, his popularity in the city was tanking due to a number of issues (police brutality, messy divorce, etc). Had he tried to run for a third term (which he couldn't due to term limits), he likely might have lost. If you can't carry NYC, you can pretty much write off carrying NY as a whole. Well over half the state's population lives in Westchester County and points south.

[Glengoyne]

I give up. People were given the same questions at two different periods of time and more people felt unsafe the second time around. If you dismiss these as partisanship then you have so thoroughly insulated yourself into your worldview that nothing can change your mind.
John,

Give up if you like, I feel pretty well exasperated when dealing with you as well. I was feeling ill earlier, but got a burst of energy just now, and dug up this link. IT is poll results like this that make me believe that question is too loaded to have any merit used alone. It seems pretty clear to me the feelings of security are closely tied to an individual's political stance.

<TABLE id=epoll cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=bottom width=341>COMPARED TO FOUR YEARS AGO, U.S. IS...</TD><TD class=LTBorder bgColor=#cc0000 colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=123 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=36>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.bush.jpg</TD><TD align=middle width=87>BUSH</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.kerry.jpg</TD><TD class=TBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#094b93>KERRY</TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.nader.jpg</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#cc9900>NADER</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ebebeb><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle bgColor=#dddddd>TOTAL
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>2000
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Safer From Terrorism (54%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>79%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>n/a
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>20%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Less Safe (41%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>14%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>n/a
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>85%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[thesloppy]

Michigan was the only blue state that the marriage amendment was proposed, so thats one state. BTW, I think it would be interesting to see which states actually have a significant gay population, I know nothing about Michigan's gay scene so I can't estimate on that, but I highly doubt southern red states have a significant gay population.

My point is this, those states without significant gay populations ovbiously don't have the perspective that many do in states with significan gay populations. The people in those southern states don't have exposure to gay people and gay couples, thus they probably lack the understanding and tolerance for those lifestyles.

I know it's easy to forget us, but Oregon's voting base has been blue since the dawn of time, is super-rugged-gay, and the over/under on residents of color is holding steady at 7, but we too passed our gay marriage amendment 57% vs. 43%. Although the results were closer than in many of the other states that passed an ammendment it was only opposed in two counties, Multnomah where Portland is located, and Benton where Oregon State University is situated.

The rural areas in Oregon are generally pretty conservative and their voting tendencies probably mirror those of our midwest neighbors, but they're also relatively empty so Portland pretty much carries the vote (Kerry got 72% of the vote in Multnomah county). Even though Portland is a very liberal (and very white) city it still only voted against the gay marriage ammendment 60% / 40%, which implies that plenty of Dem voters were less than receptive to the idea of gay marriage.

Consider this: we also had a ballot measure proposing the expansion of the Medical Marijuana Act we passed years ago which would've allowed naturapaths and registered nurses to prescribe marijuana, REQUIRED county health offices to be set up as marijuana dispensaries to sell weed to anybody with an MMA card, and expanded the amount of marijuana alllowed in possession of each patient to 10 POUNDS! Portland voted in favor of that measure 53% vs 47%...hell, Alaska was only 7% shy of straight-up legalizing marijuana. It seems that even in a liberal, gay-friendly town like Portland, gay marriage is only slightly preferable to legalizing drugs, and in the rest of the country I'm not even sure you could make that argument.

It seems America is just not ready to completely accept gay marriage, liberal or conservative, and as much as I personally find that disheartening, I would still gladly sell all them homos up the river for ten pounds of government weed and a nearby marijuana dispensary.

[andy m]

http://www.kontrabandcontent.co.uk/1/graphics/pics/kerrywins01.jpg

[duckman]

http://www.kontrabandcontent.co.uk/1/graphics/pics/kerrywins01.jpg
You're about as amusing as watching a kid get hit by a car.

[Ben E Lou]

You're about as amusing as watching a kid get hit by a car.Actually I find it quite amusing. It makes me feel *MUCH* better about my last-minute decision to vote for Dubya. :D

[duckman]

Actually I find it quite amusing. It makes me feel *MUCH* better about my last-minute decision to vote for Dubya. :D
LOL

[cuervo72]

Viva Alberta!

[John Kerry]

I would like to thank the world for its support.

It's clear that the rest of the world has the same vision of America as I do.

A strong America is a threat.
A weak America is a friend to the world!

Perhaps next election you'll all vote blue, so we can make more international friends.

[Dutch]

Hey???? Isn't that a world map showing the British Empire in 1776?

[John Galt]

John,

Give up if you like, I feel pretty well exasperated when dealing with you as well. I was feeling ill earlier, but got a burst of energy just now, and dug up this link. IT is poll results like this that make me believe that question is too loaded to have any merit used alone. It seems pretty clear to me the feelings of security are closely tied to an individual's political stance.

<TABLE id=epoll cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=bottom width=341>COMPARED TO FOUR YEARS AGO, U.S. IS...</TD><TD class=LTBorder bgColor=#cc0000 colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=123 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=36>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.bush.jpg</TD><TD align=middle width=87>BUSH</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.kerry.jpg</TD><TD class=TBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#094b93>KERRY</TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.nader.jpg</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#cc9900>NADER</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ebebeb><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle bgColor=#dddddd>TOTAL
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>2000
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Safer From Terrorism (54%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>79%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>n/a
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>20%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Less Safe (41%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>14%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>n/a
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>85%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

And yet you continue to ignore that people answered the question in several different time frames and the results show NY/DC residents have felt less safe whereas the rest of America feels more safe. The fact that the issue is generally partisan PROVES NOTHING because of that difference. In other words, democrats (and probably republicans, but I haven't seen it broken down that way) in NY/DC in particular feel less safe and those outside of DC and NY (including in other democratic strongholds) feel more safe.

