RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 3.4
by 5
users |
Sunday, August 10, 2008 6:27 AM CDT
Big government beats university athletics when it comes to crime
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Big government beats university athletics when it comes to crime
By DENNIS CLAYSON
Several months ago, I suggested that sports programs at Iowa universities bring more arrests into the area than trophies. Although my statistics were impeccable, I was roundly attacked by Midwestern sports enthusiasts who believe that it is the God-given duty of any educational institution (beyond the fifth grade) to furnish sports entertainment to the citizens.
Everyone knows that the "Iowa kid," fresh from the cornfield, is an athlete without peer, and besides, what else can one do in the northern Midwest for most of the year without sports? Perhaps eating oneself senseless while the snow blows off the edge of the world would suffice, but nothing matches a good contest between two teams with lots of yellow in their colors.
So before I'm burned at the stake for heresy, complete the following quiz. What athletic program has the following statistics? A friend and local business person sent me most of the information.
Thirty-six have been charged with abusing women; 29 of these were accused in either criminal or civil proceedings. Seven have been arrested for fraud. Nineteen have been accused of writing bad checks.
Three have done time for assault, while eight have been arrested for shoplifting. Twenty-one currently are defendants in lawsuits.
One would expect that drugs and alcohol would be a problem. Fourteen have been arrested on drug-related charges, and 84 have been arrested for drunken driving in the last year. This statistic is not usually reported.
Many have problems because of shady business dealings; 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. Over 115 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses.
So which athletic program is it? Is it the Hawks, the Cyclones or the Panthers? Surely, it sounds more, to many of us, like Michigan or maybe "The" Ohio State.
No. It is none of these.
Perhaps this is a description of the movers and shakers of "big business?" Again ? no.
This is the rap sheet of the CEOs of "big government." These stats come from the honorable members of the United States Congress.
There is nothing new in this. Over a hundred years ago, Mark Twain observed that, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
I recall reading Jack Anderson's "Confessions of a Muckraker," more than 25 years ago in which he compared Washington with Gomorrah.
He described a party hosted by the man who would soon be the attorney general of the United States. Anderson wrote, "By midnight the scene was almost indescribable. Women of mature years were shining up to young men. Some Party stalwarts had passed out altogether; others were vomiting in corners."
He outlined how many "financial undertakings" were consummated in cash with "envelopes filled with greenbacks."
If money and booze were not enough, our honorable representatives could also be rewarded with sex, which was "a growing service industry." "The girls were prize specimens and were awarded in accordance with an intricate hierarchal system."
So why do we have crooks, cons and boobs running the government? We may not like the answer, but it is undeniable. We do so because we put them into office.
Why? Because we get the government we deserve. Corrupt leaders are put into office by corrupt voters.
Adam Clayton Powell was re-elected even after Congress expelled him in 1967. He was charged with income-tax evasion before his first election to Congress, but he was the voters' crook, and he brought back to the voters what they wanted.
Rep. Barney Frank shared his Washington house with a male prostitute who ran a sexual business out of the residence. But he still easily won re-election.
President Clinton frolicked on the job with girls almost young enough to be his daughter, but he defended the politicalization of gender favored by certain special interest groups, so it didn't matter.
If we want our neighbor's property, instead of us breaking the law and stealing it directly, we elect representatives to do it for us.
As Alexis d'Tocqueville warned over 150 years ago, "The American Republic will endure until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money."
The interesting problem, however, is not that there are politicians willing to do this, but that there are voters who keep electing them.
Everyone knows that the "Iowa kid," fresh from the cornfield, is an athlete without peer, and besides, what else can one do in the northern Midwest for most of the year without sports? Perhaps eating oneself senseless while the snow blows off the edge of the world would suffice, but nothing matches a good contest between two teams with lots of yellow in their colors.
So before I'm burned at the stake for heresy, complete the following quiz. What athletic program has the following statistics? A friend and local business person sent me most of the information.
Thirty-six have been charged with abusing women; 29 of these were accused in either criminal or civil proceedings. Seven have been arrested for fraud. Nineteen have been accused of writing bad checks.
Three have done time for assault, while eight have been arrested for shoplifting. Twenty-one currently are defendants in lawsuits.
One would expect that drugs and alcohol would be a problem. Fourteen have been arrested on drug-related charges, and 84 have been arrested for drunken driving in the last year. This statistic is not usually reported.
Many have problems because of shady business dealings; 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. Over 115 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses.
So which athletic program is it? Is it the Hawks, the Cyclones or the Panthers? Surely, it sounds more, to many of us, like Michigan or maybe "The" Ohio State.
No. It is none of these.
Perhaps this is a description of the movers and shakers of "big business?" Again ? no.
This is the rap sheet of the CEOs of "big government." These stats come from the honorable members of the United States Congress.
There is nothing new in this. Over a hundred years ago, Mark Twain observed that, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
I recall reading Jack Anderson's "Confessions of a Muckraker," more than 25 years ago in which he compared Washington with Gomorrah.
He described a party hosted by the man who would soon be the attorney general of the United States. Anderson wrote, "By midnight the scene was almost indescribable. Women of mature years were shining up to young men. Some Party stalwarts had passed out altogether; others were vomiting in corners."
He outlined how many "financial undertakings" were consummated in cash with "envelopes filled with greenbacks."
If money and booze were not enough, our honorable representatives could also be rewarded with sex, which was "a growing service industry." "The girls were prize specimens and were awarded in accordance with an intricate hierarchal system."
So why do we have crooks, cons and boobs running the government? We may not like the answer, but it is undeniable. We do so because we put them into office.
Why? Because we get the government we deserve. Corrupt leaders are put into office by corrupt voters.
Adam Clayton Powell was re-elected even after Congress expelled him in 1967. He was charged with income-tax evasion before his first election to Congress, but he was the voters' crook, and he brought back to the voters what they wanted.
Rep. Barney Frank shared his Washington house with a male prostitute who ran a sexual business out of the residence. But he still easily won re-election.
President Clinton frolicked on the job with girls almost young enough to be his daughter, but he defended the politicalization of gender favored by certain special interest groups, so it didn't matter.
If we want our neighbor's property, instead of us breaking the law and stealing it directly, we elect representatives to do it for us.
As Alexis d'Tocqueville warned over 150 years ago, "The American Republic will endure until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money."
The interesting problem, however, is not that there are politicians willing to do this, but that there are voters who keep electing them.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cross1242 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 1:59 PM:
" BTW, in connection with this column, go over to the column "Why are conservatives so angry?" by Scott Cawelti. I don't think Prof. Clayson is "angry" just wrong all the time. However, the members of the hard right who defend him here have vitriol to spare. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 3:06 PM:
" Here's some more information relative to those stats:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
There's more info out there on the intertubes, if you care to look, about how these numbers were drawn somewhat out of context from a series of hyperbolic Capitol Hill Blue articles and shaped into an email forward. As Snopes mentions, the same numbers have been used in conjunction with professional athletes and members of various Parliaments.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend I knew this before today. The idea came from Cross. And I have no way to back this up but those stats sure seemed reminiscent and I can just imagine having gotten that email chain at some time in my life.
Bottom line, we should expect better from a University professor who I GUARANTEE would expect better from his students. "
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
There's more info out there on the intertubes, if you care to look, about how these numbers were drawn somewhat out of context from a series of hyperbolic Capitol Hill Blue articles and shaped into an email forward. As Snopes mentions, the same numbers have been used in conjunction with professional athletes and members of various Parliaments.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend I knew this before today. The idea came from Cross. And I have no way to back this up but those stats sure seemed reminiscent and I can just imagine having gotten that email chain at some time in my life.
