Republican Women “wasting time”? (updated 29dec15)

George Rebane

Re Ms Annamaria Sauer’s letter in the 26dec15 Union responding to the charge that the NC Republican Women Federated are wasting their time deriving a biased, therefore worthless, audit of the newspaper’s count of publishing politically slanted op-ed content. The local hard Left has long criticized The Union as being tilted toward the Right in its editorial stance.  Some have even labeled the paper as the ‘Tea Party Gazette’, and taken to task every piece that does not support their own ideology on the accusation that the paper’s management willfully rejects presenting a “balanced” outlook that reflects the view of our “purple county”.

Of course, unsurprisingly none of this is backed up by a shred of evidence – it is simply a naked assertion that gains traction mainly with the community’s light thinkers. So it is strange, but still unsurprising given their proclivities, that they dun the effort by the NCRWF to actually individually assess and count the pieces into primarily ‘liberal’, ‘neutral’, and ‘conservative’ categories.  The Left further charges that such efforts are worthless because the NCRWF is intrinsically a conservetarian organization.  But as someone long ago said, ‘Let him among you who is unbiased perform the first such audit.’

No doubt the NCRWF audit of The Union reflects the assessors’ ideology, but the results presented to The Union were in great detail down to the individual column, cartoon, and letter. If the categorical assignments were slanted, they could be easily discovered by anyone claiming a more ideologically correct visage.  I’m sure that The Union would even release the data to anyone willing to go through the effort.

(The actual scope of the NCRWF audit extended to discovering inconsistencies in The Union’s published policy about what submittals from which authors at what frequencies and lengths were in fact printed. The results, which he failed to mention in his article, surprised publisher Jim Hemig.  Nevertheless Mr Hemig was happy to receive the audit and has since then issued to its readership the “January Challenge” to replicate the ideological assessment introduced by the NCRWF.) 

But the original criticism that such an audit of our newspaper was/is a waste of time is both gratuitous and totally unwarranted because 1) it does provide a documented datapoint of The Union’s existential perspective, 2) it is by far not the only community service that the NCRWF performs as outlined by Ms Sauer, and 3) neither the critic nor the community were harmed by Mr Hemig’s report of his receipt of the NCRWF audit. The only ones left with egg on their faces are those of the loudly ignorant Left whose unfounded assertions were exposed.

[29dec15 update]  The NCRWF audit continues to draw interest from the local Left that seems to be a bit put off that their ad hoc assessment of our newspaper’s political leaning was shown to be not only unfounded, but diametrically wrong.  The latest effort to diminish the audit takes the cloak of scientific scrutiny – did the audit succumb to “scientific method”?

The NCRWF made no such claim when the audit’s data was presented and discussed with Union’s management which by all accounts accepted it as is.  In my extensive readings on such audits, there is no claim by anyone that assessments of ideology are scientific in the rigorous sense.  They may adhere to some principles of scientific enquiry and reporting, but are such polls true science?  Not at all.  What the Left chooses to ignore is that the NCRWF did communicate its methodology, presented a complete database of its assessments, and provided summary statistics on both ideological leaning and policy infractions.  All of this invites both critical examination and replication as part of the scientific method.

But what is going on here for the light thinking audience is the floated innuendo that the audit claimed something other than what was reported, and that the audit was not 'scientific' therefore at least of no consequence, and possibly even launched to promote a political agenda.  I invite this audit to be compared to any other much published assessments of media bias which repeatedly conclude that, say, the NYT and Wash Post are editorially liberal.  No one on those newspapers or of the progressive persuasion will admit to that; both cohorts will claim that their products survey the world through unbiased eyes and report it with what they consider commendable balance.

Since (as a NCRWF Associate Member) I am familiar with how the audit was conducted, I can report to you that among the criteria used in the assessment included those reported in the 29dec15 WSJ by Gerald Seib – ‘Most Important Election 2016 Feature: Deep and Growing Ideological Divide'.  (Emphasis mine)  From the article the graphic above shows the parties’ divide on the characteristics used in the assessment process of the audit.  From a Bayesian perspective these characteristics represent very reasonable criteria for categorizing the ideology of the Union’s or anyone else’s published op-ed items.

 

Comments

[Bill Tozer]

Hmm.

https://www.facebook.com/981TheBull/photos/a.135264599836366.19566.111127745583385/1153193194710163/?type=3&theater

[Annamaria S. Sauer]

Thank you George for your well stated background and reason for my article.
Annamaria

[Todd Juvinall]

Libs started all the "fact checking" frenzies back when they thought George W. Bush was a stupid dolt. Now when the R gals do a little comparison those same libnuts can't deal with it. Spolied brats not getting their way.

Hre is the latest Trump vs Clinton and it is all for Paul Emery. LOL! A tie!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_still_a_dead_heat

[Paul Emery]

Good research Todd. This time your sources justify your statements. Well done.