[Glengoyne]

And yet you continue to ignore that people answered the question in several different time frames and the results show NY/DC residents have felt less safe whereas the rest of America feels more safe. The fact that the issue is generally partisan PROVES NOTHING because of that difference. In other words, democrats (and probably republicans, but I haven't seen it broken down that way) in NY/DC in particular feel less safe and those outside of DC and NY (including in other democratic strongholds) feel more safe.
Are you now saying that it is Democrats in NY and DC that feel more unsafe than democrats elsewhere? That isn't what you said before.

My criticism is based exactly on the partisan responses evident in the exit poll. Those two places...NYC and Washington DC are among the most partisan pockets of Kerry support/Bush Oposition in the country. To think that fact shouldn't be considered when evaluating the poll data you cite is, well ridiculous. The fact that you want to accept it at face value is fine with me, but don't criticize me for pointing out that it is likely a bunch of Hooey.

[John Galt]

Are you now saying that it is Democrats in NY and DC that feel more unsafe than democrats elsewhere? That isn't what you said before.

My criticism is based exactly on the partisan responses evident in the exit poll. Those two places...NYC and Washington DC are among the most partisan pockets of Kerry support/Bush Oposition in the country. To think that fact shouldn't be considered when evaluating the poll data you cite is, well ridiculous. The fact that you want to accept it at face value is fine with me, but don't criticize me for pointing out that it is likely a bunch of Hooey.

I said that people in NY and DC felt more unsafe than before. The number of democrats and republicans in those locations have remained relatively constant. Yet, they feel less safe. Other people (both democrats and republicans) outside of DC feel more safe.

The fact that it is a partisan issue by itself is IRRELEVANT given those facts. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I have a feeling it doesn't matter because your mind is closed to anything outside of your narrow worldview. You initially dismissed the polls based on bad wording (with ZERO basis in fact), but after being confronted with the actual questions are doubting the results based on IRRELEVANT evidence. If the facts as I've stated them are just a "bunch of Hooey" to you, then you are the very definition of a hack.

[Glengoyne]

John,

I get it. I'm right, and I can't convince you.

Move on. You could be marginalizing yourself in another thread right now.

[cuervo72]

Let's see....

City A has 1,000,000 people. 800,000 of these are Democrats, 200,000 of these are Republicans. As of X date, 30% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans feel safe, or 300,000 safe, 700,000 unsafe.

As of Y date, 10% of Democrats feel safe, 80% of Republicans feel safe; or 180,000 feel safe. The city as a whole dropped from 30% safe to 18% safe.

Flip the numbers to illustrate what happens in the rest of the country. In this scenario, I don't understand exactly how the number of dems/reps remaining constant has any bearing on this at all. Glengoyne's contention is that by and large, across the country Dems believe the country is less safe. Republicans believe the country is more safe. If you are in an area that is predominately populated by democrats, numbers would dictate that the area is not going to feel safe.

So Glengoyne's stance is that how "safe" people feel is dictated by and large by what party you belong to and who you supported in the election. Jon, you are contending that this is dictated by primarily by area rather than political preference. I find this hard to believe. In fact, I would say that if you asked Americans abroad, they would say that American soil is less/more safe based on their political leanings at nearly the same rate as those residing in the US.

[Glengoyne]

Let's see....

City A has 1,000,000 people. 800,000 of these are Democrats, 200,000 of these are Republicans. As of X date, 30% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans feel safe, or 300,000 safe, 700,000 unsafe.

As of Y date, 10% of Democrats feel safe, 80% of Republicans feel safe; or 180,000 feel safe. The city as a whole dropped from 30% safe to 18% safe.

Flip the numbers to illustrate what happens in the rest of the country. In this scenario, I don't understand exactly how the number of dems/reps remaining constant has any bearing on this at all. Glengoyne's contention is that by and large, across the country Dems believe the country is less safe. Republicans believe the country is more safe. If you are in an area that is predominately populated by democrats, numbers would dictate that the area is not going to feel safe.

So Glengoyne's stance is that how "safe" people feel is dictated by and large by what party you belong to and who you supported in the election. Jon, you are contending that this is dictated by primarily by area rather than political preference. I find this hard to believe. In fact, I would say that if you asked Americans abroad, they would say that American soil is less/more safe based on their political leanings at nearly the same rate as those residing in the US.
I didn't think I was being unreasonable.

[cuervo72]

Not unreasonable at all. I can see % feeling safe being influenced by *both* factors; I would say pretty obviously somwhere like NYC is going to be a higher target than some small town in Nebraska, so it makes some sense that the populace of NYC is going to feel less safe in general. I do not however think that you can totally exclude political leanings, which it seemed to me John was trying to discount; I think the difference in relation to time is more related to politics, whereas the difference in relation to geography is..well, just what it is.

[John Galt]

Let's see....

City A has 1,000,000 people. 800,000 of these are Democrats, 200,000 of these are Republicans. As of X date, 30% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans feel safe, or 300,000 safe, 700,000 unsafe.

As of Y date, 10% of Democrats feel safe, 80% of Republicans feel safe; or 180,000 feel safe. The city as a whole dropped from 30% safe to 18% safe.

