Serious scholarly support for Bush?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm interested in seeing if any of our more right-wing, Bush supporting skeptics here can show me any serious scholarly sources that support president Bush's controversial decisions.

So far as I can tell on the internet, there seems to be a lot of Bush supporters out there, but most of them seem to base their opinion on the words of mere pundits, like Mike Savage and Bill O'Reilly, i.e. people I don't take seriously. I imagine the people on this forum can do much better, as I believe far more educated/intellectual discussion takes place here then on other forums.

So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

[Ed]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I'm interested in seeing if any of our more right-wing, Bush supporting skeptics here can show me any serious scholarly sources that support president Bush's controversial decisions.

So far as I can tell on the internet, there seems to be a lot of Bush supporters out there, but most of them seem to base their opinion on the words of mere pundits, like Mike Savage and Bill O'Reilly, i.e. people I don't take seriously. I imagine the people on this forum can do much better, as I believe far more educated/intellectual discussion takes place here then on other forums.

So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

Failing to socialize healthcare and abandoning Kyoto are controversial?

[corplinx]

My guess is that you if you do some searching, you may find scholars who support one decision, scholars that support another, and so on.

If you are looking for some intellectual that supports every decision the president has made on some sort of scholarly grounds, then I think you are setting your goal posts too high.

Has there been a president that some reputable scholarly source has supported every action of?

Being a president is about making lots of compromises. Many times the bills that get passed are far from the clean bills a scholar wants to see. Bush will get criticized by the CATO institute on any bill he spearheads since it will invariably get laden with something that offends them.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by corplinx
My guess is that you if you do some searching, you may find scholars who support one decision, scholars that support another, and so on.

If you are looking for some intellectual that supports every decision the president has made on some sort of scholarly grounds, then I think you are setting your goal posts too high.

Has there been a president that some reputable scholarly source has supported every action of?

Being a president is about making lots of compromises. Many times the bills that get passed are far from the clean bills a scholar wants to see. Bush will get criticized by the CATO institute on any bill he spearheads since it will invariably get laden with something that offends them.

Exactly.

I'm sure there's some out there that are at last close to what you're looking for. Backing President Bush doesn't equate with stupidity or ignorance, just like being against him doesn't equate with intelligence, compassion, and being a better human being. I personally think he's a son of a b****. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't cherry pick all of the research and that there are a few things he has a good solid ground to stand on.

[Ion]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

...
Backing President Bush doesn't equate with stupidity or ignorance,...
...

It does.

Including your grandfather who voted for him.

Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So my question is, what serious scholarly sources are there that supports the Bush administration or its controversial policies? (i.e. abandoning Kyoto, the war on iraq, failing to socialize healthcare, massive tax cuts, etc.)

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think you're partly barking up the wrong tree. By "scholarly" I'm guessing you mean accademic, as in universities. But looking to accademia for guidance on political issues is a dubious proposition. Accademics can and do fail regularly. Particularly on one of the most controversial issues, what to do in the middle east, the accademic community is worse that useless. Even aside from problems with political bias (which abound and are quite serious), from a purely practical standpoint, Middle Easter studies departments and professors have a track record of failing to predict (or mispredicting) pretty much every significant change in the middle east. What good, then, is the support of those who so manifestly cannot master their own putative field of expertise? Niether its absence or pressence are of much use.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Ion
It does.

Including your grandfather who voted for him.

Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq.

It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for Bosnia, Iraq, and Rwanda, G.H.W. Bush for Iraq also, Regean for those that died at the hands of the Contras, Lebanon, Grenada, Carter for his Rose Garden strategy and the deaths from the invasion of Afghanistan, Ford for the Marines lost trying to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez, and he, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy can all take blame for the lives lost in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. What about the kids living in violence in the cities at home? The people paralyzed from stray bullets? The Kent State incident? Plant accidents? Can't we blame these on our presidents' failed policies?

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

A person's vote says nothing about whether they are stupid or ignorant. They may have voted a certain way because they are, but that doesn't work the other way around. You presume that everyone who voted Bush in is stupid or ignorant of the issues facing the world and the current status of global and social affairs.

Are you trying to convince me that people who believe that the "liberals" are running the media are any less stupid or ignorant than people who are convinced that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is running everything in this country? Are people who believe you can pray away gay any more stupid or ignorant than the people who believed that they could save the spotted owls?

Seriously, Ion. You mean to tell me that my grandfather who has had Kerry as his junior Senator for years, knows how Kerry operates in the legislative branch, knows that he's better off under the Democrats than he is the Republicans, and believes that Bush is a twit, still voted for him because he could not believe that Senator Kerry was capable of running the country any better than Bush is stupid or ignorant, while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.

[LostAngeles]

Alas, the spirit of the stairway strikes me.

I should have simply informed Ion that I was going to momentarily believe in God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell, simply so I could tell him/her to go to Hell.

Would have saved some finger work that Ion probably didn't deserve.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Alas, the spirit of the stairway strikes me.

I should have simply informed Ion that I was going to momentarily believe in God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell, simply so I could tell him/her to go to Hell.

Would have saved some finger work that Ion probably didn't deserve.

On the other hand that's the longest "Go to hell" I've seen. Perhaps there's a record of some sort you can claim.

[Ed]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.

Very well put. You have pretty accurately encapsulated my attitude toward those who will pick up on virtually anything that GW does and critisise. It gets really old and is basically stupid.

There really is not much difference between an ardent GW basher and a fundementalist: they both know "Truth".

I don't care for an awful lot about GW but I do not believe that he is the devil either. The funny thing is that when called, most of these folks whose lives seem to revolve around a game of gotcha don't really have very many ideas of their own except for "blank is wrong".

Good post.

[Ion]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

...
Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for...
...
...while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.
...

I blame Bush for Iraq, and not Clinton.

Because from 2000 to 2004 he ruined US and the world.
Clinton wasn't President from 2000 to 2004.
Bush was.
And Bush ruined the world with his 'knowledge' of WMDs in Iraq.
That killed people.
Now he calls the search for WMDs off, without discovering any WMD.
Bush the goof who kills...

November 2nd it was a chance to not be a turn coat on human values and boot the greedy clown out of the office.

But turn coats in US like your grandfather elected him.
They sold their values to the world's killer who is a senile man.