[Paul Emery]

George

There's nothing wrong with a group of people, in this case the NC Republican Women Federated, creating a boutique poll using their personal lights as an exercise to fulfill their curiosity on a given issue, in this case the editorial tendencies of the Union newspaper. Besides fulfilling their own needs for that information I don't see what other value it has.

[Russ Steele]

[email protected]:21PM

Let's look at some of the facts in the case.

1) Liberal blogger keeps harping about The Union being too conservative, without any supporting evidence other than his opinion. His echo chamber of lefty commenters jumps on the bandwagon without providing any supporting evidence.

2) Republican Women decide to examine the left's claim that The Union has a conservative bias. They invest time and talent in the investigation and compile a database that includes the criteria used for the analysis. They concluded the Union was biased, based on their data analysis. They presented the data to The Union in a form and format that would allow additional analysis by The Union staff.

3) In summary:

A. Left: Claims The Union is the Tea Party Gazette and is leaning conservative, but does not provide any supporting evidence or data.

B. Republican Women: Claims The Union has a left leaning bias and provides the supporting data for additional analysis.

C. Left's claim cannot be validated; there is no data to replicate, only some biased opinions. The Republican Women's claim can be validated by analysis and replication. Replication being the gold standard for scientific analysis.

You can draw your conclusion, but I am going to support the most scientific method for answering the question of The Union's bias .

[George Rebane]

PaulE 321pm - I made no claim that there was anything "wrong" with NCRWF's auditing of the Union's editorial policy. As to the audit's additional value, you would need to consult with Mr Hemig who confirmed his interest in the information presented to him, and was pleased that a community group would make the considerable effort to collect data about both the Union's political leanings and also its adherence to its own stated policies.

RussS' 416pm withstanding, your comment sounds like a continuing diminution by the Left of the women's effort. Perhaps I have misinterpreted.

[Paul Emery]

Russ

Do you claim that the NCRWF's audit of the Union is "scientific method" ? If so what is the definition of Conservative" that they adhere to as part of an axiom of truth?

[Russ Steele]

[email protected]:53PM

More scientific than unsupported claims The Union is the Tea Part Gazette by the local left. The NVRWF established an evaluation criteria and used that criteria to evaluate the papers content over a specific period of time. According to an RR post: "The audit revealed that of the 329 pieces published, 140 espoused liberal views, 90 were conservative, and 99 were neutral."

It appears the criteria focused on the writers views as expressed in the content. Not having participated in the analysis, I cannot say how rigorous they applied the criteria.

[Todd Juvinall]

Less government regulation and interference in our lives. Individual rights protected above all, capitalism, mostly unfettered. No PC. More later.

[Paul Emery]

Todd writes:

"Less government regulation and interference in our lives. Individual rights protected above all, capitalism, mostly unfettered."

Nice to know that you are in support of right to grow Medical Marijuanain your backyard and the right to distribute and sell for a profit.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Paul Emery 29Dec15 10:32 AM

Honestly, Paul, this putting of your words in others' mouths is getting more than just a bit tedious.

[Todd Juvinall]

Did I say that? No Paul, you just can't resist putting words in others mouths. I do not think heroin, meth or PCP should be legal either. There is a level of community protection necessary since not all addicts are trustworthy.

[Don Bessee]

The right to distribute and sell for profit.' PE. No such right in the constitutional sense exists, so said the supreme court of CA.

[Paul Emery]

Don:

What does

"Less government regulation and interference in our lives. Individual rights protected above all, capitalism, mostly unfettered." Mean to you? Those are Todd's words.

[Paul Emery]

Predictable response Todd

So can we agree that your type of "Conservative" and that of Libertarians is distinctly different. What gives you the franchise rights to that label? Yes, some drug addicts are not trustworthy, neither are alcoholics. Do you believe Pot smokers are not necessarily drug addicts much like all drinkers are not drunks.

AlsoDon, do you believe Prohibition should not have been repealed?

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery, I can certainly have any position I want about anything. What gives you the right to judge anyone?

Drugs seem to be your thing Paul Emery. Are you a user of these poisons? Are you not the same person criticizing those that would try and keep mentally ill people from harming others? You seem to forget there are dangers on planet earth and there must be some rules to keep the innocent people safe from drug addicts stealing and murdering. Don't you agree?

When you use a drug Paul Emery, do you do it to be HIGH? Or just because it tastes good?

[Paul Emery]

Really weak diversion Todd. Once again do you believe Prohibition should have been repealed?

[Todd Juvinall]

Of course Prohibition should have been repealed. What is your point? Your arguments are so weak Paul Emery that you look foolish. Answer my questions please.

If you use drugs you always get high and are a danger to yourself and others. If you have one drink you are not. You really are out of your league on this discussion.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Todd Juvinall 29Dec15 12:06 PM

Your statement is specious as a large majority of people demonstrate measurable impairment after consuming one drink.