Flip the numbers to illustrate what happens in the rest of the country. In this scenario, I don't understand exactly how the number of dems/reps remaining constant has any bearing on this at all. Glengoyne's contention is that by and large, across the country Dems believe the country is less safe. Republicans believe the country is more safe. If you are in an area that is predominately populated by democrats, numbers would dictate that the area is not going to feel safe.

So Glengoyne's stance is that how "safe" people feel is dictated by and large by what party you belong to and who you supported in the election. Jon, you are contending that this is dictated by primarily by area rather than political preference. I find this hard to believe. In fact, I would say that if you asked Americans abroad, they would say that American soil is less/more safe based on their political leanings at nearly the same rate as those residing in the US.

I don't know why this isn't translating well. Let me use dummy numbers (since the polls themselves vary and it is easier to use numbers with vast differences) to make this comprehensible:

6/2001 NYC: 60% unsafe
6/2002 NYC: 70% unsafe
6/2003 NYC: 80% unsafe
7/2004 NYC: 90% unsafe

Meanwhile, in places like Illinois (or whatever other state you want):

6/2001 ILL: 60% unsafe
6/2002 ILL: 50% unsafe
6/2003 ILL: 40% unsafe
6/2004 ILL: 40% unsafe

Glengoyne has shown ZERO evidence to suggest Democrats in NYC are more likely to "lie" now (and not before) than other people in the country. Dismissing this as a result of partisanship is to misunderstand the stats. If you want to see the actual poll results, google the questions I listed earlier.

[cuervo72]

It wasn't translating well because:

a) you weren't presenting any numbers, and
b) you weren't presenting any references

Missing those, you are down to theory. There were two theories expounded; you endorsed one, Glengoyne chose the other.

If the above numbers are indicative of the actual trends, and NYC and Illinois are of a similar political makeup, then yes, one can concede the point that this phenomenon lies outside the bounds of partisanship.

[cuervo72]

Dola - I also don't think it is accurate to say that Democrats are "lying". If they have bought into the Democratic line, then this is most likely what they now believe (same goes for Republicans).

The suicide at ground zero is evidence of just how seriously an individual can buy a party line that they are fed..

[TroyF]

Dola - I also don't think it is accurate to say that Democrats are "lying". If they have bought into the Democratic line, then this is most likely what they now believe (same goes for Republicans).

The suicide at ground zero is evidence of just how seriously an individual can buy a party line that they are fed..


Exactly. I can't understand why you can't see that there is some partisanship here John.

Two years ago, Bush had a huge popularity rating. Monsterous. You knew that was going to start going down before the real elections started. Bush could have sat on his ass and did nothing and the poll numbers would have dropped a ton.

With Bush now in a close dogfight, how can you possibly think that won't impact the poll questions. The real telling one to me would be to have asked which party you were going to vote for. If the Kerry supporters in NY felt as unsafe as the Bush supporters, we probably have an issue. If Kerry supporters feel much less safe than Bush supporters, we have what G is assuming now. (I assume it as well)

If you have some detailed numbers to counteract the hypothesis, please give them. Lets be real here, that's all it is, a hypothesis. Maybe you're right. But of the two scenarios given, I find G's more plausible.

Maybe it's because of my low IQ, problems with my slaves in the garage and tripping over all the voting boxes I practiced rigging doing the talking.

[Cuckoo]

Maybe it's because of my low IQ, problems with my slaves in the garage and tripping over all the voting boxes I practiced rigging doing the talking.

Now this is a QOTM! :D

[John Galt]

It wasn't translating well because:

a) you weren't presenting any numbers, and
b) you weren't presenting any references

Missing those, you are down to theory. There were two theories expounded; you endorsed one, Glengoyne chose the other.

If the above numbers are indicative of the actual trends, and NYC and Illinois are of a similar political makeup, then yes, one can concede the point that this phenomenon lies outside the bounds of partisanship.

It's true that I wasn't providing sources (and I'll have to look up my history at work tomorrow), but it was funny that no one challenged that part of the argument. Even if cities are of a different political makeup, I don't see how evidence that it is a partisan issue ALONE accounts for the difference. There is no evidence to suggest that NYC and DC became more partisan in their answering of polls between 2001 and 2004 - that is just speculation.

[John Galt]

Exactly. I can't understand why you can't see that there is some partisanship here John.

Two years ago, Bush had a huge popularity rating. Monsterous. You knew that was going to start going down before the real elections started. Bush could have sat on his ass and did nothing and the poll numbers would have dropped a ton.

With Bush now in a close dogfight, how can you possibly think that won't impact the poll questions. The real telling one to me would be to have asked which party you were going to vote for. If the Kerry supporters in NY felt as unsafe as the Bush supporters, we probably have an issue. If Kerry supporters feel much less safe than Bush supporters, we have what G is assuming now. (I assume it as well)

If you have some detailed numbers to counteract the hypothesis, please give them. Lets be real here, that's all it is, a hypothesis. Maybe you're right. But of the two scenarios given, I find G's more plausible.

Maybe it's because of my low IQ, problems with my slaves in the garage and tripping over all the voting boxes I practiced rigging doing the talking.

I think it is amazing that each of you assume a very particular relationship in the poll results. Could it be that the reason people supported Kerry is that they felt less safe (rather than saying they felt less safe in supporting Kerry)? Either way, I don't understand how the evidence that the issue is partisan (which is not really evidenced by the poll for the reason above) matters given the rest of the country felt more safe.