Bottom line, we should expect better from a University professor who I GUARANTEE would expect better from his students. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 3:09 PM:
" Based on pretty much all internet sources, that list was also compiled in 1999. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 3:21 PM:
" "Based on pretty much all internet sources, that list was also compiled in 1999."
Which makes this little paragraph here,
"One would expect that drugs and alcohol would be a problem. Fourteen have been arrested on drug-related charges, and 84 have been arrested for drunken driving in the last year. This statistic is not usually reported."
a full throated embarrassment. "
Which makes this little paragraph here,
"One would expect that drugs and alcohol would be a problem. Fourteen have been arrested on drug-related charges, and 84 have been arrested for drunken driving in the last year. This statistic is not usually reported."
a full throated embarrassment. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 4:02 PM:
" chester11, good work. When I wrote my response, it occurred to me to check Snopes but I didn't follow up. Obviously, I should have.
The final insult to Prof. Clayson's statistics is that now that he has converted an internet rumor into newsprint, Prof. Clayson's article will be cited by those on the hard right as an original authority for his statistics. "
The final insult to Prof. Clayson's statistics is that now that he has converted an internet rumor into newsprint, Prof. Clayson's article will be cited by those on the hard right as an original authority for his statistics. "
cedarvalley1 wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:31 PM:
" The facts may be wrong. The U.S. congress and Iowa Hawkeye Football is still an embarrassment. "
hetfield wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:33 PM:
" Try to deflect whatever stats you dont like guys. Bill Clinton was impeached because of his lies, infidelity and perversions.
Now the left wants to elect a political newcomer more arrogant then the Clintons. Barack Hussein Obama and his gang of terrorists, racists and criminals will continue to build on these stats if he were elected.
Good luck deflecting that! "
Now the left wants to elect a political newcomer more arrogant then the Clintons. Barack Hussein Obama and his gang of terrorists, racists and criminals will continue to build on these stats if he were elected.
Good luck deflecting that! "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:21 AM:
" Face it, hetfield, Clayson's stats on criminals in Congress are bogus. And your claim that Obama's people are a "gang of terrorists, racists, and criminals" is bogus too. There is such a thing as viewing the world through rose-colored glasses. There is also such a thing as viewing the world through smoked glass. Your insistence that the opposition is always dishonest or worse is the evidence that you view the world through smoked glass. "
xdfred wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:48 AM:
" cross1242
wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:21 AM:
" Face it, hetfield, Clayson's stats on criminals in Congress are bogus" Nonsense. How about the congressman caught with 90G's of buy money in his freezer? What was his name? "
wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:21 AM:
" Face it, hetfield, Clayson's stats on criminals in Congress are bogus" Nonsense. How about the congressman caught with 90G's of buy money in his freezer? What was his name? "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Cross your refusal to accept anything said or written by a Rebulican as anything but lies makes your own statement fit you perfectly. You said of Hetfield, "Your insistence that the opposition is always dishonest or worse is the evidence that you view the world through smoked glass. " "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:50 AM:
" xdfred @ Aug 11, 2008 9:48 AM said, "How about the congressman caught with 90G's of buy money in his freezer?"
Clayson's allegation was that virtually ALL of Congress (by the time you total up the numbers) was guilty of some malfeasance. The truth is that incidents like what you cite are the rare exception.
As Chester11 suggested, go read:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
to find out that Clayson's point is totally bogus. "
Clayson's allegation was that virtually ALL of Congress (by the time you total up the numbers) was guilty of some malfeasance. The truth is that incidents like what you cite are the rare exception.
As Chester11 suggested, go read:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
to find out that Clayson's point is totally bogus. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:25 PM:
" Leo46 @ Aug 11, 2008 10:15 AM said, "Cross your refusal to accept anything said or written by a Rebulican as anything but lies makes your own statement fit you perfectly. You said of Hetfield, "Your insistence that the opposition is always dishonest or worse is the evidence that you view the world through smoked glass.""
Actually, Leo46, I think I might be able to work with and agree with a "Republican" on many things. It's those on the hard right that I have a problem with. You're probably right that I'd never find anything to agree on with someone on the hard right. But, that's not my fault. That's the fault of those on the hard right who consistently believe in mythology both on history and policy. So, it's no wonder that I and many other always find fault with those on the hard right. "
Actually, Leo46, I think I might be able to work with and agree with a "Republican" on many things. It's those on the hard right that I have a problem with. You're probably right that I'd never find anything to agree on with someone on the hard right. But, that's not my fault. That's the fault of those on the hard right who consistently believe in mythology both on history and policy. So, it's no wonder that I and many other always find fault with those on the hard right. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:37 PM:
" Cros... ahh, but you refused to accept info from a Congressional Minority Report, simply because it was put out by Republicans. At least that is what you wrote at the time.
I'll repeat what you said,"Your insistence that the opposition is always dishonest or worse is the evidence that you view the world through smoked glass." Then said, "You're probably right that I'd never find anything to agree on with someone on the hard right."
"Pot calling the kettle black?" "
I'll repeat what you said,"Your insistence that the opposition is always dishonest or worse is the evidence that you view the world through smoked glass." Then said, "You're probably right that I'd never find anything to agree on with someone on the hard right."
"Pot calling the kettle black?" "
Kramerica wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:46 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:25 PM: It's those on the hard right that I have a problem with. You're probably right that I'd never find anything to agree on with someone on the hard right. But, that's not my fault. That's the fault of those on the hard right who consistently believe in mythology both on history and policy. "
Belly laugh of the day. "
Belly laugh of the day. "
Steady wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:47 PM:
" Lets take a poll. The questions is:
"Who is cross1242?."
1. He is actually Dennis Clayson.
2. He is a former student of Clayson.
3. He is a colleague of Clayson and jealous of the attention.
4. He is obsessed with Clayson and Clayson won't return his calls.
5. He just wants the truth to come out.
Well, lets go to the vote - respond if you want. "
"Who is cross1242?."
1. He is actually Dennis Clayson.
2. He is a former student of Clayson.
3. He is a colleague of Clayson and jealous of the attention.
4. He is obsessed with Clayson and Clayson won't return his calls.
5. He just wants the truth to come out.
Well, lets go to the vote - respond if you want. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:22 PM:
" Leo46, I suspect that I wasn't rejecting what was said not because it was said by the Republicans but because it was a MINORITY report and the MAJORITY report sounded more reasonable. In any case, if the MINORITY report was the voice of the hard right that's what probably made it wrong.
It's one of my hopes that this coming election will be a realignment election. The nominal Republicans will take such a drubbing that the traditional Republicans will take control of their party back from the hard right. "
It's one of my hopes that this coming election will be a realignment election. The nominal Republicans will take such a drubbing that the traditional Republicans will take control of their party back from the hard right. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:26 PM:
" Cross, when the Dems were the MINORITY did you accept the MINORITY Report as more "reasonable" than the MAJORITY Report?
If so, it has more to do with what aligns your beliefs than anything. Hence, you believe it because you see through dark gkasses. "
If so, it has more to do with what aligns your beliefs than anything. Hence, you believe it because you see through dark gkasses. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:48 PM:
" Steady.. Actually Cross has refered to his web site before. So I'll go with #6. He is a writer/lawyer/politician who spends his free time spreading his own brand of propaganda on various newspaper web sites. "
wcf reader wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:25 PM:
" cross...so whats your view of the hard left? you are probably the most smug person i have ever read...its not my fault, its the fault of those....maybe its a little of both...but then again, how could you or any other liberal be wrong about anything...your superior intellect has shown through history...