As for my hate of Republicans and support of Democrats, it's even not true, I am an immigrant here, I don't lean for a party, I look at Bush individually, and he run the US consumer economy into the ground with a war in Iraq funded by taxes from a consumer economy collapsing into recession.

[Skeptic]

Well, there are quite a few. The NATIONAL REVIEW (in politics) and the NEW CRITERION (in arts, popular culture, and the media) take a usually pro-Bush line, although neither one is above serious criticism of Bush when they think he's wrong. You can also try COMMENTARY magazine.

There is also a large variety of conservative, generally pro-Bush, think-tanks which publish various reports, analyses, and opinions on the subjects of the day. Their academic and intellectual quality varies enormously, in my opinion. But some of them are good and have intelligent, interesting people.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Ion
I blame Bush for Iraq, and not Clinton.

Because from 2000 to 2004 he ruined US and the world.
Clinton wasn't President from 2000 to 2004.
Bush was.
And Bush ruined the world with his 'knowledge' of WMDs in Iraq.
That killed people.
Now he calls the search for WMDs off, without discovering any WMD.
Bush the goof who kills...

November 2nd it was a chance to not be a turn coat on human values and boot the greedy clown out of the office.

But turn coats in US like your grandfather elected him.
They sold their values to the world's killer who is a senile man.

As for my hate of Republicans and support of Democrats, it's even not true, I am an immigrant here, I don't lean for a party, I look at Bush individually, and he run the US consumer economy into the ground with a war in Iraq funded by taxes from a consumer economy collapsing into recession.

You clearly don't read or aren't aware that after the first Gulf War, bombing runs were run on Iraq fairly regularly by both G.H.W. Bush and Clinton. In case you're not aware, bombs kill and maim people. I'd also like to inform you that George Walker Bush, while a son of b****, is not responsible for the following things: Racism, tribal hatred, world hunger, war orphans in Africa and Asia, religious intolerance, other governments oppression of their people, natural disasters. That list is just off the top of my head of the many things that are wrong in this world and have been since the dawn of civilization.

Now here's another big point that you clearly don't understand. Voting for someone does not make you a turncoat. I don't know where you're from, and frankly it doesn't matter. Here in the United States, you're allowed to put a son of b**** in office, if this is who gets the most electoral votes.

I'm not a big fan of Bush's tax policy, but blaming him for the recession? It's called an economic cycle. There was also the popping of the dot com bubble. You do remember the economic prosperity enjoyed by a fair amount during the 1990s don't you? And the recession before that? And the economic prosperity before that? And then the recession before that? Do I need to keep going? It's not as if you're actually going to read this. You can blame Bush for his handling of the recession, not for the recession itself.

You know, if you're trying to provoke me by constantly bringing my grandfather into this, it's only slightly working. I'm quite angry, but I'm still composing semi-coherent and polite responses to you.

Now I ask you again, leave my family out of this, please, and stop trying to use that to tick me off.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
You know, if you're trying to provoke me by constantly bringing my grandfather into this, it's only slightly working. I'm quite angry, but I'm still composing semi-coherent and polite responses to you.

Now I ask you again, leave my family out of this, please, and stop trying to use that to tick me off.

Unfortunately that won't likely work. Ion was on a kick a while ago where he kept implying I'm jewish because of my support for the Iraq war, despite the fact that I've never discussed my religion or personal history on this board. Oh, and he threw in a really classless and jeuvenile antisemitic joke to go along with it all. Ion is a worm, nothing more. His scorn is closer to a badge of honor than a mark of shame.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Unfortunately that won't likely work. Ion was on a kick a while ago where he kept implying I'm jewish because of my support for the Iraq war, despite the fact that I've never discussed my religion or personal history on this board. Oh, and he threw in a really classless and jeuvenile antisemitic joke to go along with it all. Ion is a worm, nothing more. His scorn is closer to a badge of honor than a mark of shame.

Odd, you're clearly Sumerian from what I can tell. Maybe Mayan.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just going to descend into me telling Ion to go to Hell. Do I at least get a T-shirt for incurring his scorn or should it be my grandfather who gets it?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
In case you're not aware...
Don't waste your time. Ion is not aware of much of anything. He's a self-loathing loser who makes up stories about his feats and accomplishments. He's quite pathetic, really. Don't let him bait you w/ his insults aimed at your grandfather.

[Ion]

Originally posted by WildCat

...
He's a self-loathing loser who makes up stories about his feats and accomplishments.
...

Prove it.

In the thread about the election by Kevin_Lowe I challenged anyone to contest my accomplishments 1.), 2.) and 3.) over there.

You were in that thread but didn't raise to the challenge.

You run away from the challenge.

You are the loser:

you gossip here, but when I challenge you on the spot on the facts of 1.), 2.) and 3.), you run away.

I challenge you one more time, here:

prove it, loser.

[Ion]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
You clearly don't read or aren't aware that after the first Gulf War,...
...
Now here's another big point that you clearly don't understand. Voting for someone does not make you a turncoat...
...

The first Gulf War doesn't matter in between 2000 and 2004, but the wrong war in Iraq (as per U.N. Secretary Annan on September 2004) matters when November 2nd 2004 Bush is elected President by U.S. people.

Voting for Bush -like your grandfather did, like crimreserach does apologetics for people in U.S. with relatives in Iraq who voted for Bush- that makes anyone a turncoat to the value of not attacking to kill for self interests, and makes anyone a bed fellow to Bush, the stupid murderer.

There is no excuse in voting for Bush, there is complicity when voting for Bush.

[DialecticMaterialist]

So far as I can tell, there is yet one serious scholarly source that is in support of Bush. All I have yet to see so far is excuses, mainly in the form of accusations of blind faith in academia.

Skeptic I should note came the closest, with his presentation of certain magazines, however I don't really see magazines as very serious. Sometimes I do if I know there are extremely credible writers there like (Skeptic) but usually when it comes to politics I tend to more rely on journals like Foreign Affairs. Magazines like The National Review I see more as the political equivalent of a tabloid, such as The Nation, certainly worthy of consideration, but hardly something I would change a serious viewpoint on the basis of.

Now onto some criticisms/comments:

LostAngeles:

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

I am not saying people vote for the president for one reason. I am asking if any tend to vote for Bush based on scholarly reasons.