If the number of democrats and republicans are roughly constant over the poll period, it doesn't matter if NY and DC are more liberal. The polling of the rest of the country provides a control for party affiliation EVEN IF you believe the issue is so heavily partisan that you can't get an honest answer.

Anyway, I'll try to find the poll results when I'm at work tomorrow.

[cuervo72]

*shakes head*

John, without hard evidence to view, it was conjecture on both sides of the ball. And no, a change in numbers doesn't mean that partisanship ALONE accounts for the difference. From the impression I was getting, it seemed as though you were largely discounting that influence altogether though, which I don't think you can do either.

As for NYC and DC becoming more partisan. I believe the line of thought - that has been explored somewhat already - is that between 2001 and 2004, Bush's approval rating has dropped. One could argue that it has dropped more with Democrats than with Republicans. The more galvanized the Democrats became against Bush as the election neared, the more apt they were to say that Bush's policies do not make them feel safe (same psychology at work as when you're trying to find additional reasons to justify a decision, a purchase, etc).

Do I have direct evidence of this? No, I am not really interested in looking for any (I am wondering why exactly I am interested in partaking in this discussion at all). But it seems plausible to me that at the same time folks were souring on Bush, they would also sour on his security measures.

[Glengoyne]

I think it is amazing that each of you assume a very particular relationship in the poll results. Could it be that the reason people supported Kerry is that they felt less safe (rather than saying they felt less safe in supporting Kerry)? Either way, I don't understand how the evidence that the issue is partisan (which is not really evidenced by the poll for the reason above) matters given the rest of the country felt more safe.

If the number of democrats and republicans are roughly constant over the poll period, it doesn't matter if NY and DC are more liberal. The polling of the rest of the country provides a control for party affiliation EVEN IF you believe the issue is so heavily partisan that you can't get an honest answer.

Anyway, I'll try to find the poll results when I'm at work tomorrow.
John,

If I'm not on your ignore list, the partisan hack that I am, I'll try again. I'm not sure why, but maybe the fact that I'm not alone in my sentiment, has bouyed my expectation of how you will receive this post.

I believe the exit poll quite clearly shows that Kerry supporters are saying they don't feel safe because they are Kerry supporters, and probably don't want to lend credence to Bush and any of his work/agenda. It also clearly shows that Bush supporters are going to claim they feel safe probably because they want to support the President and what he is doing. It is obvious to me that this is a case of the tail wagging the dog so to speak. The question is simply too loaded for the answer to have any useful meaning. That was my point when I said that those poll results don't hold much weight in my opinion.

NYC and DC are Democratic Strongholds, the support for Kerry is MUCH higher in those areas than the rest of the country. Since I feel the response to the question is mostly determined by partisan support, those Democratic strongholds obviously are going to feel less safe according to the poll. That is my counter to your point that the feelings of insecurity are greater in those regions. I absolutely believe the people of those cities have more reason to feel insecure than the rest of the country. They have been targetted already. I haven't said any different in this thread. I don't believe this poll question is a valid way to measure security or a lack thereof. Whether you are in NYC, DC or anywhere else. I don't know how to do it, but I feel very strongly that this poll question isn't the way.

As for the changes over time. I'll go out on thin ice here, and say that perhaps there was more support for the President in those areas 3 years ago, and a little less two years ago, and even less now. That seemed to be the trend in the rest of the country, it doesn't seem out of line for me to believe that was the case there. I'm not staking anything by making these last couple of points, I'm just throwing out what I consider to be perfectly plausible responses to your objections.

My premise is that the answer to that poll question is heavilly skewed by partisan sentiment. It seems to ask too much, as if it is regarded as an up or down vote on the Presiden't policies. I don't believe the people are "lying". I believe they understand what their answer means, and do not want to support or fail to support the president and his policies. I in no way believe that masses of people supported Kerry because they were afraid. That seems to be quite a ridiculous notion, that I was surprised you would put forth.

[John Galt]

Despite my best efforts, I can't find the original polling results for New York (I can't remember which blog I saw them on and can't locate it by search) - I can only find articles which relay those results and the most recent exit poll in the state (which is not limited to NYC):

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/113977p-102882c.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-safe-lipoll.story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297179/

These are the nationwide results from a WSJ poll:

"Do you think that, as a country, we are more safe, about as safe, or less safe than we were before September 11th?"

More Safe About As Safe Less Safe NotSure
8/23-25/04 41 31 27 1
9/02 38 41 20 1

[John Galt]

Assuming my interpretation of the results is correct, the arguments being made here rely on a strained counter-factual that would discredit EVERY poll on a political issue. If you believe that the results are invalid despite controls on location and time frame, then NO poll is valid on a political issue. And you would have to believe all of these statements:

1) Democrats in New York and DC are more prone to lie in polls than other citizens due to partisan blindness;
2) Democrats in New York and DC became more likely to lie in polls as the election became nearer, but the rest of the US did not become more likely to lie in polls as the election became nearer;
3) Polling organizations have zero ability to control truth-telling by asking related questions to determine invalid results; and
4) People felt unsafe from terrorism did so because they voted for Kerry instead of the more obvious connection that people voted for Kerry BECAUSE they felt unsafe.

The ability to construct a counter-factual that ignores what the polls say simply to reach a preconceived worldview is the definition of a being a hack.

Now, if you want to dispute the results and my interpretation, that is totally fair and honest debate. However, that is NOT what has occurred in this thread.