"That's the fault of those on the hard right who consistently believe in mythology both on history and policy. So, it's no wonder that I and many other always find fault with those on the hard right. " "
"That's the fault of those on the hard right who consistently believe in mythology both on history and policy. So, it's no wonder that I and many other always find fault with those on the hard right. " "
cross wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:33 PM:
" Steady, poll all you want. I've said several times why I came here and why I won't leave. So, your snarky suggestion that I have petty personal concerns for opposing him are just as false as Prof. Clayson's statistics this week.
To repeat, I happened to read one Clayson column and blew a fuse. And, I noticed that no one ever seemed to object to his pontifications either in print or on line. (I believe the column that caused my short circuit was the one where he was giving a general defense of the Bush Administration that included, "He was obviously the victim of bad intelligence on Iraq so I'll give him a pass on that.)
At that point, I resolved to provide a response -- even if it wasn't seen by many people. Eventually it proved that he was wrong every week (except when he wished people "Merry Christmas"). So, my responses came every week too. I'm still content with that. I know I won't change your opinion or those like you on this board. However, I find it satisfying to show just how wrong he is every week.
And, I'd also note that you've got a particular problem defending Clayson this week. As Clayson says, "A friend and local business person sent me most of the information." I take that to mean that he got an email with the statistics. He shouldn't have trusted such information. The amount of bogus information passed around the internet is amazing. But, he took it as gospel.
As a result, Chester11, not me, pointed out, that the information that Clayson is repeating is totally bogus.
See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
It's nothing but an internet rumor that Prof. Clayson is passing off as honest-to-Pete fact. It's identical information that has been previously passed off as relating to the Canadian Parliament as well as other bodies.
And, don't worry, I intend to frequently remind all those on the hard right on this board that the good professor passes off as good information in his column that he would flunk anyone in one of his courses for doing.
But, perhaps you'd like to apologize, even if Clayson never will, that your compatriot has peddled such obviously bogus information on the public. "
To repeat, I happened to read one Clayson column and blew a fuse. And, I noticed that no one ever seemed to object to his pontifications either in print or on line. (I believe the column that caused my short circuit was the one where he was giving a general defense of the Bush Administration that included, "He was obviously the victim of bad intelligence on Iraq so I'll give him a pass on that.)
At that point, I resolved to provide a response -- even if it wasn't seen by many people. Eventually it proved that he was wrong every week (except when he wished people "Merry Christmas"). So, my responses came every week too. I'm still content with that. I know I won't change your opinion or those like you on this board. However, I find it satisfying to show just how wrong he is every week.
And, I'd also note that you've got a particular problem defending Clayson this week. As Clayson says, "A friend and local business person sent me most of the information." I take that to mean that he got an email with the statistics. He shouldn't have trusted such information. The amount of bogus information passed around the internet is amazing. But, he took it as gospel.
As a result, Chester11, not me, pointed out, that the information that Clayson is repeating is totally bogus.
See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
It's nothing but an internet rumor that Prof. Clayson is passing off as honest-to-Pete fact. It's identical information that has been previously passed off as relating to the Canadian Parliament as well as other bodies.
And, don't worry, I intend to frequently remind all those on the hard right on this board that the good professor passes off as good information in his column that he would flunk anyone in one of his courses for doing.
But, perhaps you'd like to apologize, even if Clayson never will, that your compatriot has peddled such obviously bogus information on the public. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:18 PM:
" It's absolutely indefensible, Cross.
Now the column could be chalked up as a flub. No problem. It happens. But don't expect an apology or correction, or for any of the kneejerk neocon posters to step back a second, forget their bias, and acknowledge that this was a very, very poorly researched and written column this week.
But you, see what's happening here? Anger. Conservative petulant anger at an unfortunate blunder by their local idol.
You sound like a bunch of kids throwing their toys at the wall because they're clearly in the wrong and need to lash out.
I also don't agree with most of what Clayson says, and most of it is opinion. This is more than that. It's a full blown F - .
Now, chant "Barack Hussein Obama!" In 3, 2, 1.
It'll probably make y'all feel better. "
Now the column could be chalked up as a flub. No problem. It happens. But don't expect an apology or correction, or for any of the kneejerk neocon posters to step back a second, forget their bias, and acknowledge that this was a very, very poorly researched and written column this week.
But you, see what's happening here? Anger. Conservative petulant anger at an unfortunate blunder by their local idol.
You sound like a bunch of kids throwing their toys at the wall because they're clearly in the wrong and need to lash out.
I also don't agree with most of what Clayson says, and most of it is opinion. This is more than that. It's a full blown F - .
Now, chant "Barack Hussein Obama!" In 3, 2, 1.
It'll probably make y'all feel better. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:22 PM:
" I still can't get over the line referring to 84 OWI's in the last year alone from the US Congress.
Wouldn't that be an alarming, stop-the-presses statistic that would have been global news by about the 20th arrest of this group of 535 people?
How do you not catch something like that?
Terrible.... "
Wouldn't that be an alarming, stop-the-presses statistic that would have been global news by about the 20th arrest of this group of 535 people?
How do you not catch something like that?
Terrible.... "
chester11 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:39 PM:
" Leo/WaterlooReader:
I'm wasn't really lumping you in with the "kneejerk neocon posters" and kids throwing their toys or whatever.
I think you guys are fairly open minded.
I think... "
I'm wasn't really lumping you in with the "kneejerk neocon posters" and kids throwing their toys or whatever.
I think you guys are fairly open minded.
I think... "
shouldbemayor wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:22 PM:
" Cross makes me mad a lot. However, his arguments are always well thought out and he makes good points. (unlike hatefeild)
His advantage is that he gets to read Clayson and respond. Clayson chooses not to respond. Usually, after Cross undresses Claysons columns, I would guess Clayson would be embarrassed to respond.
I like Clayson, and feel he is usually pretty close to my conservative beliefs. However, to use NONSENSE numbers to try to prove a point is reckless at best. His students must be enjoying a "belly laugh" at this one.
I also question how this has ANYTHING to do with college athletics and why he would try to tie the two together without tying the two together.
I also wonder why he didn't once mention an athlete or congressman who actually did a good thing? Is he really that bitter? That is a shame. "
His advantage is that he gets to read Clayson and respond. Clayson chooses not to respond. Usually, after Cross undresses Claysons columns, I would guess Clayson would be embarrassed to respond.
I like Clayson, and feel he is usually pretty close to my conservative beliefs. However, to use NONSENSE numbers to try to prove a point is reckless at best. His students must be enjoying a "belly laugh" at this one.
I also question how this has ANYTHING to do with college athletics and why he would try to tie the two together without tying the two together.
I also wonder why he didn't once mention an athlete or congressman who actually did a good thing? Is he really that bitter? That is a shame. "
hetfield wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:10 PM:
" writer/lawyer/politician.. OMG..Cross is the hard left!
Ok new stats. Edwards just admitted to adultery.
So 1 liberal politician this week has admitted mortal sin.
Zero conservatives have.
Are these facts, opinions, or just bogus stats? "
Ok new stats. Edwards just admitted to adultery.
So 1 liberal politician this week has admitted mortal sin.
Zero conservatives have.
Are these facts, opinions, or just bogus stats? "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:29 AM:
" Cross said, "As a result, Chester11, not me, pointed out, that the information that Clayson is repeating is totally bogus."
Actually Chester and snopes both said the "e-mail" was "unverifiable" not "bogus."
This e-mail seems awful familiar. And like all chain-e-mail I get I usually hit snopes with it before deleting it. It would behoove Clayson to do likewise in the future. "
Actually Chester and snopes both said the "e-mail" was "unverifiable" not "bogus."