Alcohol is a drug, period.

[Todd Juvinall]

Specious? Hardly. Give us your proof or take a class in logic.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Todd Juvinall 29Dec15 01:00 PM

A specious statement or argument is one that is superficially plausible but actually wrong. Your statement that one drink (presumably of an alcoholic beverage) does not (to paraphrase) impair exactly fits the definition of specious.

[Todd Juvinall]

Sorry you are wrong. My point is actually in law .08 So You are simply the specious one. Prove to us that one drink gets a person high (1 oz being a drink) while science says one doobie get you high. Or one tab of LSD, or one or two puffs of meth. You see, you can't win this.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Of course alcohol is a drug and highly addictive as well. Todd, do you think for one minute that the cases of peppermint vodka on display at Bonanza market at $5.99/bottle are for those who only have one drink? I am curious about what threshold marijuana exceeds that justify the government taking control of our choices and freedoms that alcohol avoids. Any ideas?

By the way, law enforcement opposed ending prohibition right till the end, which was by a constitutional amendment. If they had their way it would be a felony to have a beer watching a football game.

This whole exercise is a test of your so called "Conservative" values. Freedom from government, sure Todd.

[Michael R. Kesti]

A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% is a limit used for the purposes of establishing illegal operation of motor vehicles but impairment begins at lower levels. The first hit from a Google search for "alcohol impairment" led to http://www.anellixavier.com/dui-foundation/drunkdriving/impairment/ from which I here quote.

"Most people begin to feel the effects of alcohol when their BAC ranges between 0.03% and 0.059%. At this point, the person feels mild euphoria, relaxation, and talkativeness, but he or she suffers from impaired alertness, judgment, coordination, and concentration."

So the question becomes, "How much does one drink raise one's BAC?" A table at http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html indicates that one drink can raise a person who weighs 100 pounds or less to 0.04%, 100 to 140 pounds to 0.03%, and above 140 pounds to 0.02%.

One drink impairs. Q.E.D.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul; Emery, when you put the drug cartels into the mix you become complicit in their murders. Does that please you? If American were less sheep about drugs and said no, the cartels would dry up. But thousands of murders, burglaries and muggings happen every day so you can get your fix of meth or MJ or heroin. I don't see many people getting their peppermint schnapps burgled.

MKesti, .08 is considered impairment. Your noggin is affected by the drinking. One drink does not on average cause that. One doobie does.

[jon smith]

Todd 12/29/15 13:14
You lost this one. Despite what the average alcoholic will claim, alcohol is a recreational drug, no ifs, and, or buts. The FAA will pull your license if you fly with a BA > .04 OR if you consume ANY amount of alcohol within 8 hours of flying ("8 hours from bottle to throttle"). As defined by the BATF ETOH is a conscious altering drug. They do not quibble over BAC.

[Paul Emery]

So Todd, do you advocate Federal law over State law in this matter opening up our backyards Federal inspection and violators charged with felonies or States rights prevailing if States decide to support medical and or recreational mj use and cultivation?

[Paul Emery]

That question is for Don as well.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Paul Emery 29Dec15 01:29 PM

I agree that this is a question of conservative values. As such, I feel that it is not a valid role of government to protect me from myself by prohibiting me from ingesting some substances but that it is a valid role of government to protect us from each other by controlling access to those substances. This justifies controlled access to alcohol and tobacco and indicates that other drugs should also be so controlled.

Todd Juvinall 29Dec15 01:50 PM

The murders, burglaries, and muggings occur because of drugs' illegal status. You don't see these in relation to alcohol only because alcohol is accessible. The events that occurred between the ratifications of the 18th and 21st Amendments to the United States Constitution proves these!

0.08% BAC is the legal limit of impairment but, as indicated in the supporting references that I provided, impairment begins at lower levels. Your attempt at proof by vigorous assertion proves nothing.

[Todd Juvinall]

jon smith | 29 December 2015 at 01:57 PM

I never said alcohol was not what you say it is. My point is one drink is not the same as one doobie, one meth pipe hit or one heroin dose. So I am not losing anything.

Paul Emery, 2:02

No, I prefer states rights. I am not against the people voting something in that conflicts with the Feds. If they want to pillory all the Paul Emery types in the city square I would support that if they voted it in as well.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks Todd, you're a wonderful human being and a great example of the American dream of freedom and compassion.

Definition pillory

noun
noun: pillory; plural noun: pillories

1.
a wooden framework with holes for the head and hands, in which an offender was imprisoned and exposed to public abuse.
synonyms: stocks
"offenders were put in the pillory"

verb
verb: pillory; 3rd person present: pillories; past tense: pilloried; past participle: pilloried; gerund or present participle: pillorying

1.
put (someone) in the pillory.
2.
attack or ridicule publicly.
"he found himself pilloried by members of his own party"
synonyms: attack, criticize, censure, condemn, denigrate, lambaste, savage, stigmatize, denounce;

[Michael R. Kesti]

Todd Juvinall 29Dec15 02:09 PM

OK, Todd. I agree that various drugs have differing effects and degrees of impairment. How does that justify the criminalization of some but not of others?
By what measure, other than your personal opinion, do you draw the line? If personal opinion is all that you have how is that not oppressive?