[MrBug708]

First off, the states that banned gay marriage this year were mostly Red states and have the least amount of gay people in their states.

Didn't read through the whole thread, but 4 years ago California banned recognizing gay marriage. Can't say you can get a more liberal state then this glorious state that I live in. THat's a pretty big flaw in the logic

[John Galt]

I forgot to mention that I couldn't find accounts of the DC poll results at all, but the attests to my difficulties with google.

[cuervo72]

From article one:

"But after 24 months of terror alerts, 86% of New Yorkers would not be surprised at another attack."

"Bush, who got 19% of the New York vote in 2000, is a winner only among Republicans and 31% of whites."

No, this doesn't prove anything. I just think the numbers are interesting.

From the second article:

"Just 38 percent of Long Islanders say that before last Sept. 11 they believed a major terrorist attack in the United States was likely. Today, 86 percent say it's likely the United States will be struck again, and 77 percent think it will happen within two years."

I am quite surprised that a full 38% actually would have thought an attack was likely. I think that number is probably just a bit skewed by hindsight, unless if the first WTC attack was much, much more on New Yorkers' minds than the rest of the country (which would make sense, but still).

Third link I can't get to work.

[cuervo72]

And again - this is not about people LYING in polls. It is about people's opinions being shaped towards what is the party line. People like it or not begin to believe in the party line more and more the more they hear it.

And the fact that people in DC and NY voted for Kerry really wasn't influenced by terrorism at all. See the above - Bush got 19% of the vote in NYC in 2000. He wasn't going to get any voters in NY, DC, Philly, etc regardless. He could have been handing out gold bars to people in these cities and he wasn't going to win the vote. It just isn't possible given the politics of the cities.

[John Galt]

From article one:

"But after 24 months of terror alerts, 86% of New Yorkers would not be surprised at another attack."

"Bush, who got 19% of the New York vote in 2000, is a winner only among Republicans and 31% of whites."

No, this doesn't prove anything. I just think the numbers are interesting.

From the second article:

"Just 38 percent of Long Islanders say that before last Sept. 11 they believed a major terrorist attack in the United States was likely. Today, 86 percent say it's likely the United States will be struck again, and 77 percent think it will happen within two years."

I am quite surprised that a full 38% actually would have thought an attack was likely. I think that number is probably just a bit skewed by hindsight, unless if the first WTC attack was much, much more on New Yorkers' minds than the rest of the country (which would make sense, but still).

Third link I can't get to work.

The third link still works for me, but it is the least interesting of the three because it is for the entire state of New York. As for the numbers assuming an attack was likely, I'm not surprised. I remember when I was in my office one day and we heard a loud explosion outside and saw a car on fire. It turned out a sewer blew into the bottom of a car and caused the fire. There wasn't anyone there whose first thought wasn't a terrorist attack. The block around our building was shutdown a couple times for bomb threats and I remember the initial reaction to the blackout was almost certainty of a terrorist attack. When the GOP convention was coming to town, the SWAT time was doing exercises throughout midtown and our building was stormed by them on at least one occassion.

[John Galt]

And again - this is not about people LYING in polls. It is about people's opinions being shaped towards what is the party line. People like it or not begin to believe in the party line more and more the more they hear it.

And the fact that people in DC and NY voted for Kerry really wasn't influenced by terrorism at all. See the above - Bush got 19% of the vote in NYC in 2000. He wasn't going to get any voters in NY, DC, Philly, etc regardless. He could have been handing out gold bars to people in these cities and he wasn't going to win the vote. It just isn't possible given the politics of the cities.

Your second point is EXACTLY why I think the first point is wrong. The number of democrats and republicans stayed constant, but the "unsafe" numbers rose. And as I said, the belief people can't form independent opinions and they just adopt the party line discounts EVERY political poll on a partisan issue and ignores any attempt to control.

[cuervo72]

Politics is all about shaping people's opinions. Right after the attacks, it didn't behoove the democrats to attack Bush's policies re: terrorism, that would have been a horrible move politically. But as time goes on, you question it more and more, and convince more of your base that Bush isn't doing his job. Isn't that what the parties are trying to accomplish? To galvanize their bases into thinking a certain way on a certain issue?

In this setting, I don't see how you could have seen a "safe" rating as high as it once was without a large portion of democrats saying they felt safe. There just aren't enough republicans there to think otherwise. It is my belief that when you saw the "safe" numbers falling, this was a result of many, many more democrats feeling unsafe than republicans. That's why the unsafe numbers rose. Not because all of a sudden there were more democrats in relation to republicans. But because the safe feelings among democrats crashed so precipitously.

[John Galt]

Politics is all about shaping people's opinions. Right after the attacks, it didn't behoove the democrats to attack Bush's policies re: terrorism, that would have been a horrible move politically. But as time goes on, you question it more and more, and convince more of your base that Bush isn't doing his job. Isn't that what the parties are trying to accomplish? To galvanize their bases into thinking a certain way on a certain issue?

In this setting, I don't see how you could have seen a "safe" rating as high as it once was without a large portion of democrats saying they felt safe. There just aren't enough republicans there to think otherwise. It is my belief that when you saw the "safe" numbers falling, this was a result of many, many more democrats feeling unsafe than republicans. That's why the unsafe numbers rose. Not because all of a sudden there were more democrats in relation to republicans. But because the safe feelings among democrats crashed so precipitously.

Again, I ask three questions:

1) How is any poll on a partisan issue valid (if what you say is true)?