People can likewise go by creationism, or belief in psychics for many reasons: and millions do, in fact most of america (with regards to some paranormal/supernaturalist belief) everyday.

I am asking though if anyone here can give me some serious evidence, some scholarly sources that support many controversial policies followed by Bush. Because I as a skeptic cannot accept a policy or group thereof based merely on pundit commentary or because people vote for Bush for many reasons. In other words, want good reasons.


Ziggurat:


By "scholarly" I'm guessing you mean accademic, as in universities. But looking to accademia for guidance on political issues is a dubious proposition. Accademics can and do fail regularly.

So basically you think we should base our political ideas on hunches and random guesses? Are you seriously saying that its better to base opinion on untested data, then on tested data?

You can say the above with regards to just about any subject, from science, to history, to medicine- and in fact the paranormalist community does do this all the time. Simply saying academic support is not necessary does not make it so.


Accademics can and do fail regularly.

Yeah so do doctors and scientists, does that mean we abandon hospitals and evolutionary theory?

Particularly on one of the most controversial issues, what to do in the middle east, the accademic community is worse that useless.

I'm going to need more evidence then just your word for a claim as serious as that.


Even aside from problems with political bias (which abound and are quite serious), from a purely practical standpoint, Middle Easter studies departments and professors have a track record of failing to predict (or mispredicting) pretty much every significant change in the middle east.

Irrelevant, the fact is they can still present data which is pertinent to the subject at hand.

The fact also is historians and economists fail to predict much, does that mean we shouldn't rely on historians to inform us of history, or economists economics?

Literary professors likewise fail to preict much, does that mean you don't take them seriously?

And in any event, how bad is their (as a general profession) prediction rate to begin with? Can you give me any data on that?

To give a specific example, many foreign policy scholars state that China's industry is in trouble due to its Industrial-Strategic culture that creates redundant enterprises (hurting overall economic growth/productivity) and note that China imports 98% of its technology. Given this data, most foreign policy exports state that we have nothing to fear from trading with china, at least with respect to our economic dominance.

Now given the above reasoning given by chinese scholars, would you merely discard their testimony and data as worthless?

The specific article with data can be found here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701faessay83405/george-j-gilboy/the-myth-behind-china-s-miracle.html


Another example of how academics can infer conclusions from data comes from a study that shows how long-term economic trends in third world democracies show more stable economic growth then autocracies.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83506/joseph-t-siegle-michael-m-weinstein-morton-h-halperin/why-democracies-excel.html


Would you likewise say such data was completely worthless when discussing political matters?

Do you really think a person who examines and tests socioeconomic data for years is no more informed or weighty with regards to testimony then someone who looks at an issue for a few minutes and comes to a snap judgment?


I am not btw saying that the experts are always right, or in total agreement, and that the layperson is always wrong. What I am saying is all things being equal, I would take the testimony of an expert over the testimony of a laymen, especially if the expert presents peer reviewed data. And I am also saying that while its true experts may disagree, usually a general consensus can be reached.

To make an analogy, if someone recommended a cure, and presented no scientific testimony or testimony from the established medical community, I doubt you would use it, or advocate it. That is because you realize experts dealing with tested data are more reliable then dubious cures developed by laymen. The practice is then unreliable, and more of a risk to use then not use. Now doctors are not always right, the food pyramid put forth by the medical community has now be revealed to be seriously flawed due to attempts to over-simplify it. But generally, I would still at least want a doctors opinion before I started drinking a potion said to cure an ailment.

With regards to politics then, experts are not always right, but isn't it better to look at them for opinions, instead of some quack pundit?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
It's difficult to compose a short and concise response to that without flying in the face of all the listed unacceptable behavoirs in the Membership Agreement. I'm not sure if I'm sick of Ion or if it's simply an extension of my irritation with both sides of the political platform.

Every president can be blamed, if you like, for people being killed and maimed in places both domestic and foreign. We can blame G.W. Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, Clinton for Bosnia, Iraq, and Rwanda, G.H.W. Bush for Iraq also, Regean for those that died at the hands of the Contras, Lebanon, Grenada, Carter for his Rose Garden strategy and the deaths from the invasion of Afghanistan, Ford for the Marines lost trying to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez, and he, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy can all take blame for the lives lost in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. What about the kids living in violence in the cities at home? The people paralyzed from stray bullets? The Kent State incident? Plant accidents? Can't we blame these on our presidents' failed policies?

Let's clear the water here. People voted for Bush for different reasons. Not all of them bought into 9/11 + Saddamn or the "fags are ruining America" crap that was floated around. Not all of them believed the Swift Boat Vets. Not all of them belived that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus. Some prefer the fiscal and tax policies of Republicans. Some prefer the social conservatism. Some simply didn't like or have any faith in Senator Kerry. Some looked at the race and saw a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Some vote along party lines. Like all things, there are almost as many reasons for believing or doing something as there are people, give or take about five-thousand.

A person's vote says nothing about whether they are stupid or ignorant. They may have voted a certain way because they are, but that doesn't work the other way around. You presume that everyone who voted Bush in is stupid or ignorant of the issues facing the world and the current status of global and social affairs.

Are you trying to convince me that people who believe that the "liberals" are running the media are any less stupid or ignorant than people who are convinced that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is running everything in this country? Are people who believe you can pray away gay any more stupid or ignorant than the people who believed that they could save the spotted owls?

Seriously, Ion. You mean to tell me that my grandfather who has had Kerry as his junior Senator for years, knows how Kerry operates in the legislative branch, knows that he's better off under the Democrats than he is the Republicans, and believes that Bush is a twit, still voted for him because he could not believe that Senator Kerry was capable of running the country any better than Bush is stupid or ignorant, while I've watched you get your hate on the Republican party simply because they are Republican and latch on to any bit of dirt you can get on them and expect me to believe that you might not be stupid or ignorant yourself?

Well, to be frank and as polite as possible, I don't think you're quite with it. I think you've let your hatred blind you and polarize you, making your nick quite appropriate. This, I think, has made you an idiot and a Democratic crybaby.

I would appreciate it, then, if you would keep quiet and not bring my family members into these discussions again.
If I can figure out how, I'm gonna nominate this for Merc's language award for January.