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery | 29 December 2015 at 02:14 PM

Paul you use absurd comments and points and I return they favor. Get some humor in those creaky old fart bones. Jeeze!

MKesti 2:22 pm

The reason there is no "standard" I suppose is because humans are not monolithic in their views. We live in a country where people vote. You get 51% of them to say Paul Emery should be pilloried in the city center, then there you go. If you want a monolithic set of rules and outcomes and hopes and dreams, try the old USSR. Oh that's right. Even with a gun to the head of their people they could not force everyone to be the "same". So, I hope that clears things up.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Todd Juvinall 29Dec15 02:34 PM

It has been said that a democracy is like two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide who is for dinner. This is why our founding fathers came up with a representative democracy in the form of a republic. There is no way, in this country, that your example of 51% of the voters could make such a decision.

I find it frightful that a person who has been and has indicated he may try to again become a county supervisor doesn't have an extremely strong grasp on this concept.

[Paul Emery]

Yeah Todd, it's pretty funny to make jokes about being attacked and publicly ridiculed in
a wooden framework with holes for the head and hands

[George Rebane]

How did my post on auditing The Union wind up as a venue for discussing public policy on recreational drugs??

Take your fine arguments to the nearest sandbox, and dammit, stay on topic!

[Paul Emery]

George

I'm trying to get some kind of definition from Todd about what a "Conservative" is. Without some kind of agreement on that topic how can any left-right evaluation of the Union preferences be conducted?

[Todd Juvinall]

I actually think this is a perfect venue for this topic. Paul Emery started asking his questions, got answers he and Kesti don't like, then they attack. Of course, I have to respond to the attackers who have no idea what they are talking about regarding what a conservative is. Kesti is frightening me even more than Emery. My goodness, he does not know squat about anything. He must be a public school grad.

Anyway, The Republican women did a good service for the community on this topic. The community has debated this for 40 years and now we have some info to base a decision on. How the Emery/Kesti minds cannot understand this is really amazing as they both portray themselves as knowledgeable. Obviously they are both ignorant.

[Robert Cross]

" My goodness, he does not know squat about anything. He must be a public school grad."

Are you not a Public school grad yourself Todd?

[Paul Emery]

Todd

You have done a good job being an example of what a conservative isn't. I'll stick with my Libertarian friends on that topic. And once again your mental brilliance is overwhelming so I concede.

[Todd Juvinall]

Thanks for conceding to my obvious brilliance Paul Emery. Study up, come back when you dare.

Robert Cross, yes I was a graduate of a public school. That is my point. Jeeze!

[Robert Cross]

Todd: by saying that Paul does not know squat because he is a public school grad, are not you saying the same thing of yourself by stating you too are a public school grad?

[Todd Juvinall]

Absolutely. Now you get it. You must be one too?

[George Rebane]

Establishing the definition and characteristics of a conservative is yesterday's newspaper. I have even included major characteristics in this post, and a more complete definition in these pages including the Conservatarian Credo. ToddJ can publish his own take on the definition of conservative in a succinct comment here, or on his own blog. Maneuvering for mudballs and snarky gotchas here does resolve the denigration of the NCRWF solicited by their audit. For those who missed it, ToddJ did not participate in the NCRWF audit.

[Paul Emery]

News update. While the left may indulge in Political Correctness the Right indulges in Conservative Correctness. From the one percent Rick Ssntorum

"The former senator from Pennsylvania told NewsmaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show that social conservative votes are going to Cruz and Republican front-runner Donald Trump, neither of which, he said, “are particularly strong social conservatives.”

“Donald Trump has never been a social conservative up until the last few months, and Ted Cruz takes the position, very much a 10th Amendment, states rights, which is, you know, very much Rand Paul, Ron Paul position,” Santorum said.

“They’re being sold, Ted Cruz says, ‘Oh, I’m this social conservative,’” Santorum continued, saying people haven’t had a chance to actually look the candidates positions on social issues.

Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave. There's no way he would contend with this group.

[Todd Juvinall]

I actuality complimented the gals and PaulE denigrated them. I know what a conservative is just like the SCOTUS said the knew porn when they saw it. PaulE is simply playing but this go around was trounced by me and GeorgeR.