2) Why were the democrats in NY and DC more likely to follow the party line?

3) Why isn't it simpler to assume that people who felt unsafe voted for Kerry (rather than assuming they have no independent thought on the issue)?

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

I don't know how cuervo can explain this any simpler to you, Mister Galt. His math example should be simple enough for any high-school kid to understand, but you keep missing his point.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

It seems to me that you are just unwilling to admit that your poll data may be flawed, and therefore your whole point isn't as strong as you wished it would be.

[John Galt]

I don't know how cuervo can explain this any simpler to you, Mister Galt. His math example should be simple enough for any high-school kid to understand, but you keep missing his point.

If you are going to be rude, at least use your real screen name.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

Just an observation, that's all.

You may return to your regularly scheduled festivities.

[rkmsuf]

When Mel Kiper's Hair talks, people listen.

[John Galt]

Just an observation, that's all.

You may return to your regularly scheduled festivities.

Chicken Troll.

As for the math problem set out by cuervo, it only relates to the control of polling in NY and DC v. the rest of the country. It does not explain the difference on polling over time (here, he relies on a very odd communication model that discounts any independent judgment) and he discounts the validity of EVERY political poll. Mere speculation and a strained counter-factual is not basic math a high schooler can understand.

[cuervo72]

Again, I ask three questions:

1) How is any poll on a partisan issue valid (if what you say is true)?


In this case, I think this was *the* issue in many parts, and was more directly tied to the vote than others, especially in certain areas.


2) Why were the democrats in NY and DC more likely to follow the party line?


More likely? I'm not so sure it was that much more likely. Your numbers from before:

7/2004 NYC: 90% unsafe

Well, in 2000, Bush got 19% of the vote in NYC, which seems to be consistent with the voter ratio in the city.

6/2004 ILL: 40% unsafe

The 2004 election results show Bush as having gotten 45% of the vote in Illinois. This would suggest to me that there is a much greater percentage of Republicans in Illinois (as a state) than there is in NYC. As such, comparing the two would not be a completely valid comparison. Look at the exit poll here, near the bottom of the page ("TRUST BUSH TO HANDLE TERRORISM?"): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/00/epolls.0.html

For the 41% that did not to trust Bush to handle terrorism, 94% voted for Kerry. Of the 55% that did trus Bush, only 20% voted for Kerry. Can there be a greater example of following a party line on an issue?


3) Why isn't it simpler to assume that people who felt unsafe voted for Kerry (rather than assuming they have no independent thought on the issue)?

Because in 2000, terrorism was not a major issue in the election. You still saw 80% vote for a candidate other than Bush (I would assume Gore). It didn't matter what the defining issue was going to be, the vast majority of the city was going to vote against Bush. It just happened that terrorism became one of the major issues. If the issue would have been "the economy", I'm guessing about 80% of the city would have voted for Kerry. If the issue was "salisbury steak or pizza on the school menu", I'm guessing about 80% of the city would have voted for Kerry.

[John Galt]

In this case, I think this was *the* issue in many parts, and was more directly tied to the vote than others, especially in certain areas.



More likely? I'm not so sure it was that much more likely. Your numbers from before:

7/2004 NYC: 90% unsafe

Well, in 2000, Bush got 19% of the vote in NYC, which seems to be consistent with the voter ratio in the city.

6/2004 ILL: 40% unsafe

The 2004 election results show Bush as having gotten 45% of the vote in Illinois. This would suggest to me that there is a much greater percentage of Republicans in Illinois (as a state) than there is in NYC. As such, comparing the two would not be a completely valid comparison. Look at the exit poll here, near the bottom of the page ("TRUST BUSH TO HANDLE TERRORISM?"): http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/00/epolls.0.html

For the 41% that did not to trust Bush to handle terrorism, 94% voted for Kerry. Of the 55% that did trus Bush, only 20% voted for Kerry. Can there be a greater example of following a party line on an issue?



Because in 2000, terrorism was not a major issue in the election. You still saw 80% vote for a candidate other than Bush (I would assume Gore). It didn't matter what the defining issue was going to be, the vast majority of the city was going to vote against Bush. It just happened that terrorism became one of the major issues. If the issue would have been "the economy", I'm guessing about 80% of the city would have voted for Kerry. If the issue was "salisbury steak or pizza on the school menu", I'm guessing about 80% of the city would have voted for Kerry.

Again you rely on speculation without evidence. You say terrorism was the only issue distorted in the polls. Post some polls of other issues like the economy, gay marriage, and Iraq to show that the same party splits don't occur. Assuming away the question is not engaging it.

As for ILL, you are right, the state is not a good basis for comparison. However, those were just my hypothetical numbers.

And the method by which you continue to discount the polls done over different times is nonsense. According to you, the city was overwhelmingly democratic in the 2000 election. Yet after 9/11, they were able to answer the questions about their safety "honestly." Yet, over the next couple years, they slowly became unable to know their "true" feelings because they were warped by the party line. I guess in another year we should start to see the numbers go back to feeling "safe" and then slowly rise again in 2008. Your perspective on this is TOTAL speculation and has ZERO evidence to support it.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

Chicken Troll.



That is a strawman argument.

[rkmsuf]

If troll tastes like chicken, what does chicken troll taste like?

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks to the person who reported this. I have given an irrevocable lifetime ban to this person's original account, as well as to two "chicken troll" accounts that he had: John Kerry and Mel Kiper's Hair.