[DialecticMaterialist]

While I may admit that Ion was himself being a bit less then reasonable, to put it politely: I hardly think a "Grandmpa says" response, followed by a flurry of personal attacks makes for much better form. Though I can understand one's impatience on the matter.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So basically you think we should base our political ideas on hunches and random guesses? Are you seriously saying that its better to base opinion on untested data, then on tested data?


Nothing of the sort. Rather that you can find such data, and serious analysis, in places other than academia. Thos other sources can be think tanks, columnists (like Amir Taheri, a very good source) or even individuals. For example, belmontclub.blogspot.com has, for my money, provided some of the best analysis of the situation in Iraq to be found. It's serious, and sometimes even quantitative, analysis, but it probably doesn't count as "scholarly".

Yeah so do doctors and scientists, does that mean we abandon hospitals and evolutionary theory?

If your odds of getting sicker were higher than your odds of getting better by going to a doctor, then yeah, it should be pretty obvious that you should abandon them, at least till they develop a better track record. That SHOULD be obvious, the only point of debate should be what academia's track record has been regarding the middle east. I'm claiming it's very bad. I'll provide some evidence below, feel free to provide counter-evidence if you want.

I'm going to need more evidence then just your word for a claim as serious as that.

Fair enough question. I'll give you a few things to think about, but I'm not going to chase this point endlessly. This isn't comprehensive, of course so if you still don't agree, fine, but this should at least provide you with an idea of where I'm coming from.

For one recent example, I point to a little spat between Juan Cole, a middle east history professor, and some Iraqi webloggers:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#1100993223832 01686
Cole apparently couldn't even get past history correct, parroting the claim that Fallujah was a center of the 1920's rebellion against the British when it wasn't. Their spat continued in later posts when Cole linked to a site suggesting that those Iraqis were really CIA plants, but he backed off that pretty quick when he realized how absurd those accusations were.

For a broader perspective, here's a very nice article on academia's repeated failures regarding the middle east over the last few decades:
http://www.martinkramer.org/pages/899528/index.htm
Basically, they've missed pretty much every major change in the middle east. They didn't know what they were talking about in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and there's no reason to think they've all suddenly figured it out now when the same ideological blinkers are still firmly in place.

Literary professors likewise fail to preict much, does that mean you don't take them seriously?

Not a good argument, since they aren't in a predictive business. But as a matter of fact, I really don't take most of literary criticism (the bulk of academic "literary profession") seriously. They still use Freud for psychology and Marx for economic theory, when both economics and psychology have left those thinkers in the distant past where they belong.

And in any event, how bad is their (as a general profession) prediction rate to begin with? Can you give me any data on that?

I can't give you numbers, but I can give you examples. Michel Foucault, the famous French intellectual, was enamoured of the 1978 Iranian revolution, since it seemed to fit into the nice lefty anti-colonial, revolutionary, people-power claptrap narative that's still so popular among many "thinkers". It took things like the mullahs hanging an Iranian gay lover of his for him to realize that the mullahs were crazy bastards, not spokesmen of the people.

Or how about Chomsky's predictions that millions would starve because of our invasion of Afghanistan? He wasn't just off on that one, he was completely wrong.

There are more, of course, but I'm lazy. I'd be interested to find out when they've made any correct predictions that weren't completely obvious. And I'm not hearing much from them now that is of any use either.

[Skeptic]

So far as I can tell, there is yet one serious scholarly source that is in support of Bush. All I have yet to see so far is excuses, mainly in the form of accusations of blind faith in academia.

Let us distinguish between two things: predictive power of future actions, and a philosophical justification of current ones.

When it comes to predictive power, well, you SHOULDN'T have blind faith in academia--any more than you should have blind faith in any other group of predictors or analyzers.

I suggest a small experiment, which I have--in fact--performed myself. Look at back issues of FOREIGN AFFAIRS or some equivalent academic publication; say, what they said during the year 2000 about how Bush will be like or how he will do.

What is their hit rate? Did they reach 50%-50%? Not even close. And, if you will notice, the more general and vague the predictions and claims they made then, the greater the chance that they will score a "hit". Vague claims about "Bush's religion changing politics"? Sure. But anything SPECIFIC? 99% wrong.

...sounds similar to some group of people we know??? Yes, to psychics and "cold readers". It is beyound me why on earth psychics are despised by right-thinking persons, while political "experts" and economic "analysts" (whose predictions usually come down to "the market will go up, unless it will go down") are respected any more.

In the "predictions" department, it seems that academia has one serious disadvantage over "regular folks". The hit rate of both groups is rather dismal, (as Neils Bohr said, "it's hard to predict, especially concerning the future"), but the problem with academia is that they have a tendency to stick to some "genius" who is just as wrong as everybody else (Kissinger, Chomsky, Greenspan, Soros, or whomever) and take his word as gospel truth, for a whil at least.

Now, moving to the "philosophical justification" issue...

Skeptic I should note came the closest, with his presentation of certain magazines, however I don't really see magazines as very serious.

It depends WHICH magazine, does it not? I would say that your bias against magazines is justified in general--e.g., if you're thinking of the NATIONAL INQUIRER or NEW YORK POST, etc.--but not when it comes to more serious magazines. Most political or economic commentary, including scholarly books, first appears in magazines.

I would say that to compare THE NEW CRITERION and COMMENTARY or FOREIGN AFFAIRS to either THE NATION or THE WEEKLY STANDARD, for instance, is to do the former group an injustice. "The Nation" has long ago became a conspiracy-theory anti-Republican screed sheet, while "The Weekly Standard" is a conspiracy-theory anti-Democrat screed sheet. But why should that bias you against serious magazines?

If you insist, I can, to be sure, give you a whole list of books that support Bush's economic or social or military views. We can start with books by Robert Bork, Roger Kimball, and Alan Dershowitz, for example. But surely, the vast majority of political books--by the likes of Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Simon Hersh, and Bill O'Reilly--are beyound worthless (most of them would qualify as causing positive harm to one's critical faculties). And you wouldn't BELIEVE some of the nonsense that the previously-repectable places like Oxford University Press or Chicago Universtiy Press publicshes today!

So I chose good magazines over sholarly books on the "90% of both is crap" argument--which I know is not really accurate, but it is good enough for our purposes--why not use them? For our purposes, they are more accessible and rigorous enough. So why not look at that?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
...
I am not saying people vote for the president for one reason. I am asking if any tend to vote for Bush based on scholarly reasons.