This e-mail seems awful familiar. And like all chain-e-mail I get I usually hit snopes with it before deleting it. It would behoove Clayson to do likewise in the future. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:02 AM:
" shouldbemayor @ Aug 11, 2008 9:22 PM said, "His advantage is that he gets to read Clayson and respond. Clayson chooses not to respond."
Clayson has said in a prior column that he doesn't even READ the responses here. "
Clayson has said in a prior column that he doesn't even READ the responses here. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:06 AM:
" hetfield @ Aug 11, 2008 10:10 PM said, "Edwards just admitted to adultery. So 1 liberal politician this week has admitted mortal sin. Zero conservatives have."
Actually, hetfield, McCain's current wife is his second spouse and he admits to adultery with her (she was on his Senate staff at that time) while he was still married to his first wife. "
Actually, hetfield, McCain's current wife is his second spouse and he admits to adultery with her (she was on his Senate staff at that time) while he was still married to his first wife. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:08 AM:
" Leo46 @ Aug 12, 2008 8:29 AM said, "It would behoove Clayson to do likewise in the future."
Amen to that. "
Amen to that. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:13 AM:
" chester11 @ Aug 11, 2008 8:18 PM said, "But you, see what's happening here? Anger. Conservative petulant anger at an unfortunate blunder by their local idol."
Right! And that demonstration occurs the same week when the Courier had a column, "Why are conservatives so angry?" by Scott Cawelti. But, somehow, those on the hard right here don't recognize that he was talking about them. "
Right! And that demonstration occurs the same week when the Courier had a column, "Why are conservatives so angry?" by Scott Cawelti. But, somehow, those on the hard right here don't recognize that he was talking about them. "
xdfred wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:56 PM:
" So let me get this straight. Prof Clayson rights an article. Cross+ gets on here and claims Clayson's article is based on bogus information, which he pretty much does every week. Non liberals respond, and Cross+ considers this anger? Petulant anger anger at that. This is beyond ridiculous. "
Steady wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:34 PM:
" Confession, cross, I don't know Clayson nor really care what he says. However, I find the responses it creates pretty entertaining.
What you post carries no more weight than the next one. When reading your responses you regulary drift from topic and give information that can only be substantiated by your own beliefs - which is fine. It is fine because they are your beliefs, but that does not make them accurate.
I do agree that if you are going to put yourself out there, as Clayson does, you better be right (factually anyway). Your response to why you respond to Clayson's article isn't that far off one of my poll questions. It does sound a bit obsessive, but I'm sure you can handle it.
I quit opening articles that Clayson wrote because it was the same comments every time. No matter the topic of the article the comments eventually rolled into the same subject matter and it really got old. Seeing the title of the article I opened it not realizing it was Clayson, scrolled down and saw you posted (or should I say still posting). I do apologize for the poll because it was done in jest.
Cross, you stated "Your hope...the traditional Republicans will take control of their party back from the hard right." I hope that of the Democratic party as well, control back from the extreme left.
You refer to another column, "Why are conservatives so angry?" Are they angry or do liberals just think they are? If they think they are does it make it so? If there is one angry conservative, does that mean most are?
How do liberals define anger? When people disagree with them? In the other column people contended they were not angry, what response did they get?
chester stated, "The hardright may not recognize their feelings as anger which will invariably have them defensive about this issue." You stated on this site that, "those on the hard right here don't recognize that he was talking about them."
The frustrating part is that you two believe it not knowing how pompous you sound when you say it.
Are there Republicans that need to open their eyes, absolutely, but there are just as many Democrats that need to do the same. "
What you post carries no more weight than the next one. When reading your responses you regulary drift from topic and give information that can only be substantiated by your own beliefs - which is fine. It is fine because they are your beliefs, but that does not make them accurate.
I do agree that if you are going to put yourself out there, as Clayson does, you better be right (factually anyway). Your response to why you respond to Clayson's article isn't that far off one of my poll questions. It does sound a bit obsessive, but I'm sure you can handle it.
I quit opening articles that Clayson wrote because it was the same comments every time. No matter the topic of the article the comments eventually rolled into the same subject matter and it really got old. Seeing the title of the article I opened it not realizing it was Clayson, scrolled down and saw you posted (or should I say still posting). I do apologize for the poll because it was done in jest.
Cross, you stated "Your hope...the traditional Republicans will take control of their party back from the hard right." I hope that of the Democratic party as well, control back from the extreme left.
You refer to another column, "Why are conservatives so angry?" Are they angry or do liberals just think they are? If they think they are does it make it so? If there is one angry conservative, does that mean most are?
How do liberals define anger? When people disagree with them? In the other column people contended they were not angry, what response did they get?
chester stated, "The hardright may not recognize their feelings as anger which will invariably have them defensive about this issue." You stated on this site that, "those on the hard right here don't recognize that he was talking about them."
The frustrating part is that you two believe it not knowing how pompous you sound when you say it.
Are there Republicans that need to open their eyes, absolutely, but there are just as many Democrats that need to do the same. "
cross wrote on Aug 12, 2008 6:37 PM:
" Steady @ Aug 12, 2008 2:34 PM had several comments of interest.
He says, "When reading your responses you regularly drift from topic and give information that can only be substantiated by your own beliefs...."
Me: I've got no complaint on that observation. In most cases I'm saying that my belief have a more logical foundation. But, in any case, they are not subject to proof either way.
He says: "I quit opening articles that Clayson wrote because it was the same comments every time."
Me: No complaint there either. I will suggest that Prof. Clayson's repetitiveness is one reason why I wonder why the Courier's editors don't wonder whether he merits the primer placement each and every week. (And I think the irrelevancies and non-sequiturs Prof. Clayson regularly includes add to my wonder why Clayson is their lead commentator.)
He says: "You refer to another column, "Why are conservatives so angry?"
Me: I'd first refer you to the brand-new book, "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank. Frank makes the case that being angry is part and parcel of conservatism. He goes through a history of conservatism that makes a good case that's the way conservatives have always been.
Second, I'm not sure that I'd label Prof. Clayson's columns as particularly "angry." It's his followers who post here that seem angry. I'd point to the regular use of ad hominum arguments as the FIRST line of argument.
He asks, "How do liberals define anger?" I'd define it as that resort first to ad hominum including the name-calling and type-casting of liberals as all alike. The regular argument that communist, socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are all the same is, I think, an exercise in false labeling with pejorative names that is supposedly a substitute for the precise beliefs of whoever was speaking. (And, no, I don't think that most Democrats do the same thing.)
He says: "you two believe it not knowing how pompous you sound."
Me: I suppose so. But, I think that's an inevitable result when one is not arguing for nuance as in "one part of what you say is not right." Rather, it's saying, "Your whole political philosophy is warped." Unfortunately, I really do think that the whole political philosophy of those on the hard right is wrong on the facts, logic, and policy. Given that, I'll just have to live with being charged with being pompous. I can do that.
He says: "Are there Republicans that need to open their eyes, absolutely, but there are just as many Democrats that need to do the same.
Me: Maybe. But for the most part, I don't think that Democrats are anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
Conclusion: I think that the the announcement today by former long-term Republican Iowa Congressman Jim Leach that he will support Obama is telling on just how far right the Republicans have gone. "
He says, "When reading your responses you regularly drift from topic and give information that can only be substantiated by your own beliefs...."
Me: I've got no complaint on that observation. In most cases I'm saying that my belief have a more logical foundation. But, in any case, they are not subject to proof either way.
He says: "I quit opening articles that Clayson wrote because it was the same comments every time."
