RE: The New Pork, The Same Old Partisan B.S.
...I guess I should've known that it was off limits to legitimately question the spending habits of Ronald Reagan...
That's absolutely not off limits. No one here claims Reagan was perfect, just better than many before and all since. I have my own issues with Reagan's spending habits. But if you want to evaluate them in a rational and balanced fashion, you will have to include the Democrat-controlled Congress.
...Conservative partisan Republicans like Steve.
You're welcome to give Danbury a call and ask them how I'm registered, Strother. I'll do the same in Winston-Salem for you. And for the sake of completeness, I voted for exactly the same number of Libertarians in the last election as I did Republicans. How about you?
...he's usually just skimming for an argument - not a discussion or questions -— in order to skewer someone he sees as a political opponent.
Nice try, but anyone with a modicum of reading ability will be able to see who read the article before posting and who didn't.
However, the subject of presidents having more disaster declarations in re-election years remains.
Already addressed. If you're going to rebut, please try to pay attention. I'll repeat for you:
But let me expand that since you seem to have missed it. In order to include Reagan in the mix, the author noted that the number of disaster declarations in 1984 was higher than in 1983 and in 1985. The author offered a meaningless and completely unsubstantiated probability figure that supposedly proves that political considerations were in the mix. How one goes about reaching such a statistical conclusion is highly suspect, and since the author doesn't deign to fill us in on the basis of this amazing statistic, it can rationally be discarded. But even if we concede that there might have been political motivations for some of the declarations, the author offers no qualitative information on what disasters were declared. If 90% of the disasters were for bona fide events, then the increase in 1984 is just a matter of bad timing. But we don't know because the author didn't offer it. We can almost assume the reason the author offered examples of silly declarations during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years and neglected to do so for 1984 was because no such declarations occurred, but we can't quite go there because the author doesn't provide enough information.
We can't make many assumptions about any of this because of the lack of detail offered by the Author. We don't know whether the poor quality of the article is the result of agenda or stupidity or both. We do know that it is yet another case of a journalist using naked assertion and unsubstantiated statistics to sell a story that will provide talking points for lazy readers.
Of course, liberal partisan Democrats like Strother aren't looking for facts, they're just looking for things to paste on Reagan so they can argue, "See, Clinton and Carter weren't so bad." If anyone is amazed to find that the Winston-Salem Journal is more than happy to assist in that effort, they simply haven't been paying attention.
I guess that the bigger point here is that presidents running for re-election have found ways to campaign in some very creative ways, some of which may include spending our tax dollars to create goodwill among the voting public.
May include? How about, does include? The most important point is that the last three Presidents have raised it to a level never seen before.
That's absolutely not off limits. No one here claims Reagan was perfect, just better than many before and all since. I have my own issues with Reagan's spending habits. But if you want to evaluate them in a rational and balanced fashion, you will have to include the Democrat-controlled Congress.
...Conservative partisan Republicans like Steve.
You're welcome to give Danbury a call and ask them how I'm registered, Strother. I'll do the same in Winston-Salem for you. And for the sake of completeness, I voted for exactly the same number of Libertarians in the last election as I did Republicans. How about you?
...he's usually just skimming for an argument - not a discussion or questions -— in order to skewer someone he sees as a political opponent.
Nice try, but anyone with a modicum of reading ability will be able to see who read the article before posting and who didn't.
However, the subject of presidents having more disaster declarations in re-election years remains.
Already addressed. If you're going to rebut, please try to pay attention. I'll repeat for you:
If the article wanted to make a point, rather than just demagoguery, it should have included information on the actual disasters declared.
But let me expand that since you seem to have missed it. In order to include Reagan in the mix, the author noted that the number of disaster declarations in 1984 was higher than in 1983 and in 1985. The author offered a meaningless and completely unsubstantiated probability figure that supposedly proves that political considerations were in the mix. How one goes about reaching such a statistical conclusion is highly suspect, and since the author doesn't deign to fill us in on the basis of this amazing statistic, it can rationally be discarded. But even if we concede that there might have been political motivations for some of the declarations, the author offers no qualitative information on what disasters were declared. If 90% of the disasters were for bona fide events, then the increase in 1984 is just a matter of bad timing. But we don't know because the author didn't offer it. We can almost assume the reason the author offered examples of silly declarations during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years and neglected to do so for 1984 was because no such declarations occurred, but we can't quite go there because the author doesn't provide enough information.
We can't make many assumptions about any of this because of the lack of detail offered by the Author. We don't know whether the poor quality of the article is the result of agenda or stupidity or both. We do know that it is yet another case of a journalist using naked assertion and unsubstantiated statistics to sell a story that will provide talking points for lazy readers.
Of course, liberal partisan Democrats like Strother aren't looking for facts, they're just looking for things to paste on Reagan so they can argue, "See, Clinton and Carter weren't so bad." If anyone is amazed to find that the Winston-Salem Journal is more than happy to assist in that effort, they simply haven't been paying attention.
I guess that the bigger point here is that presidents running for re-election have found ways to campaign in some very creative ways, some of which may include spending our tax dollars to create goodwill among the voting public.
May include? How about, does include? The most important point is that the last three Presidents have raised it to a level never seen before.
posted by Anonymous | 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home