...

No, that was directed at Ion, not you. I orginally agreed with corplinx that there should be some because not all Bush voters are "stupid or ignorant." That's where Ion jumped in and needed to get a bit personal. So I corrected him.


While I may admit that Ion was himself being a bit less then reasonable, to put it politely: I hardly think a "Grandmpa says" response, followed by a flurry of personal attacks makes for much better form. Though I can understand one's impatience on the matter.


Uh, that wasn't a "Grandmpa says" response that I posted. That was a "I say" response followed a short paragraph of personal attacks where I say that Ion's attitude is making him/her act like an idiot.

[Ion]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

...
...I say that Ion's attitude is making him/her act like an idiot.
To which I said and say that supporting Bush -in the November 2nd., 2004 election, and elsewhere- makes one accomplice to an idiot who kills and ruins.

To reprise the title of this thread, I am not aware of a scholarly support in U.S. or the world, to anything that Bush has done between 2000 and 2004.

[demon]

Ion:
"Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq."

Amen.
There is no end of evidence to show that victims are divided up into "worthy" and "unworthy" depending on their significance for powerful interests. The victims in Iraq are a problem, for example, their suffering reflects badly on Western power.
It's the same wherever you look - no one knows what Clinton did to the Sudan and Haiti but eveyone knows what Saddam did to Halabja... Palestinian victims can't compete with Israeli victims in reporting, and so on.
If Saddam had done what the US did to Fallujah, it may well have "competed" with the tsunami.

[Ion]

Originally posted by demon
Ion:
"Bush is responsible for killing and maiming people in Iraq."

Amen.
There is no end of evidence to show that victims are divided up into "worthy" and "unworthy" depending on their significance for powerful interests.
...

Exactly, demon.

I am glad that you support my outrage.

Just based on this killing and maiming in Iraq -while forgetting for an instant Bush's aberrations in economy- moral people in U.S. should have not elected Bush for President November 2004, if these so-called moral people were truely moral people and not bandits themselves.

Some people in this thread, have no shame to overlook -and even to condone sometimes- Bush's disrespect for human lives and to encourage Bush in the election.

These people turn the tables from a world criminal to pretend that I harp unreasonably on my distaste for Bush.

These people have no shame to be accomplice in Bush's crimes, and they turn the tables...

Once again, Bush's war was deemed illegal by the U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan September 2004, the war was deemed as increasing terrorism worldwide by Annan October 2004, a panel of Nobel prize winners in economy expressed disagreement with the value of Bush's economic policies, two Harvard professors in economy expressed disrespect for Bush's economic policies, and there is no scholarly support for Bush in U.S. or the world in between 2000 and 2004.

With disgust for Bush and the bandits in this forum that supported and voted for him, I post a link to the realization by the clown himself of his unforgetable record-setting screw up.

Bush regrets hurting U.S. diplomacy from Reuters:

http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/news/national/story.htm?linkfrom=Today&link=newsticker&article=HOL400699

In that article, the dangerous to the world clown states:

"Our diplomacy efforts aren't...very robust, and aren't very good, compared to the public diplomacy efforts of those who would like to spread hatred...and vilify the United States."


Unfortunately for the wronged, actions speak louder than words and Bush radiates:

failure and murders.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Nothing of the sort. Rather that you can find such data, and serious analysis, in places other than academia. Thos other sources can be think tanks, columnists (like Amir Taheri, a very good source) or even individuals. For example, belmontclub.blogspot.com has, for my money, provided some of the best analysis of the situation in Iraq to be found. It's serious, and sometimes even quantitative, analysis, but it probably doesn't count as "scholarly".

Yes but still, given the more controlled, peer reviewed nature of scholarly and academic sources vs. others that may easily be taking the data out of context or utilizing flawed data from the onset, I tend to put more trust in scholars who study the issue in depth, in a peer reviewed envrinment, for years as opposed to think tanks (which often times get paid more to endorse a pre-set conclusion then do serious investigation), columnists who's understanding is likely to be superficial, and individuals who's testimony is questionable.

To bolster my case I should note in informal logic there is a distinction between a false appeal to authority and a legitimate appeal to authority i.e. expert testimony.

To take an excerpt from the book How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age:

Appeal to Authority

We often try to support our views by citing experts. This sort of appeal to authority is perfectly valid---provided that the person cited really is an expert in the field in question. If not it is fallacious. Celebrity endorsements for example, often involve fallacious appeals to authority. because being famous doesn't necessarily give you any special expertise.

Hence using the criteria of false vs. legitmate appeal to authority, I must say appealing to academia has less of chance coming off as a false appeal, especially when it is by an expert in their given field, or in a peer reviewed environment, then citing a think tank, columnist or lay person does.


Originally posted by Ziggurat For one recent example, I point to a little spat between Juan Cole, a middle east history professor, and some Iraqi webloggers:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#1100993223832 01686
Cole apparently couldn't even get past history correct, parroting the claim that Fallujah was a center of the 1920's rebellion against the British when it wasn't. Their spat continued in later posts when Cole linked to a site suggesting that those Iraqis were really CIA plants, but he backed off that pretty quick when he realized how absurd those accusations were.

Yes, of course blind faith in academia is no better then blind faith in any other group. Of course, sometimes academics are wrong and lay people (usually themselves relying on the work of other academics) are correct.

However the fact of the matter is you can do the above with regards to any group. Creationists constantly cite evolutionary biologists that make a blunder occasionally, paranormalists will generalize the skeptic that makes mistakes due to being over-zealous. Many psychologists now at days still adhere, very strictly, to the writings of Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner, I hardly think that itself discredits the works of modern neurocognitive science, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics though.

I imagine such mistakes, if anything are likely to be more common with regards to the social sciences, seeing as they deal with more complex phenomenon, and are relatively new.

However the fact is finding the lone nut, or two in a field hardly discredits the field as a whole. Or even puts the experts on the same grounds as lay person's.

I should note, if anything the argument imo, strenghtens support for academia, as it shows some good academic knowledge can be used to counter very bad academic theories.



Originally posted by Ziggurat For a broader perspective, here's a very nice article on academia's repeated failures regarding the middle east over the last few decades:
http://www.martinkramer.org/pages/899528/index.htm
Basically, they've missed pretty much every major change in the middle east. They didn't know what they were talking about in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and there's no reason to think they've all suddenly figured it out now when the same ideological blinkers are still firmly in place.