Me: No complaint there either. I will suggest that Prof. Clayson's repetitiveness is one reason why I wonder why the Courier's editors don't wonder whether he merits the primer placement each and every week. (And I think the irrelevancies and non-sequiturs Prof. Clayson regularly includes add to my wonder why Clayson is their lead commentator.)
He says: "You refer to another column, "Why are conservatives so angry?"
Me: I'd first refer you to the brand-new book, "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank. Frank makes the case that being angry is part and parcel of conservatism. He goes through a history of conservatism that makes a good case that's the way conservatives have always been.
Second, I'm not sure that I'd label Prof. Clayson's columns as particularly "angry." It's his followers who post here that seem angry. I'd point to the regular use of ad hominum arguments as the FIRST line of argument.
He asks, "How do liberals define anger?" I'd define it as that resort first to ad hominum including the name-calling and type-casting of liberals as all alike. The regular argument that communist, socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are all the same is, I think, an exercise in false labeling with pejorative names that is supposedly a substitute for the precise beliefs of whoever was speaking. (And, no, I don't think that most Democrats do the same thing.)
He says: "you two believe it not knowing how pompous you sound."
Me: I suppose so. But, I think that's an inevitable result when one is not arguing for nuance as in "one part of what you say is not right." Rather, it's saying, "Your whole political philosophy is warped." Unfortunately, I really do think that the whole political philosophy of those on the hard right is wrong on the facts, logic, and policy. Given that, I'll just have to live with being charged with being pompous. I can do that.
He says: "Are there Republicans that need to open their eyes, absolutely, but there are just as many Democrats that need to do the same.
Me: Maybe. But for the most part, I don't think that Democrats are anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
Conclusion: I think that the the announcement today by former long-term Republican Iowa Congressman Jim Leach that he will support Obama is telling on just how far right the Republicans have gone. "
cross wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:02 AM:
" In the spirit of Prof. Clayson's column this week of publishing rumors as fact, I thought I'd let everyone know the latest rumor(s) on Obama. It's special because there is more than one and there are permutations that make the number of "absolutely true" rumors mathematically almost endless.
The base rumor is that Obama has dual citizenship.
In one version, he's a citizen both of the United States and Kenya. In the other rumor, he's a citizen of both the United States and Indonesia. In a third version, he lost his American citizenship and is just a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia. In a minor fourth version he's just a dual citizen of Kenya and Indonesia.
The permutations are:
(1) You can't trust him when he is a citizen of another country too.
(2) He's ineligible to be president because he isn't a US citizen.
(3) His Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery. (The Republican Party has a copy of his "real" birth certificate and is about to spring it.)
(4) His name on his "real" birth certificate is "Barry Soetoro.
(5) The US doesn't allow dual citizenship so he was stripped of his US citizenship when his step-father adopted him making him an Indonesian national. (A variant on that is that Obama has secretly dumped his Indonesian citizenship.)
(6) The Clinton's know all this and are going to spring it at the Democratic Convention. So, when the delegates find out, they'll nominate Hillary.
(7) Obama is actually a citizen of Great Britain since his father was born in Kenya before it became independent.
So, this is a mix and match rumor. Which ones have YOU seen.
BTW, the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature. "
The base rumor is that Obama has dual citizenship.
In one version, he's a citizen both of the United States and Kenya. In the other rumor, he's a citizen of both the United States and Indonesia. In a third version, he lost his American citizenship and is just a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia. In a minor fourth version he's just a dual citizen of Kenya and Indonesia.
The permutations are:
(1) You can't trust him when he is a citizen of another country too.
(2) He's ineligible to be president because he isn't a US citizen.
(3) His Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery. (The Republican Party has a copy of his "real" birth certificate and is about to spring it.)
(4) His name on his "real" birth certificate is "Barry Soetoro.
(5) The US doesn't allow dual citizenship so he was stripped of his US citizenship when his step-father adopted him making him an Indonesian national. (A variant on that is that Obama has secretly dumped his Indonesian citizenship.)
(6) The Clinton's know all this and are going to spring it at the Democratic Convention. So, when the delegates find out, they'll nominate Hillary.
(7) Obama is actually a citizen of Great Britain since his father was born in Kenya before it became independent.
So, this is a mix and match rumor. Which ones have YOU seen.
BTW, the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature. "
Steady wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:24 AM:
" A suggested reading by cross is "The Wrecking Crew" which I guess is intended, as the other Courier article, to help us conservatives to understand how we truly feel inside - because clearly they know better than us.
If a guy grows up in a Democratic home, votes that way for many years, eperiences life through himself and changes due to those experiences (influenced by real life - not leaders, authors, talk show hosts etc.) does that person really need to be told they are wrong? I have a very sound foundation and draw my beliefs from my life - so I will pass on reading a book or listen to a column that attempts to tell me how I "really" feel.
Could these two items be accurate for a few, possibly, but again that has gone to my larger point. It is not the majority of conservatives that feel that way. cross defines what he believes "anger" is: "I'd define it as that resort first to ad hominum including the name-calling and type-casting of liberals as all alike." Well thanks for letting us know that liberals are angry because that is exactly what these two pieces are doing. Liberals certainly have the corner market on anger and prove it on a regular basis.
cross is a great example of how liberals are and why conservatives have a hard time working with them. (A concern conservatives have shared about McCain.) I stated there are just as many Democrats as Republicans that need to open their eyes - a foundation, if you will, that work needs to be done on both sides. cross responds, maybe, BUT Democrates are not anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
No wonder things don't get done when you can't even start in a neutral spot.
I am a result of the Democratic movement to the left. "
If a guy grows up in a Democratic home, votes that way for many years, eperiences life through himself and changes due to those experiences (influenced by real life - not leaders, authors, talk show hosts etc.) does that person really need to be told they are wrong? I have a very sound foundation and draw my beliefs from my life - so I will pass on reading a book or listen to a column that attempts to tell me how I "really" feel.
Could these two items be accurate for a few, possibly, but again that has gone to my larger point. It is not the majority of conservatives that feel that way. cross defines what he believes "anger" is: "I'd define it as that resort first to ad hominum including the name-calling and type-casting of liberals as all alike." Well thanks for letting us know that liberals are angry because that is exactly what these two pieces are doing. Liberals certainly have the corner market on anger and prove it on a regular basis.
cross is a great example of how liberals are and why conservatives have a hard time working with them. (A concern conservatives have shared about McCain.) I stated there are just as many Democrats as Republicans that need to open their eyes - a foundation, if you will, that work needs to be done on both sides. cross responds, maybe, BUT Democrates are not anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
No wonder things don't get done when you can't even start in a neutral spot.
I am a result of the Democratic movement to the left. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 13, 2008 1:21 PM:
" Steady @ Aug 13, 2008 8:24 AM said, "A suggested reading by cross is "The Wrecking Crew" which I guess is intended, as the other Courier article, to help us conservatives to understand how we truly feel inside - because clearly they know better than us."
No, that was not my intent. I intended it for you to see if the angry attitude of conservatives that Frank describes really matches your own attitude or that of people you want to associate with.
Secondarily, does the description of what they want to do to government (to wreck it) matches your own.
I get that you don't like the lefties in the Democratic Party. However, at least from what you've said here, I'm not sure that your attitude matches well with the hard right. "
No, that was not my intent. I intended it for you to see if the angry attitude of conservatives that Frank describes really matches your own attitude or that of people you want to associate with.
Secondarily, does the description of what they want to do to government (to wreck it) matches your own.