[Paul Emery]

I never denigrated them Todd. I just questioned the importance of such a random survey by what is a private special interest club. I'm sure the Union was flattered and took the information for what it was. I never believed the Union was the Tea Party Gazette so you can take me off that list. It's actually a very good small town newspaper that attempts to present news and views in a fair and balanced manner. We should be so fortunate.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery, sure you did. You use the tried and true crapola you learned as a "journalist". So transparent. Besides, you never question the left so we all know here your innate bias and we chuckle at your denials.

[Don Bessee]

Good God Emery, you feel that you can invoke RR and project your world views onto him. No way jose. You should look at the facts of the elections the gipper was in and who the all the players were. He was able to bring people together in a way not seen since on a national level. Lets not forget his evolution as the Dems evolved into something he did not recognize. I look forward to the young voters getinng a 'reset' on the Clinton era talking points now that they are b-12 ing Bill and sending him in the field. ;-)

[Paul Emery]

The closest thing in this collection of R's to Reagen is John Kasich who has some of the pragmatic cleverness of Reagan sorely missing in the rest. He's been tossed out like dead flowers for not being Conservatively Correct. The ticket the Dems feared most was Kasich and Rubio which would surely win Ohio and Florida.

Don, if Bill Clinton were able to run for President he would easily win.

[George Rebane]

PaulE's 640pm & 709pm - Have no idea how you cobbled together something as undefined as "Conservative Correctness" from what you apparently took to be Santorum's ex cathedra remarks - could you enlighten us on what you're talking about?

And let's not confuse the issue, the NCRWF audit was not a "random survey", far from it. The audit was a comprehensive day-by-day assessment accounting for every edition The Union issued during the audit period. That again seems to be a quietly fabricated diminution of NCRWF's work and the NCRWF. That organization is no more a "a private special interest club" than are the Republican and Democratic parties.

[Paul Emery]

George

It's the general comedy of the runners in the Republican race all trying to out Conservative each other. Just trying to get a common definition as to what the heck a Conservative is is beyond the ability of those on your blog who claim that mantle. Amplify that in the media and to those grasping for a rung on the election ladder and you have "Conservative Correctness"

And by the way The Republican and Democratic parties are indeed " private special interest clubs" if I may quote you. Nothing agaisnt the effort of the NCRWF but it has little meaning outside the clubhouse.

[Paul Emery]

And George you wwrite:

"The only ones left with egg on their faces are those of the loudly ignorant Left whose unfounded assertions were exposed."

If you are referring to the Tea Party Gazette characterizations of the Union I assume you are not referring to my views.

[Todd Juvinall]

I think Paul Emery falls for his own propaganda. The reason he is unable to understand what a conservative is is because the philosophy is made up of many separate individuals. There is no goose steppers as he would like to claim. We are individuals. We do gather for some similar beliefs and we even support candidates close to our beliefs. But unlike the liberals and democrats, we are not dembots or lib-bots. The left falls into lockstep with whatever atrocity de jour is for the day. Whether it is abortion, guns, homo's or PC. No matter, the left surrender their individuality and become part of the amoebae unit. One slimy transparent piece of detritus.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

The republicans don't even know what a conservative is All the candidates are saying is it's not him it's me I am the real conservative. That's why they are leaving the Republican Party in droves following Donald Trump who doesn't care about any of that stuff I got to admire him for that I'm getting kind of bored with this discussion so talk to you some other time

[drivebyposter]

"The republicans don't even know what a conservative is"

P.Emery

My own gut feeling is that 'conservative' is last years news. Splitting the voting population (or power centers in places that don't vote) along fault lines based on economics and ownership of capital strikes me as a 20th century fascination. It's easy to envision a future 'Republican' party that has members who are on both side of the national health care question and the other umpteen current wedge issues.

[fish]

Posted by: drivebyposter | 30 December 2015 at 07:09 AM

I've had similar thoughts as well. I think that the Eastern establishment republicans are going the way of the Whigs.

Good riddance.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 810pm - A number of points, where to begin …

1) My “private special interest clubs” quote is actually from your own 709pm assertion.
2) The political parties, along with registered political organizations such as the national Republican Women Federated (of which the NCRWF is a chapter), are anything but ‘private’. All such organizations are public special interest organizations and so treated by the IRS and in the US Code.
3) ‘Political Correctness’ (PC) and ‘Conservative Correctness’ (CC) are NOT birds of a feather as explained above. You define CC as a dispute between Republican candidates over the use of the ‘conservative’ label, which is well and good. But CC is nothing like PC which is a toxic social disease that has infected our land, now prescribing what we may write, say, celebrate, perceive, and how we may behave in the public and now even private domains. PC is evinced untold thousands of times daily by every leftwinger in the land who considers himself the moral authority to proscribe others’ speech and behavior.
4) CC may be taken to be equivalent to Socialist Correctness (SC) evinced subrosa by leftwing politicians, candidates, and media. The main difference there is while conservatives and libertarians openly define and debate the tenets of their political labels, the Left dare not, and only imply the tenets subrosa through their proposals, programs, and proscriptions. Were they to be as open as the Right (see my Conservatarian Credo, ALL rightwing political publications, and the recent ‘A Conservatarian Manifesto’) in their definition of ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, ‘socialist’, … , then they would instantly lose the nation’s center electorate. They know that they cannot broadcast the SC principles of governance to American voters, but only parade them under a semantic bourka in the form of pabulous characterizations of a mythical society.
5) If the NCRWF audit “has little meaning outside the clubhouse”, then the Union’s management would not have published an op-ed on it, proposed a “January Challenge” to confirm/replicate findings, publish readers' letters on the topic, and the local Left (including you) would not have devoted so much histrionic print in order to denigrate and minimize it. Saul Alinsky lives!