I'm sorry but I don't see how this follows. The above page is that of a single academic professor, who does not really go into much of his work or others in depth.

In any event, even given your criteria of predicting specific, long-term trends I think the standard is a bit unfair.

I should note for example evolutionary biologists cannot predict the exact long-term trends of a species evolution, or what fossils will be found in a very exact manner. And doctors cannot predict what new kinds of diseases we will discover, or where the next epidemic will come from or how, in any exact manner.

However that os often not the criteria we use for such matters. The criteria we use is more varied. For example, we judge doctors more on whether they can predict with a statistical degree of correctness, whether a certain procedure will cure a disease more then chance. We judge biological theories based on the type of data that is uncovered in general.

Likewise we can do the same with regards to historians, not judging theories by very specific events but by long-term trends. Also not judging the theories by mere prediction, but by parsimony.

I can note in any event some specific predictions that certain historians, sociologists and economists have made, which have come true.

For example many in the State Department calculated correctly that Bush not putting in enough troops to secure Iraq and not properly sercuring the Iran-Syrian border would lead to widespread civil unrest and disorder, and even made specific predictions of what sorts of problems would arise as a matter of consequence, this as opposed to the Bush administration which believed that Iraqi gratitude over liberation would make State Department fears unfounded:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html

To take an excerpt:

But Washington failed to take such steps, for the same reasons it decided to occupy Iraq with a relatively light force: hubris and ideology. Contemptuous of the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen through its "Future of Iraq" project, which had anticipated many of the problems that emerged after the invasion. Instead of preparing for the worst, Pentagon planners assumed that Iraqis would joyously welcome U.S. and international troops as liberators. With Saddam's military and security apparatus destroyed, the thinking went, Washington could capitalize on the goodwill by handing the country over to Iraqi expatriates such as Ahmed Chalabi, who would quickly create a new democratic state. Not only would fewer U.S. troops be needed at first, but within a year, the troop levels could drop to a few tens of thousands.

Another example comes from the use of UN sanctions on Iraq, much of which beforehand was criticized by non-experts as a failure, but which modern post-invasion data has now vindicated as proven to have eroded Iraq's military capabilities:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701faessay83409/george-a-lopez-david-cortright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.html

Some excerpts:

Most coverage of the weapons inspections that began after the Gulf War focused on Baghdad's efforts to stall, evade, and obstruct UN monitors. But despite Saddam's recalcitrance, the record now shows that the UN disarmament program -- which Vice President Dick Cheney dubbed "the most intrusive system of arms control in history" -- decapitated Iraq's banned weapons programs and destroyed the infrastructure that would have allowed it to restart clandestine programs. From 1991 to 1998, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) identified and dismantled almost all of Iraq's prohibited weapons. In conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it conducted hundreds of inspection missions at weapons sites and documentation centers, systematically uncovering and eliminating Iraq's nuclear weapons program and most of its chemical, biological, and ballistic missile systems. After four months of further inspections from November 2002 until March 2003 -- which included 237 missions to 148 sites -- the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) confirmed the depleted state of Iraq's capabilities.

Note I am not of course say mere correlation equals causations in any of the above two examples.

What I am saying is that the predictions are correlated with specific concrete events of the type predicted, or specific actions noted that had an obvious causal role.

With regards to the sanctions for example specific cases of denying Iraq the ability to import weapons, and disarmament support the case for the utility of UN sanctions.


On this I should note that the notion of all academics adhering to one monolithic ideology is extremely flawed. Many advocate different, often times competing, theories on issues.

I think then given that, instead of judging academia as a whole by whether or not a single or small group made a bad prediction, we should more be comparing specific theories concerning events and see which ones fair better.

For example there are two theories of democracy, the "build up first" theory, that states democracies need a certain political/economic infrastructure in which to arise, before which autocracies actually are better for running the country and the theory that concludes demcoracies can exist more indepent of other socioeconomic forces, and that democracy can actually help a nation develope.

Out of the two models, so far much data based on cross-cultural studies have shown that the latter theory has so far had more predictive power then the former.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83506/joseph-t-siegle-michael-m-weinstein-morton-h-halperin/why-democracies-excel.html

Given that data, I would say it would be erroneous to simply toss out all academic prediction as worthless, and more worthwhile to note that some academic theories are simply better then others.

Hence my point would be that academic knowledge is not tossed out by layman knowledge, or rejected as a whole, but more superceded by better academic knowledge.






Originally posted by Ziggurat Not a good argument, since they aren't in a predictive business. But as a matter of fact, I really don't take most of literary criticism (the bulk of academic "literary profession") seriously. They still use Freud for psychology and Marx for economic theory, when both economics and psychology have left those thinkers in the distant past where they belong.

But that was my point, that a scholars measure isn't solely determined by whether or not they can predict specific events. It can also be determined by how parsimonious their interpretation of the data is.

As for your objection to literary scholars:

A) Do you have any evidence that the majority adhere to Marx and or Freud?

B) Do you have any evidence that this impacts their work to such a degree as to make their statements worthless?

For example Baum literary scholars have in many ways discredited the notion that Baum was a populist who wrote the "Wizard of Oz" as a political allegory.

They base this conclusion on Republican poems Baum wrote, the fact that Baum tended to shy away from politicis in his writing (and the one time he did write a political allegory it was very obvious and clumsy) and other such data.

Even if these scholars were Marxist, or Freudians then, would you reject their authority on the matter, their evidence, or their testimony on that basis alone?




Originally posted by Ziggurat I can't give you numbers, but I can give you examples. Michel Foucault, the famous French intellectual, was enamoured of the 1978 Iranian revolution, since it seemed to fit into the nice lefty anti-colonial, revolutionary, people-power claptrap narative that's still so popular among many "thinkers". It took things like the mullahs hanging an Iranian gay lover of his for him to realize that the mullahs were crazy bastards, not spokesmen of the people.

Michael Focault was a postmodernist, and admittedly a nut. However you cannot judge all of academia by a few fringe nuts out there.

That would be like me judging the opinion of all lay persons on the basis of a single man in the mental hospital.

Originally posted by Ziggurat Or how about Chomsky's predictions that millions would starve because of our invasion of Afghanistan? He wasn't just off on that one, he was completely wrong.