I get that you don't like the lefties in the Democratic Party. However, at least from what you've said here, I'm not sure that your attitude matches well with the hard right. "
coalplant wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:08 PM:
" Cross, Thanks for doing the research On Obama, I can't believe that My party was foolish enough to nominate someone like Obama who isn't even a citizen of this country. Hopefully Hillary can save us at the convention and stop Obama. Once again old man that is top notch research.
I am even going to let the rumors you posted about Fox news and the outright fabrication of facts about filling your tires with air go as, it looks as if you have finally hit pay dirt with your posting about Obama.
Obama in 08
British,Indonesian,Kenyan,, Cross knows your not who you say you are and he's not going to put up with it anymore. "
I am even going to let the rumors you posted about Fox news and the outright fabrication of facts about filling your tires with air go as, it looks as if you have finally hit pay dirt with your posting about Obama.
Obama in 08
British,Indonesian,Kenyan,, Cross knows your not who you say you are and he's not going to put up with it anymore. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:39 PM:
" "Steady wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:24 AM:
cross is a great example of how liberals are and why conservatives have a hard time working with them. (A concern conservatives have shared about McCain.) I stated there are just as many Democrats as Republicans that need to open their eyes - a foundation, if you will, that work needs to be done on both sides. cross responds, maybe, BUT Democrates are not anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
No wonder things don't get done when you can't even start in a neutral spot."
During which of your entries in the last few days have you not been sarcastic, dismissive, mouthy, and/or rude?
Fill me in. Is there some cluster of wound healing posts I missed where you've expressed your commitment to bridge the partisan divide all us cretins are wallowing in?
Please enlighten me, Steady? You example setting leader of bi-partisanship. "
cross is a great example of how liberals are and why conservatives have a hard time working with them. (A concern conservatives have shared about McCain.) I stated there are just as many Democrats as Republicans that need to open their eyes - a foundation, if you will, that work needs to be done on both sides. cross responds, maybe, BUT Democrates are not anywhere near as far left as so many Republicans seem to be on the far right.
No wonder things don't get done when you can't even start in a neutral spot."
During which of your entries in the last few days have you not been sarcastic, dismissive, mouthy, and/or rude?
Fill me in. Is there some cluster of wound healing posts I missed where you've expressed your commitment to bridge the partisan divide all us cretins are wallowing in?
Please enlighten me, Steady? You example setting leader of bi-partisanship. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:52 AM:
" Cross said..."BTW, the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature."
Useing that logic aplied to:
1. The Earth is round.
2. The Earth is flat.
3. The Earth is square.
The Earth can't be round, flat, or square. Makes no sense. Two lies out of three statments doesn't make all three lies.
Who was it said, "Just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't after them."? "
Useing that logic aplied to:
1. The Earth is round.
2. The Earth is flat.
3. The Earth is square.
The Earth can't be round, flat, or square. Makes no sense. Two lies out of three statments doesn't make all three lies.
Who was it said, "Just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't after them."? "
Steady wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:20 AM:
" chester, you appear to have taken offense to a couple of my posts, sorry. I guess you know how I felt when you and other articles tried casting all conservatives as the same.
Was I trying to build any bridges with you, no. Readinig your posts suggest, to me, that it would be your way or no way. You appear to be pretty well set in your apparent anger (though you are labeling conservatives with it).
...(Conservatives)just like to insult and demean, come up with borderline racist taunting catchphrases
...talk to a couple of my outside business associates who have noted that they'll never vote for an N word for president (of course Conservatives)
...when you see a kid with some baggy jeans and a skull cap, and you're being honest with yourself, does that make you uncomfortable
...LOT of conservative minded people I know that look generates a varying amount of disgust in them.
...How about two Hispanics talking to each other in Spanish..You down with that?
...How about a woman wearing a headscarf walking through Walmart?
...I think the instant reaction of a lot of conservatives to people who are different then them tends to be revolt, anger, and contempt.
The point I have been making is that your comments and judgement is as full of hate and anger as you use to describe conservatives. Of course you disagree and believe you are right.
My bi-partisanship comes from my repeated comments that there is a lot of wrong and a lot of fixing to do on both sides. The responses I have gotten were either a disagreement of that or there is more wrong on the right. I am more than willing to join in the middle, a starting point, but I don't believe I have to cross over just to make appeasements. "
Was I trying to build any bridges with you, no. Readinig your posts suggest, to me, that it would be your way or no way. You appear to be pretty well set in your apparent anger (though you are labeling conservatives with it).
...(Conservatives)just like to insult and demean, come up with borderline racist taunting catchphrases
...talk to a couple of my outside business associates who have noted that they'll never vote for an N word for president (of course Conservatives)
...when you see a kid with some baggy jeans and a skull cap, and you're being honest with yourself, does that make you uncomfortable
...LOT of conservative minded people I know that look generates a varying amount of disgust in them.
...How about two Hispanics talking to each other in Spanish..You down with that?
...How about a woman wearing a headscarf walking through Walmart?
...I think the instant reaction of a lot of conservatives to people who are different then them tends to be revolt, anger, and contempt.
The point I have been making is that your comments and judgement is as full of hate and anger as you use to describe conservatives. Of course you disagree and believe you are right.
My bi-partisanship comes from my repeated comments that there is a lot of wrong and a lot of fixing to do on both sides. The responses I have gotten were either a disagreement of that or there is more wrong on the right. I am more than willing to join in the middle, a starting point, but I don't believe I have to cross over just to make appeasements. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:25 AM:
" Leo46, so you believe that there is some truth in the rumors that Obama is a dual citizen?
If so, are you a follower of the US/Kenya or US/Indonesia rumors? "
If so, are you a follower of the US/Kenya or US/Indonesia rumors? "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:05 AM:
" Never said I believed in any of the rumors.
I just find fault with your logic in saying,"the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature."
You have used this type of logic before and I find it rediculous. "
I just find fault with your logic in saying,"the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature."
You have used this type of logic before and I find it rediculous. "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:34 AM:
" Leo46 w@ Aug 14, 2008 11:05 AM said, "Never said I believed in any of the rumors."
Okay. Would you favor me (us) with YOUR reason for not believing the rumors. "
Okay. Would you favor me (us) with YOUR reason for not believing the rumors. "
coalplant wrote on Aug 14, 2008 2:30 PM:
" Cross,
I just checked the internet and the stuff you posted about obama isn't true.
To post that kind of outright lies is akin to people constantly harping about Hussein Obama's middle name being Hussein. What are you sir a rascist Obama hater!!!!
What is wrong with you that you would post more lies and rumors knowing it would spread like wildfire through the tubes and capacitors that form the internet
I am flabbergasted and will from here on out believe nothing you post.
Shocked I say shocked I am
Obama in 08
Now more than ever as it appears Cross has moved to the Hillary camp. "
I just checked the internet and the stuff you posted about obama isn't true.
To post that kind of outright lies is akin to people constantly harping about Hussein Obama's middle name being Hussein. What are you sir a rascist Obama hater!!!!
What is wrong with you that you would post more lies and rumors knowing it would spread like wildfire through the tubes and capacitors that form the internet
I am flabbergasted and will from here on out believe nothing you post.