[Bill Tozer]

Dr. Rebane, you are beating against the wind. They just do not like conservatives. Never have, never will. Nuff said.

[Paul Emery]

Now we're starting to got down to the substance George. There is so much in your 8:10 that I don't know where to begin. Lets start with your statement on PC:

" CC is nothing like PC which is a toxic social disease that has infected our land, now prescribing what we may write, say, celebrate, perceive, and how we may behave in the public and now even private domains. PC is evinced untold thousands of times daily by every leftwinger in the land who considers himself the moral authority to proscribe others’ speech and behavior."

George, it is indeed you who proposes that immigrant groups assimilate into American culture in a manner to your liking to avoid the evils of a multicultural society. You have written endlessly on this topic as your readers will readily attest. Is that not a form of "PC"? Just one example but a good starting place since you prescribe "what we may write, say, celebrate, perceive, and how we may behave in the public" to quote you.

You also write "They (liberals or whatever) know that they cannot broadcast the principles of governance to American voters, but only parade them under a semantic bourka in the form of pabulous characterizations of a mythical society " Nothing mythical here George. Those social liberal principals have been the governing models for most Democracies in the modern world for the last 70 years. In fact show me ONE sovereign country that has emulated your model of Conservatively Correct governance in the last 100 years? Certainly none come to mind since the fall of Colonialism and consumptive capitalism employing such mantras as manifest destiny which eventually ran out of free land and weak native peoples to conquer .

all for now. I'll be back.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1017am - Now that response was a complete change of subjects discussed in my 849am - my head is still spinning.

Nevertheless, and for openers 'assimilation' is the quintessential American paradigm for immigration. It is not some off-track ideology and never has been, not that the Left is now trying to characterize it as such. And I have NEVER prescribed people's speech and behavior (i.e. included it in my credo or the 'Rebane Doctrine'), only stated my own preferences and historical perspectives. However, PC violations can have you evicted from school or job, sued, or even jailed. So what else do you have?

Europe has forever eschewed and contained multiculturalism within its borders, and today regrets and seeks to heal its recent flirtation with it as Islamic colonization reveals its ugly head. Recall that collectivism (aka socialism) can only be practiced with a modicum of success within small cohesive populations - the smaller and more cohesive, the better.

The 'myth' in socialist dreams of governance lies in sustainability which I have outlined and given evidence for years. Show me one country of the scope of America that has successfully implemented sustainable socialism. All of the EU countries you worship are doing their best to get out of entitlement programs that consume an ever larger fraction of their GDPs. That is the sure sign of unsustainability, a state into which every Democrat politician seeks to deliver America. (I ignore for the moment the already unsustainable parts of our federal and state budgets which await the inevitable economic implosion.)

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 30 December 2015 at 10:17 AM

Those social liberal principals have been the governing models for most Democracies in the modern world for the last 70 years.

Indeed they have....and when left unchecked result in policies like this:

http://www.copblock.org/150167/150167/

http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-transgender-rules-businesses/2015/12/28/id/707361/

http://www.snopes.com/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

[Walt]

It appears Paul stayed out too long dancing naked down at the river on Christmas.
The cold shocked his noggin. There is a reason Paul, that practice fell out of favor.
"In fact show me ONE sovereign country that has emulated your model of Conservatively Correct governance in the last 100 years? "
Recall when the U.S.S.R. fell apart? Many of those behind the iron curtain liked the idea of capitalism, and freedom. We swore to protect them, then "O" sold them out, and allowed Putin to march back in.

[Paul Emery]

OK George

If the liberal governance systems were to be examined in a laboratory they could be laid out on a table and picked apart piece by piece because they actually exist and have a modern . Your Conservative Correct economic and governance has not existed since the 19th Century so can we agree there is no history to examine to evaluate in the"lab" so to speak. what you propose is a theory and nothing else.

[Paul Emery]

that's modern history

sorry for the typos-gotta meet a friend for lunch

[Paul Emery]

Walt

what in your view should Obama have done in the Ukraine for example?