[rkmsuf]

who was it originally?

[Ben E Lou]

who was it originally?Someone who hasn't posted under his regular name since July, but has "bragged" on at least one other board, trying to act as if he never visits here anymore, or even knew that FOFC was still up.

[cuervo72]

Again you rely on speculation without evidence. You say terrorism was the only issue distorted in the polls. Post some polls of other issues like the economy, gay marriage, and Iraq to show that the same party splits don't occur. Assuming away the question is not engaging it.

As for ILL, you are right, the state is not a good basis for comparison. However, those were just my hypothetical numbers.


First...where did I ever say that terrorism was the only issue distorted in the polls? For that matter, how exactly am I saying that they are distorted? I'm saying that public opinion in this case was molded. Am I assuming away the other polls? Sure. I don't really want to bring them into the discussion.

[on rant]I no longer feel like expanding the discussion, because there is no benefit in it to me. I am never going to win any points, because in the 3 years I've been on this board I don't recall you ever once giving a point to someone (no, I don't have facts on this. This is conjecture! However I'm sure that you will prove me wrong in that I am completely unfounded in feeling the way I do!). What I've seen is someone who regards himself as perfect, as infallable, and as the ultimate authority on all subjects. The ultimate genius know-it-all. This is an aside...but this is why few on the board like you. I've talked to many folks from the boards on both sides of the political spectrum. All of them feel this way. I congratulate you on being so superior that you hold such a high regard amongst your peers! Do I honestly think you care? No. I don't think you care about my or anyone else's opinion. This is why I have no qualms or reservations in giving mine.[/off rant]

Secondly...am I the only one who finds it ironic that in one paragraph you blast me for relying on "speculation without evidence", yet in the next you admit to using hypothetical numbers?


And the method by which you continue to discount the polls done over different times is nonsense. According to you, the city was overwhelmingly democratic in the 2000 election. Yet after 9/11, they were able to answer the questions about their safety "honestly." Yet, over the next couple years, they slowly became unable to know their "true" feelings because they were warped by the party line. I guess in another year we should start to see the numbers go back to feeling "safe" and then slowly rise again in 2008. Your perspective on this is TOTAL speculation and has ZERO evidence to support it.

I am in no way saying, and have never said, that anyone responded to these polls with anything but honestly. You have brought up lying repeatedly - I have repeatedly stated that I don't think these individuals are lying. I would welcome you quoting me as stating such.

Yes - the poll numbers changed between point A and point B. This I understand. But why? Why were these numbers high to begin with? This is *all* conjecture. We don't know for a fact what these people think. You for whatever reason seem to think that all of this change of tone came from internal influences. I just don't think that's possible. After the attacks, you could have an emotional bounce after hitting rock bottom (you *want* to feel safe, you *want* to think that your government is protecting you). You are likely going to have media influences, and in that time period there was more a healing message, a getting back to business message, an optimistic message.

Fast forward a couple of years. The election is nearing. The healing message goes out the window. Republicans are going to trumpet "the president is doing a fine job". Democrats obviously aren't going to say this. There's absolutely no reason for them to. They are going to say over and over that the president is not doing a good job, and that their guy can do a better job. This was the issue that could grap the headlines, this was the issue where they could make the most headway. What is the most important thing in NYC? Security. So that's what is going to be focused on. Are you honestly saying that Kerry/Edwards did not try to convince voters that Bush was doing a bad job with security, and tried to foster a feeling that they were unsafe?

Perhaps you give more credit to the voters than I do if you think that they largely make up their own minds, that they make their decisions in a vaccuum. If this is the case, the two parties are really wasting a lot of time and money campaigning. I don't think so though. Public sentiment, public emotions - these can be swayed. And perhaps folks did think about the matter more honestly and more clearly when it was time to make a decision. No longer time to harbor any false security.

This is it for me. I'm out. There is no point in me getting into these arguments which ultimately mean nothing. There is no point in expending the energy, the time, or the thought.

[Fritz]

JG has PISSED off cuervo (which is hard to do with all the anger management meds he takes).

[Glengoyne]

JG has PISSED off cuervo (which is hard to do with all the anger management meds he takes).
Cuervo has explained the situation fairly well several times now. Soon John's self defense mode will kick in, and he will declare Cuervo irrelevant.


Ping John Galt. This is your worldview reporting.
"The barricades are complete. Nothing from the outside is getting in now."

[John Galt]

First...where did I ever say that terrorism was the only issue distorted in the polls? For that matter, how exactly am I say int that they are distorted? I'm saying that public opinion in this case was molded. Am I assuming away the other polls? Sure. I don't really want to bring them into the discussion.

[on rant]I no longer feel like expanding the discussion, because there is no benefit in it to me. I am never going to win any points, because in the 3 years I've been on this board I don't recall you ever once giving a point to someone (no, I don't have facts on this. This is conjecture! However I'm sure that you will prove me wrong in that I am completely unfounded in feeling the way I do!). What I've seen is someone who regards himself as perfect, as infallable, and as the ultimate authority on all subjects. The ultimate genius know-it-all. This is an aside...but this is why few on the board like you. I've talked to many folks from the boards on both sides of the political spectrum. All of them feel this way. I congratulate you on being so superior that you have such a hold such a high regard amongst your peers! Do I honestly think you care? No. I don't think you care about my or anyone else's opinion. This is why I have no qualms or reservations in giving mine.[/off rant]

Secondly...am I the only one who finds it ironic that in one paragraph you blast me for relying on "speculation without evidence", yet in the next you admit to using hypothetical numbers?