Shocked I say shocked I am
Obama in 08
Now more than ever as it appears Cross has moved to the Hillary camp. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Actually Cross I don't care if any of the rumors are true or not. But there may be some truth to one or two of the many rumors floating around about BOTH candidates. You just can't say all of them are lies because some of them are lies. Otherwise you would have to say all the rumors about McCain are false too. Are you willing to do that? "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:18 PM:
" coalplant @ Aug 14, 2008 2:30 PM said, "Cross, I just checked the internet and the stuff you posted about obama isn't true."
coalplant, what are you talking about? I said that the rumors about Obama were false. Are you saying that they are true? "
coalplant, what are you talking about? I said that the rumors about Obama were false. Are you saying that they are true? "
coalplant wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:58 PM:
" Cross, We know the games your type play,,, You throw out what you call 'rumors' to besmirch those you hate,like Obama, and then play it off as if you are innocent. You think we haven't seen this pattern with you Clinton supporters before. Your nothing but a ... James Carville filling the internet with your hate for Obama. Don't think we have forgot you trying to describe Obama as 'uppity',,, thats one of them code words rascist liberals use to scare good people.
Obama in 08
Anyone Cross hates so much, must be alright "
Obama in 08
Anyone Cross hates so much, must be alright "
cross1242 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:00 PM:
" Leo46 @ Aug 14, 2008 2:52 PM said, "there may be some truth to one or two of the many rumors floating around about BOTH candidates."
Leo46, go read this:
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
To sum up the article, "31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate."
And now, this: "We have yet to see e-mails about John McCain."
So, in your attempt to make it seem that both sides publish bogus emails, so far it seems to be an activity by the hard right against Obama or the Clintons.
Wrong again, Leo. "
Leo46, go read this:
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
To sum up the article, "31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate."
And now, this: "We have yet to see e-mails about John McCain."
So, in your attempt to make it seem that both sides publish bogus emails, so far it seems to be an activity by the hard right against Obama or the Clintons.
Wrong again, Leo. "
chester11 wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:46 PM:
" Steady -
I'm well aware that my posts aren't bi-partisan. I actually am, but not generally with the stooges out here who are so insulting and simple minded ("Barack Hussein Obama!") there's no point in trying to talk reasonably with them. I agree with many conservative principles - fiscal conservatism, reducing welfare, gun rights, Christmas trees or whatever in public squares (mainly because that's one that I'm just indifferent to), disciplining your children, being faithful to your wife (gee, I wish more neoconservatives were committed to that one), closing the border (after amnesty for the working illegals here), and stateside drilling.
You have been attacking since you got here. You throw in a "yea, there's people on the right that need to change too" after a dissertation on how vile liberals are and pretend you're bridging divides.
Also, I like how Coalplant keeps reminding us about what a staunch Democrat he is. It's his belief though, that the party has gone too far left. Ok. But if Coalplant's such a Democrat wouldn't he be challenging some of the hard right neocons out here too with the energy he puts into the insults for teat suckling libs? I guess he's just got an extremely unorthodox and inexplicable Democratic campaign style that's above all our heads. You go, girl! "
I'm well aware that my posts aren't bi-partisan. I actually am, but not generally with the stooges out here who are so insulting and simple minded ("Barack Hussein Obama!") there's no point in trying to talk reasonably with them. I agree with many conservative principles - fiscal conservatism, reducing welfare, gun rights, Christmas trees or whatever in public squares (mainly because that's one that I'm just indifferent to), disciplining your children, being faithful to your wife (gee, I wish more neoconservatives were committed to that one), closing the border (after amnesty for the working illegals here), and stateside drilling.
You have been attacking since you got here. You throw in a "yea, there's people on the right that need to change too" after a dissertation on how vile liberals are and pretend you're bridging divides.
Also, I like how Coalplant keeps reminding us about what a staunch Democrat he is. It's his belief though, that the party has gone too far left. Ok. But if Coalplant's such a Democrat wouldn't he be challenging some of the hard right neocons out here too with the energy he puts into the insults for teat suckling libs? I guess he's just got an extremely unorthodox and inexplicable Democratic campaign style that's above all our heads. You go, girl! "
chester11 wrote on Aug 16, 2008 3:10 PM:
" In re-reading, it's just so ironic that Clayson's article is led off with..
"Several months ago, I suggested that sports programs at Iowa universities bring more arrests into the area than trophies. Although my statistics were impeccable, I was roundly attacked by Midwestern sports enthusiasts who believe that it is the God-given duty of any educational institution (beyond the fifth grade) to furnish sports entertainment to the citizens."
"...my statistics were impeccable." regarding a past column, segueing into another one where his statistics are stunningly incorrect.
There really should be an acknowledgment by the author on this one in tomorrow's paper. And maybe I there will be, and I should give him a chance.
Because how many Courier subscribers are there? And during a time when the winds of political persuasion are so fierce that everyone is fighting for those independent voters, it's not really ethical to let this slide.
Yes, people can do their own research, but there is a difference between disingenuous rhetoric and tactics such as "lying by omission", and inarguably wrong numbers.
How many Courier readers saw those statistics and thought about how horrible the Democratic controlled Congress must be? I think the 110th Congress is kind of a joke, myself, but they didn't have 84 drunken driving arrests last year. That wasn't an opinionated statement.
There should be a published correction to this column. "
"Several months ago, I suggested that sports programs at Iowa universities bring more arrests into the area than trophies. Although my statistics were impeccable, I was roundly attacked by Midwestern sports enthusiasts who believe that it is the God-given duty of any educational institution (beyond the fifth grade) to furnish sports entertainment to the citizens."
"...my statistics were impeccable." regarding a past column, segueing into another one where his statistics are stunningly incorrect.
There really should be an acknowledgment by the author on this one in tomorrow's paper. And maybe I there will be, and I should give him a chance.
Because how many Courier subscribers are there? And during a time when the winds of political persuasion are so fierce that everyone is fighting for those independent voters, it's not really ethical to let this slide.
Yes, people can do their own research, but there is a difference between disingenuous rhetoric and tactics such as "lying by omission", and inarguably wrong numbers.
How many Courier readers saw those statistics and thought about how horrible the Democratic controlled Congress must be? I think the 110th Congress is kind of a joke, myself, but they didn't have 84 drunken driving arrests last year. That wasn't an opinionated statement.
There should be a published correction to this column. "
coalplant wrote on Aug 16, 2008 6:19 PM:
" Steady, See how accepting my Democratic party is of people who don't follow the mindless blathering of the Daily Kos and Move.on crowd
In Chester's open minded and thoroughly researched world, he has never given a THOUGHT that there might be some Dems out there who don't agree with the Cross's and Phil's. He can't fathom the damage his teat suckling, jealous rage at success philosophy inflicts on the good people of this society..
It's nice to know that I can't be a memeber of Chester's Democratic party unless I mindlessly attack religion,our current president, and Paris Hilton. However i would be in good standing if I approve of killing every unborn child that would be a burden to a woman, believe that only success comes from the government, and be such a mindless group think robot that I would think we can control our climate by buying carbon credits from Al Gore.
Yeah Chester call the DNC and tell them your running off the people who aren't true believers because they don't agree with every single point Soras and the boys decided you'd believe in.
Obama in 08
Apparently not all D's are equal according to Chester, THOUGH he says he's open minded "
In Chester's open minded and thoroughly researched world, he has never given a THOUGHT that there might be some Dems out there who don't agree with the Cross's and Phil's. He can't fathom the damage his teat suckling, jealous rage at success philosophy inflicts on the good people of this society..
It's nice to know that I can't be a memeber of Chester's Democratic party unless I mindlessly attack religion,our current president, and Paris Hilton. However i would be in good standing if I approve of killing every unborn child that would be a burden to a woman, believe that only success comes from the government, and be such a mindless group think robot that I would think we can control our climate by buying carbon credits from Al Gore.
Yeah Chester call the DNC and tell them your running off the people who aren't true believers because they don't agree with every single point Soras and the boys decided you'd believe in.