[Don Bessee]

PE 1138am - You could start with keeping our promises in the nuke treaty we signed when Ukraine turned over their nukes to us in exchange for the security treaty that was signed by the US and Russia with Ukraine. Providing them with defensive weapons upon invasion would be a bare minimum under our treaty obligations. How did that nice little one world moment with Hillary and the misspelled reset button work out for the US and the world? 0 certainly followed through with his open mic comments to Medvedev that he would have more latitude for vlad in his second term.

[Gregory]

It's been said that 78.83% of all statistics are made up.

Regarding the local GOP babes and their survey of The Union bias, Paul Emery, I think you've confused scientific method with certitude. Taking their description of the methodology at face value, yes, they've followed the scientific method reasonably well and because of that it wasn't a waste of time. The results remain a tally of their opinion and I've little doubt that there are pieces classified as liberal that Jim Firth would ID as middle or even conservative, and pieces they classified as moderate that Firth & Co. would insist was to the right of Genghis Khan, but rather than denounce the GOP effort, why not take that work and explore the differences in the classifications rather than more of the same knee jerk reactionary rhetoric we've seen as much from the left as we have from the right.

The GOP ladies produced a document that supports their view that The Union is slanted too far to the left to be fair, and I think they're on the right track, while the Purple one just declares it to be The Tea Party Gazette because they don't purge the local paper of all opinions and news he finds objectionable... to follow the Pelline example you'd have to be registered Decline to State like him to be presumed balanced but as we all know, he's the most unbalanced guy in town.

[Walt]

Thanks Don for helping set Paul upright. Seems he forgets things like that.
He forgets Reagan "tore down the wall". He forgets we signed deals with other nations.
Paul should see the sweetheart deals little "never heard of them" (nations?) out West of Hawaii have received.
And Paul,, as usual,, tries to change the subject when busted.

[Paul Emery]

Fair enough viewpoint Gregory

Happy New Year

[Paul Emery]

Walt

What did Bush do in the region that Obama's not doing?

[Walt]

As for The Union and it's publishing of things that "should never see ink",,( especially from a Right thinking person)
See what was in the Letters to the Editor??
http://www.theunion.com/opinion/19766967-113/marji-beach-what-you-need-to-know-before

"Local residents are increasingly interested in sharing their homes and backyards with chickens. Animal Place has two upcoming adoption events at our Grass Valley sanctuary alone.

Chickens make great companion animals, but there are a few things to know before rushing into the responsibility of providing for these funny, sweet, affectionate animals."

And it only gets "better" from there.

Then this backhanded attack on the 2ND Amend.
http://www.theunion.com/opinion/19681851-113/darrell-berkheimer-will-we-target-our-underlying-economy

Its only Wed. and the majority of "contributions" are from "Left thinking" contributors.

[Walt]

Paul.. Just what "Hell" was breaking loose? things were stable.. Just what "intervention" do you think was called for? Putin did the invading under "O"'s watch. Good Lord man...
Pick up a damned history book and read it.

[Don Bessee]

PE 228, that's one of the lamest evasions on the Ukraine issue you raised at 1138.

[Paul Emery]

Quite true Don

I meant to refer to Bush's response after the Russian invasion of Georgia

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/04/flashback-2008-when-a-russian-invasion-made-fox/198322

[Walt]

Again Paul, you fail to comprehend. BDS relapse? Just what could Bush do except "condemn"
the action? Who was in control? (THE LIBS....) You want to point fingers? Then point thant boney digit at The LIB controlled House and Senate. THEY sure didn't give Bush any authority to (GASSSPPPP) take military action. And just what did your favorite ORG. the UN do? (hint) Jack shit.

So.. Is that your point? " since Bush didn't do anything,, "O" is to be held blameless."

"O" made one thing clear as a bell. Don't make a deal with the U.S. when a LIB could be in control. The U.S. will leave your ass swinging in the breeze. ( Just like they guy who ratted out OBL. He sits in a jail cell today, when "we" promised him safety.)

[Jon]

You're a real angry guy Walt. Paul has been more than patient with your often incomprehensible rantings, and he has been nothing but kind to you.

BTW, I am very glad that gold is cratering. It has been for the last 3 years now. Thought it was a safe haven of value, but guess not.

But have a Happy New Year anyway!

[fish]

Posted by: Jon | 31 December 2015 at 07:17 AM

Paul has been more than patient with your often incomprehensible rantings, and he has been nothing but kind to you.

Paul thinks he's being clever by playing "Matlock" and asking endless "Have you stopped beating your wife?" style questions!

He's as tedious as Ben.

[Todd Juvinall]

Truer words were never spoken or written. He is very tedious.

[Walt]

Who left the lid open and let the "jon" out?

[Paul Emery]

Walt

Interesting how Fox news took a completly different slant when the Ruskies poured into Georgia in '08.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/04/flashback-2008-when-a-russian-invasion-made-fox/198322

"Fox News' message to America then? Just relax. There's nothing the U.S. can do about Russia invading its sovereign neighbor and it will all be over soon.