I am in no way saying, and have never said, that anyone responded to these polls with anything but honestly. You have brought up lying repeatedly - I have repeatedly stated that I don't think these individuals are lying. I would welcome you quoting me as stating such.

Yes - the poll numbers changed between point A and point B. This I understand. But why? Why were these numbers high to begin with? This is *all* conjecture. We don't know for a fact what these people think. You for whatever reason seem to think that all of this change of tone came from internal influences. I just don't think that's possible. After the attacks, you could have an emotional bounce after hitting rock bottom (you *want* to feel safe, you *want* to think that your government is protecting you). You are likely going to have media influences, and in that time period there was more a healing message, a getting back to business message, an optimistic message.

Fast forward a couple of years. The election is nearing. The healing message goes out the window. Republicans are going to trumpet "the president is doing a fine job". Democrats obviously aren't going to say this. There's absolutely no reason for them to. They are going to say over and over that the president is not doing a good job, and that their guy can do a better job. This was the issue that could grap the headlines, this was the issue where they could make the most headway. What is the most important thing in NYC? Security. So that's what is going to be focused on. Are you honestly saying that Kerry/Edwards did not try to convince voters that Bush was doing a bad job with security, and tried to foster a feeling that they were unsafe?

Perhaps you give more credit to the voters than I do if you think that they largely make up their own minds, that they make their decisions in a vaccuum. If this is the case, the two parties are really wasting a lot of time and money campaigning. I don't think so though. Public sentiment, public emotions - these can be swayed. And perhaps folks did think about the matter more honestly and more clearly when it was time to make a decision. No longer time to harbor any false security.

This is it for me. I'm out. There is no point in me getting into these arguments which ultimately mean nothing. There is no point in expending the energy, the time, or the thought.

First, to the substance of the argument (even if you aren't discussing it anymore). I think the polls on the economy, Iraq, and gay marriage are informative as to your claim that ONLY terrorism polls were distorted by partisanship. If you are not defending that position, then I stand by my belief that your view negates ALL political polls. You may not want to "bring them into the discussion," but I believe you need to address the implications of your view. You seem to be arguing that people lack independent judgment necessary to answer political polls and the polls have ZERO value in measuring public opinion.

As to my hypothetical numbers, I used them as an illustration just as you did. I specifically said they were dummy numbers. I'm confused as to how that is a problem. I posted the "real" stories and polls later.

As to the issue of why the numbers changed. I've never denied that a counter-factual can be constructed to explain away my meaning of those numbers. My problem is that a counter-factual can ALWAYS be made and used to dismiss evidence. I think your speculative explanation with no evidence is not as likely an explanation as the simple one: people in NYC actually feel less safe.

Now, to your rant/attack. I'm sorry you feel so much anger toward me - as far as I know I've never attacked you or said anything negative to you on my time at this board. In this thread and a couple others I got snippy with Glengoyne because I felt he was trying to pick a fight with me and I saw a pattern. I didn't direct anything your way (and if I did, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to).

As to your assessment that I view myself as a "genius know-it-all" and "ultimate authority on all subjects," I guess I disagree. I choose to post in threads I know something about (and do not post where I am ignorant). I have no illusions as to my intellectual capacity and have substantial doubts about my worldview and knowledge. That is why I try to engage in honest debate and seek to understand my perspective on the world through discussion. I could give a few examples where I've changed my mind in threads, but that is neither here nor there.

As for my popularity (or non-popularity), I guess you would be surprised to hear that I do care. Clearly, I don't post to make everyone happy, but when you are part of a community and "all of them" that you talk to hate me, that is more than a little disappointing. I'm not sure how to react to that.

[John Galt]

Cuervo has explained the situation fairly well several times now. Soon John's self defense mode will kick in, and he will declare Cuervo irrelevant.


Ping John Galt. This is your worldview reporting.
"The barricades are complete. Nothing from the outside is getting in now."

I didn't see that you had posted. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I actually felt Cuervo was engaging in a debate (unlike you) and was sorry to see his reaction. Now, quit trying to pick a fight with me again.

[cuervo72]

My apologies John. My rant was unwarranted. It just seemed to me that debating with you on this issue was getting me as far as I would were I trying to yell out of a sound-proof booth. That frustration shouldn't excuse me from resorting to a petty attack.

[John Galt]

My apologies John. My rant was unwarranted. It just seemed to me that debating with you on this issue was getting me as far as I would were I trying to yell out of a sound-proof booth. That frustration shouldn't excuse me from resorting to a petty attack.

Apology accepted. I too apologize for any role I took in escalating the discussion to something else.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure how to react to that.

You could try taking a wee hammer and bust the toes of a small animal ala Mel Gibson in payback.

[John Galt]

You could try taking a wee hammer and bust the toes of a small animal ala Mel Gibson in payback.

I hadn't considered that. Thanks Fritz. Somehow, though, I don't think it has helped with what cuervo said. :(

[Fritz]

I don't think

NO THINK

DO!

[cuervo72]

1. Wake up
2. Shower
3. Brush teeth
4. Take anger medication


.

[cuervo72]

Apology accepted. I too apologize for any role I took in escalating the discussion to something else.

Dola - this was entirely on my shoulders, no need for you to apologize.

[Franklinnoble]

Dola - this was entirely on my shoulders, no need for you to apologize.

Knock it off, before you two end up having make-up sex.