Obama in 08
Apparently not all D's are equal according to Chester, THOUGH he says he's open minded "
chester11 wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:36 PM:
" My other post was clipped because I went over the top I guess, even though you, Coalplant can tell people during the floods that they were too lazy to sandbag simply because they are liberals.
Anyhow..if you were a Democrat in any way you'd be challenging the Hatefields and Xdfreds when they repeat the same smears time and time again. You don't have to toe the line of Daily Kos but everything you post reports that you're more conservative than Karl Rove. Who are you fooling? I'll tell you who. Nobody.
And do you really think those stupid tactics are going to work on me? I know what this is. It's a pointless blog in a little corner of a corner of a corner of the internet and like 20 people argue and get virtually nothing accomplished save for a few thoughtful points every so often.
I know I'm very difficult, as Steady mentioned, because long ago I acknowledged that any rational discussion went out the window some four years ago in these kind of arenas.
My main point here is not to convince you to believe in any of my considerations but to persistently remind you that your way is the old way, the right wing machine shredded any possibility for reasoned discourse over the past decade and a half and thank jeebus that in the past two or three years they're getting a taste of their own medicine.
The heavy sarcasm and dismissive nature of my posts is exactly what Rush Limbaugh and his cronies brought out of us out of necessity to not keep giving elections to fundie, self serving clowns deadset on taking our country to war and pushing this meme that liberals are weak while conservatives are big, tough soldiers even when most can't bear the thought of even boot camp. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you won't, and I know that) the right wing started all this. All this invective and bickering.
Allow me and Cross, and Phil, and Hillbillytea, and Cawelti, and whoever else to be constant reminders of the kind of people the neocon mindset bred. And also that the good Barack Hussein Obama is going to be your next President and there's nothing you can do about it. "
Anyhow..if you were a Democrat in any way you'd be challenging the Hatefields and Xdfreds when they repeat the same smears time and time again. You don't have to toe the line of Daily Kos but everything you post reports that you're more conservative than Karl Rove. Who are you fooling? I'll tell you who. Nobody.
And do you really think those stupid tactics are going to work on me? I know what this is. It's a pointless blog in a little corner of a corner of a corner of the internet and like 20 people argue and get virtually nothing accomplished save for a few thoughtful points every so often.
I know I'm very difficult, as Steady mentioned, because long ago I acknowledged that any rational discussion went out the window some four years ago in these kind of arenas.
My main point here is not to convince you to believe in any of my considerations but to persistently remind you that your way is the old way, the right wing machine shredded any possibility for reasoned discourse over the past decade and a half and thank jeebus that in the past two or three years they're getting a taste of their own medicine.
The heavy sarcasm and dismissive nature of my posts is exactly what Rush Limbaugh and his cronies brought out of us out of necessity to not keep giving elections to fundie, self serving clowns deadset on taking our country to war and pushing this meme that liberals are weak while conservatives are big, tough soldiers even when most can't bear the thought of even boot camp. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you won't, and I know that) the right wing started all this. All this invective and bickering.
Allow me and Cross, and Phil, and Hillbillytea, and Cawelti, and whoever else to be constant reminders of the kind of people the neocon mindset bred. And also that the good Barack Hussein Obama is going to be your next President and there's nothing you can do about it. "
Leo46 wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:06 PM:
" Croos, to get to my original point, you said: ..."BTW, the fact that it's all bogus is proved precisely because of its mix-and-match nature."
My point was: "Two lies out of three statments doesn't make all three lies."
Thank you for the prooving my point for me when you posted: "31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate."
As for none about McCain the site you referenced also said: "Snopes has chronicled two claims about McCain – both were true, and one was a positive story." As for bogus emails the site also mentioned all the bogus emails about Bush in 2004.
So no I wasn't wrong, you were again wrong especially with your "facts" and "logic" "
My point was: "Two lies out of three statments doesn't make all three lies."
Thank you for the prooving my point for me when you posted: "31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate."
As for none about McCain the site you referenced also said: "Snopes has chronicled two claims about McCain – both were true, and one was a positive story." As for bogus emails the site also mentioned all the bogus emails about Bush in 2004.
So no I wasn't wrong, you were again wrong especially with your "facts" and "logic" "
coalplant wrote on Aug 18, 2008 6:35 AM:
" Chester Chester Chester, the only thing that those you mention show is how the liberal wing of my Democratic party is more concerned with total group think and blind allegiance to George Soras, then to original thought and open mindedness. I guess if we all believe the liberal line of hate and ignorance,stereotypes and profiling you spout every week, then we can all be good little Democrats and vote Obama because that can assuage a little of your liberal guilt.
Seriously how ignorant are you to say there is nothing I can do about Obama,Or are you proposing that the libs will take away the right to vote from those who don't agree with them.
Scary folks you pretend liberals are
Obama in 08
Apparently a vote means nothing to Chester, maybe he's not a lib could be a communist I guess "
Seriously how ignorant are you to say there is nothing I can do about Obama,Or are you proposing that the libs will take away the right to vote from those who don't agree with them.
Scary folks you pretend liberals are
Obama in 08
Apparently a vote means nothing to Chester, maybe he's not a lib could be a communist I guess "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
cross wrote on Aug 10, 2008 12:02 PM:
The central point of his column is a litany of the huge number of actual criminals in Congress. He’s not talking metaphorically here, he’s being literal. After he finishes his litany, I doubt that there’s room for any of the 535 members of Congress who is NOT a criminal.
After reading his column, my feeling was, “This just can’t be right.”
Guess what?
It’s not.
It appears that Clayson’s information is taken from the website, “Capitol Hill Blue.” http://www.capitolhillblue.com/) Its masthead says that it is dedicated to the principle that, “Because nobody’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the Congress is in session or the White House is occupied.” The articles themselves can be found at:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
(Note that it’s a series of five articles and there are active links at the start of that article to the other four.)
I would suggest that there is undoubtedly something wrong with a website that takes as its masthead philosophy an ancient laugh line that it takes not as a metaphor but as a statement of truth.
But, even assuming that “Capitol Hill Blue” is right, Prof. Clayson twists the facts into something entirely different. He says that, “These stats come from the honorable members of the United States Congress.” That suggests that all the numbers he reports are about the current Congress. But, the Capitol Hill Blue article says that its statistics accumulates totals “since 1992.” Suddenly, the revelation that the statistics represent eight Congresses over 16 years put the numbers into a more realistic context. That’s not to say that any lawbreaking by members of Congress is acceptable. But, at least one can now allow for there being many law-abiding members of Congress rather that everyone being a criminal.
Some of Prof. Clayson’s statistics agree with the Capitol Hill Blue articles. For example, he says, “Over 115 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses.” Blue says, “Our research found 117 current and recent members of the House and Senate who have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt….”
And some of the statistics are, at least, close. For example, he says, “Thirty-six have been charged with abusing women; 29 of these were accused in either criminal or civil proceedings.” Blue says, “Twenty-nine members of current and recent Congresses have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings.”
But, in some, there statistics aren’t even close. For example, he says, “84 have been arrested for drunken driving in the last year.” Blue says, “Twenty-seven have driving while intoxicated arrests on their driving records.” (And remember that Prof. Clayson’s numbers supposedly represents just the current Congress while Blue’s represent the last eight Congresses.) This suggests that some of the statistics in Prof. Clayson’s column have been improved.
Prof. Clayson adds a coup de grace: “We get the government we deserve. Corrupt leaders are put into office by corrupt voters.” Prof. Clayson is, once again, insulting his readers. In any case, he never explains why we deserve the level of corruption he relates. And, what he gratuitously affirms, I gratuitously deny. Nobody “deserves” corrupt government. "