Yes and the majority of experts on the matter generally dismissed Chomsky's ideas as ridiculous or taken out of context.

For example even the graduate student, Brenden Nyhan (political science major) was able to debunk Chomsky's Afghan rantings:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2001_11_04_archive.html


Chomsky I should also note is a linguist, not a historian, political scientist, foreign policy expert or econimist. Hence attempting to use him to discredit respected members of their fields is somewhat like me trying to use what an astronomer says about biology, to discredit biologists.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic

So I chose good magazines over sholarly books on the "90% of both is crap" argument--which I know is not really accurate, but it is good enough for our purposes--why not use them? For our purposes, they are more accessible and rigorous enough. So why not look at that?

I would really need to see hard data for that assertion before I took it seriously.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I would like to also ask many here a question, and it is, while it may be one thing to have a few scholars against certain policies, or administrations. Don't you think it quite another to have the vast majority of scholars against certain policies and administrations?

I mean in such a case, either all the scholars must be in conspiracy or brain washed (unlikely) or maybe the president's policies can be seen as overly flawed (more likely).

I myself, in most situations, tend to side with the educated, over the uneducated.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion
I blame Bush for Iraq, and not Clinton.

Because from 2000 to 2004 he ruined US and the world.
Clinton wasn't President from 2000 to 2004.
Bush was.
And Bush ruined the world with his 'knowledge' of WMDs in Iraq.
That killed people.
Now he calls the search for WMDs off, without discovering any WMD.
Bush the goof who kills...

November 2nd it was a chance to not be a turn coat on human values and boot the greedy clown out of the office.

But turn coats in US like your grandfather elected him.
They sold their values to the world's killer who is a senile man.

As for my hate of Republicans and support of Democrats, it's even not true, I am an immigrant here, I don't lean for a party, I look at Bush individually, and he run the US consumer economy into the ground with a war in Iraq funded by taxes from a consumer economy collapsing into recession.

Bravo! One of the best arguments I've ever heard for closing the US borders to any further immigration.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Bravo! One of the best arguments I've ever heard for closing the US borders to any further immigration.
Prove that it is a good argument to close the US borders to immigration.

Prove it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes but still, given the more controlled, peer reviewed nature of scholarly and academic sources vs. others that may easily be taking the data out of context or utilizing flawed data from the onset, I tend to put more trust in scholars who study the issue in depth, in a peer reviewed envrinment, for years as opposed to think tanks (which often times get paid more to endorse a pre-set conclusion then do serious investigation), columnists who's understanding is likely to be superficial, and individuals who's testimony is questionable.


If you want to talk about peer-reviewed articles, well, there really aren't many peer-reviewed articles in favor OR opposed to Bush's policies. Of course, you can find peer-reviewed articles used in arguments in favor of or against Bush's policies, but that's a rather different thing altogether. But even in regards to peer-reviewed work, that can be dangerously biased as well, as we have seen from the thoroughly debunked "100,000 dead" figure for Iraq. That was peer-reviewed, but it was still complete garbage.

Hence using the criteria of false vs. legitmate appeal to authority, I must say appealing to academia has less of chance coming off as a false appeal, especially when it is by an expert in their given field, or in a peer reviewed environment, then citing a think tank, columnist or lay person does.

I think you're rather missing my point: supposed experts in middle east history and society in the US are not in fact experts. They generally do not know what they are talking about, and have no track record of actual accomplishments to demonstrate otherwise. That they are professors does not make them experts.

However the fact is finding the lone nut, or two in a field hardly discredits the field as a whole. Or even puts the experts on the same grounds as lay person's.

It's not about one or two lone nuts. It's about most of the field. The loners are the people who actually know what they're talking about, and haven't been brainwashed by post-modernist and post-colonial claptrap.


In any event, even given your criteria of predicting specific, long-term trends I think the standard is a bit unfair.

I should note for example evolutionary biologists cannot predict the exact long-term trends of a species evolution, or what fossils will be found in a very exact manner. And doctors cannot predict what new kinds of diseases we will discover, or where the next epidemic will come from or how, in any exact manner.


It's not unfair in the least. If they can't predict trends, then what use are they? Doctors aren't in the business of predicting new diseases, but they had damned well better be able to predict the course of a known disease, as well as how someone will respond to different treatments. If doctors can't do that with at least a decent level of certainty, they are of no use. Similarly, middle-east accademia is currently of almost no use, because they can't predict anything of use.

For example many in the State Department calculated correctly that Bush not putting in enough troops to secure Iraq

State department isn't accademia. But state department also didn't put forward predictions about what it would take for the armed forces to be able to commit significantly more troops over a long period of time (both in terms of strain on the military as well as security vulnerabilities elsewhere). And since the biggest limiting factor isn't actually troop levels but actionable intelligence, it's actually not clear that having more troops would really have made much difference in the overall level of security.

Another example comes from the use of UN sanctions on Iraq, much of which beforehand was criticized by non-experts as a failure, but which modern post-invasion data has now vindicated as proven to have eroded Iraq's military capabilities:

That's not the only issue regarding whether or not sanctions were a failure. Sanctions were not intended to merely cripple Saddam's military. They were ultimately intended to force compliance with UN resolutions. And since Saddam never did comply with the UN resolutions (not having WMD stockpiles wasn't sufficient), it's really hard for me to see why anyone can seriously argue that sanctions were a success. They did not accomplish what they were intended to accomplish. Therefore they were a failure. It's really that simple.

On this I should note that the notion of all academics adhering to one monolithic ideology is extremely flawed. Many advocate different, often times competing, theories on issues.


Sometimes, sometimes not. But it's really hard to look at the slant in both voting and party donations among the top universities in the US and not conclude that there's a systematic bias among faculty. Because there is. And it's self-reinforcing: academics don't hear conservative ideas from other academics, because there are so few conservative academics, so they end up thinking certain ideas are the norm, or simply givens, when they aren't. This failing is not unique to academia, but the supposed spirit of free inquiry hasn't actually freed universities from this pitfall.

I'll leave you with one final thought: Afghanistan has been a great success. We're not done there yet, but we've made incredible progress, and it's heading in the right direction. If you can find an academic source that predicted anything like the kind of success we've had there BEFORE we went in (or really, success at all), that's a source to keep your eye on. Pretty much everyone I remember was talking about how we couldn't succeed.