Bill O'Reilly agreed with the laissez-faire analysis. "Even if President Bush wanted to help Georgia we simply don't have the ground forces to do it," said O'Reilly on August 11.
"And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now."

Even Fox's usually bellicose, right-wing think tank commentators demurred. "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices," said the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes on August 12, 2008. "Russia is a tough nut to crack."

Here's tough talk from the Bush white House

"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."

[George Rebane]

Regarding the evaluation of US geo-strategic responses, I'm reminded of a map as to where it locates and how it sizes the Ukraine vs Georgia.

And all this talk of a commenter being tedious or a bore or incomprehensible nevertheless seems to generate a great deal of interest in others analyzing the dimensions of such commenters and their disagreeable characteristics.

Then there's Bernie Sanders who has no clue as to why students pay two to three times the interest rates that are levied on home mortgages - their disparity he characterizes as another example of the social injustice of capitalism. Now what kind of relationship can one have with a supporter of Sen Sanders?

[Walt]

BIG diff. Paul, the U.S. had a duty to protect, and "O" reneged on that agreement.
"We" had no such "treaty" with Georgia. Somehow facts like that never mean anything to ya'.
So bringing FOX comments into play is a classic "look over here" Paul move.
Putin invaded because he damned well "O" and the LIBS were nutless cowards. Talk is cheap.
"O" said "don't you dare!" Putin said," Oh really??,, well watch this!!"... "How do ya' like me now?" Then a jet liner gets shot down, and still nothing is done.

[Bill Tozer]

Hmmm. I'll check in later. Looks little our Obamamanics are doing their hating over ideology rather than politics. Remember you who are right of purple center to be nice. Never forget they are stuck with Mrs. Clinton. That be enough to piss off the Pope, so throw them a bone now and then.

[George Rebane]

RR has maintained as one of its fundamental tenets that big government is populated and operated by double dummies, and the bigger government gets, the more double dummies it hires and places into critical roles (and some of them also turn out to be evil). Now here is another piece of evidence that supports this tenet sent to me by a correspondent.
https://www.facebook.com/RepDeSantis/videos/1001434629914597/?theater

[Jon]

Walt, a US jetliner was shot down and nothing was done? When was this?

[Don Bessee]

Note to the 'jon' troll, it was Malaysian as even you must know.

[Jon]

Note to Don- yeah,yeah..Egyptian, Malaysian, what's the diff, right?

What exactly did you chickenhawks want the US to do?

[Walt]

Don. "jon's" pirated wifi must have had the password changed during that event.
I'm waiting for the accusation that it was ME in the local police blotter. (but I have an alibi.) " Police blotter: Caller reports dirt-moving under cloak of night "

[Don Bessee]

The Russians shot down a Malaysian aircraft with a large surface to air missile. That's the diff. oh ye of little depth. Chicken hawk is a pejorative thrown around by your ilk. I served voluntarily on active duty so return that to whatever orifice you pulled it out of. As usual you duck your own issue at 237pm. Nice that you are sticking to your standard troll patterns. ;-) see my 1200p 12/30

[Jon]

Don, tell us what you would do to the Russians? Or are you like Trumpster when asked for specifics- "oh..I would be so tough".. I know you feel like a real manly man when you imagine bombs dropping and American troops on the ground. Good for you Don.

[Todd Juvinall]

Don we know the "jon" would just bend over and grab his ankles for Putin. A real true manly gal.,

[Walt]

Here we go again with the "what would you do" crap. OH... I don't know,,, live up to our end of the deal? (What a concept.) "jon" may care to understand the the meaning of a "treaty". I believe the "jon" would love to see "O" and Co. sell out South Korea in the same manner. "O" still has time to screw them over.

[John]

It was probably me who left the lid up and let "jon" out. Sorry everyone.

[Todd Juvinall]

And you forgot the floral spray!

[Walt]

Thank You Sir, for owning up to the mishap. It's more than we got from the EPA when they polluted the waters.

[Don Bessee]

One thing we can be sure of in the new year is that the 'jons' will not start having a real debate on issues. Just a continuation of the alyinsky 101 of evade, dodge, lie, put words in mouths. You know, all the usual suspects. Here is a little home work for the 'jons', read the relevant treaty and then identify our existing obligations under said treaty. ======= HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY NEW YEAR ============= I know my new year is shaping up very nicely and thank you all who helped make that happen! ;-)

[Jon]

Thank you Walt, Don, John, Todd, etc. for advocating the role of the US as World Policeman involved in one war after another, in every corner of the world. Trillions upon trillions of dollars needed for all the battles and conflicts Walt and Co. imagine the US involved in. My oh my, I always thought Walt and his ilk were Tea Bag supporters. Wait, seems they're actually...can you believe it?...died in the wool hypocrites! But we kinda knew this the week the Tea Baggers formed their little cabal.