[Shinytop]

I cannot beleive people are responding to ION. By his posts I judge his age to be no more than 15. By his responses maybe 10.

Oh ya!

[Ion]

Originally posted by Shinytop
I cannot beleive people are responding to ION. By his posts I judge his age to be no more than 15. By his responses maybe 10.

Oh ya!
Well, if it was 10, then is still more that what yours appears to be.

Ask me why.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Ion
Well, if it was 10, then is still more that what yours appears to be.

Damn, I love it when my viewpoint is immediately proven correct! :)

[Ion]

You just fell for this:
Originally posted by Shinytop
I cannot beleive people are responding to ION.
...

1.) by incoherently responding to my quote, here:
Originally posted by Shinytop
Damn, I love it when my viewpoint is immediately proven correct!...
2.) and by incoherently responding to me when sending me five private messages to 'justify' it.

(Never mind learning how to spell believe in your mother tongue)

That's why you seem under 10.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Ion
You just fell for this:

1.) by incoherently responding to my quote, here:

2.) and by incoherently responding to me when sending me five private messages to 'justify' it.

(Never mind learning how to spell believe in your mother tongue)

That's why you seem under 10.

This IS a reply to your post. You have committed two violations of net etiquette. First you commented on a spelling error, an error much more likely to have been the result of a typing error than anything else. Not serious but considered childish or pedantic by most people who post on the net on a frequent basis.

The second breach of etiquette is flat not permitted on most forums I post on and I am very surprised your post was not deleted. You commented on PM's. PM stands for PRIVATE message. Contents, and usually, even that PM's are exchanged are not supposed to be commented on. The rule is in place on most forums so that discussions that can grow heated do not take place in the public forum. You got a break from lenient rules or lenient mods. But if you are more mature than indicated by your messages you can learn.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Shinytop
This IS a reply to your post. You have committed two violations of net etiquette.
...

Don't worry about my etiquette, when you don't have one:

you back stabbed me out of the blue, without me provoking you, by wondering how people respond to my criticisms of Bush's murders worldwide, then -contradicting your own wonder- you responded like a hypocrite to my quote and you sent me five unsollicited messages engaging me and responding to me.

With a behavior like this, you need to marry Bush.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ion
Prove it.

In the thread about the election by Kevin_Lowe I challenged anyone to contest my accomplishments 1.), 2.) and 3.) over there.

You were in that thread but didn't raise to the challenge.

You run away from the challenge.

You are the loser:

you gossip here, but when I challenge you on the spot on the facts of 1.), 2.) and 3.), you run away.

I challenge you one more time, here:

prove it, loser.
I did contest your "accomplishments". I can't prove my allegations - that you're not a scientist or a world-class swimmer since I don't even know your name. But you're clearly stupid, you proved that all by yourself. This thread for instance, not a single post of yours addresses the subject, proving that you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. In fact, you've made no actual contribution to any thread you ever posted on.

Further proof of your infinite stupidity is the fact that you emigrated to a country you hate.

Your lack of critical thinking skills makes it highly unlikely you are a scientist.

In short, you're a liar and a loser, a pathetic creature who blames all his failures on Jews and Americans.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I would really need to see hard data for that assertion before I took it seriously.

The "90% of everything is crap" was not a serious statement, I was quoting what's known as "Sturgeon's law", after the science-fiction author. But the serious point is that there IS serious scholarly support for Bush in serious journals AND in books--I gave a few examples--and it's easier to compare journals.

[Ion]

WildCat talks about stupidity, with an acknowledgment of his stupidity:
Originally posted by WildCat
I did contest your "accomplishments". I can't prove my allegations - that you're not a scientist or a world-class swimmer since I don't even know your name. But you're clearly stupid, you proved that all by yourself. This thread for instance, not a single post of yours addresses the subject,...
...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ion
WildCat talks about stupidity, with an acknowledgment of his stupidity:
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ion
WildCat talks about stupidity, with an acknowledgment of his stupidity:

Ion, it seems you never manage to squeeze out a single one-line post without an "edited by..." reference beneath it. Are you a lousy typist, or just a friggin' moron?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jocko

...
Are you a lousy typist, or just a friggin' moron?
I am a foreigner, English is not my first language.

I told you this, so you are the frigging moron, not me.

[Ion]

Originally posted by WildCat
(snip)
A poem to Cat's idiocy.

[Ion]

I think this thread evidences the lack of scholarly support for Bush's presidency.

Bush is a moron President, presiding over a nation of mostly morons, many exposed by me in this thread.

However, Bush gets lots of attention in the cartoons sections instead.

Attention like this (which depicts his tragic behavior in the world):

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050116/cartoon20051116.gif

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The "90% of everything is crap" was not a serious statement, I was quoting what's known as "Sturgeon's law", after the science-fiction author. But the serious point is that there IS serious scholarly support for Bush in serious journals AND in books--I gave a few examples--and it's easier to compare journals.

You gave magazines, not journals. And the authors you gave provided very narrow support, one of them being a strict originalist viewpoint with regards to court (which may not necessarily be support for Bush), and another being a radio show host who's come into some hot water as of late.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Shinytop
I cannot beleive people are responding to ION. By his posts I judge his age to be no more than 15. By his responses maybe 10.

Oh ya!

Hehe, I was thinking the same thing. A 15-16 year old boy who gets beat up a lot, thrilling in newfound emotional certaintism, beaking off like a similarly aged and experienced hyper-religious kid.

The casual factoid-dropping cross-references about Bush "destroying" the economy belie an attitude and cultural-fantasized worldview that would, rhetorically speaking, be best described as rabid.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Beerina
Hehe, I was thinking...
You think now, Pee?

Since when?

[Ion]

I still don't find scholarly support for Bush, but I keep finding mocking cartoons of Bush's tragedies, good for resident morons that I expose here (i.e.: Pee, Chicago_Projects_Cat, L.A.'s grandpa, Abysmal -er, peptoabysmal-, Edone -er, Ed-, Shinytop_Slob&Bald, Jocky, etc.) to ingurgitate:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050120/Cartoon20050120.gif

http://cagle.com/news/Inauguration2005/Images4/parker.gif

Happy chewing of what you choose to have and be, U.S. morons.