Did the West actually win the Cold War?

cold war? There was a cold war now? Gees no one tells me anything.

If outlasting the USSR means winning the cold war, then yes, the west won. I've always thought it was a bit absurd to style it as a "war" but if that's the metaphor you really want to use then yes.

Even if it did not, so what? West is still much better off than Russia or any other former Russian republic for that instance. Russia is a degraded country where crime and prostitution take precedence over law and justice. You can still live honestly in the West and stay alive, not be starving to death everyday in a tiny apartment.

Why wouldn't you call it a war? Metaphor...I don't get that. Maybe you are referring to the fact that all the conflicts were fueld by foreign policy, I guess.

However, if you take a hard look at the battles: Korea, Viet Nam, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Israel, and the list goes on, you'd soon see that the only war bigger was WWII. Thu US suffered massive casualties during the Cold War.

In that sense that the US spread democracy more than the Soviets spread communism and autocracy, the jury is still out. In the sense that the US directly bested the USSR, of course we did.

I'd just like to apologise to everyone for not being in qualification when this one slipped through...

Sorry 'bout that.

Actually, as you can see in the following link:

http://surveycentral.org/survey/12828.html

...this question was settled a few years ago and only five respondents were of the opinion that the West won the Cold War. So that's a fairly radical assumption you're making...your rather fanciful theories aside...

I thought by filtering you I wouldn't have to see your stupid responses again. Apparently, that doesn't apply to the "replies" menu. I'll be clearer.

Don't respond to me again; I don't like you, and I never will. I trust even you can fathom that.

Oops... looks like I have to make Replies pay attention to comment filters!

I guess you can say Europe is Socialist, but it's only somewhat true. If you're going to say that, you might as well say the US is socialist too. But, really neither is. At least, not even close to the level of socialism that USSR and China had (with massive governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods).

I disagree that there's more atheism. Maybe it just seems that way because of the rise of American Christian fundamentalism.

I think the US/European alliances are still fairly strong, they just got weakened because we have a crappy president who treated them like crap. I don't see how that has anything to do with communism.

EU is about capitalism to help Europe compete in the world economy... quite the opposite of communism.

NATO is an artifact of the cold war that doesn't make a lot of sense anymore... so, yeah, I guess it has changed, but you had to expect that.

Winning/losing? that just seems like an unfortunate way of looking at it. Things have changed, yes, of course. Trying to map the future in terms of obsolete concepts like the cold war doesn't seem helpful. I think it's fairly clear that what was the USSR is no longer a threat to the US. But, I'd also like to think that the US doesn't have to think in terms of their always having to be some enemy we're fighting against. The whole McCarthy era anti-communist agenda the US had seems a bit nutty in retrospect. A lot of those wars against the communist domino effect (e.g. Vietnam), turned out to really be about something else, but we hand our minds so set on anti-communist dogma, we misunderstood.

My impression is the USSR toppled under it's own mismanagement and it didn't have a lot to do with the US or Reagan. They just had a crappy system and the people who lived there had enough. Did we win, or just wait until they fell apart on their own?

"Europe is Socialist (the economic system of Communism), more and more atheist (a tenet of Stalinist Communism), and ever moving farther left (Communism is the complete left side of the political spectrum)."

What are you trying to imply? That Europe is moving towards communism?

i don't know if won is the correct word. i don't know what is......... we, as a country, are fixed on the "wall is down" image that we don't address what has actually become of the soviet block, etc...........

I wasn't aware that Korea or Vietnam were considered to be part of the 'cold war'. It was my impression that the 'cold war' had no actual fighting in it, which is what made it 'cold' - which is why calling it a 'war' would be a metaphor.

My impression is that the 'cold war' was a decades long struggle with the USSR which was largely diplomatic and ideological.

My impression was that the issue was more about communism than socialism. I don't really see the fact that Europe is largely socialist to say anything about whether or not the US 'won' the 'cold war'. But with the view I've had of what the 'cold war' was, it's not much more appropriate to call it a war than it is to call the 'war on drugs' a war.

I'm not really sure.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think Europe will ever be autocratic.

But, further away from the ideals that used to unite America and Europe...on both sides. Economically, Europe and America are rapidly becoming disparate.

Socially, Americans are becoming more conservative, and the other day I read that kiddie porn is not illegal in Denmark (don't extrapolate that was just an extreme example). Something is rotten indeed.

Essentially, the new world order that bound free nations is dissentigrating.

That's a loaded question...

I've heard that argument before about the cold war not having any casualties, but it just doesn't hold any water.

The "Cold War" was a term coined by the press to describe our foreign policy post 1945, pre 1989. But what was that foreign policy? Stop Communism around the world with whateer means are necessary. What were VietNam and Korea?...wars against the spread of Communism, were they not? That's the "war" part of "Cold War."

The "cold" part of "Cold War" refers to the Soviets matching our efforts and thus being our greatest opponent, though US and Soviet troops never met in battle.

So, in the sense that the US and Soviets never fought, no, there was never any fighting or casualties. But that is a myopic and incomplete view off the Cold War. The US sent troops around the world to fight Communism, and we suffered huge casualties. Example, we had as many enlisted soldiers in the Army in 1988 as we did in 1944 (including reserves and guard).

I did some checking after you posted your original remark, and called my cousin, DJ, this morning (he is a high school social studies teacher); the "no casualty" view was taught in schools post Viet Nam to about 1985, as a reaction to public opinion about Viet Nam. But that's no longer preavlent in schools.

Finally, yes our foreign policy was directed to Communism, not Socialism, but in that era, it was unfathomable to seperate Communism from Socialism and Capitalism from Democracy. However, as you know, that has changed. So, I look at Socialism irrespective of the political system with which it may be commingled to examine its core values. Government control of major means of production/service; government redistribution of wealth; high taxes and low income so that the economy is collective; it seems these are all the things we fought post WWII. I will grant you that Europe is not there yet, and probably never get there completely. But it seems they are embracing what we fought, just the same.

I wonder what brought that on? I guess Matty doesn't like having his puerile beliefs challenged. Oh well!

I don't think the Cold War was a battle that was going to be won or lost. There are just degrees of moving on. And while the Cold War was ostensibly about keeping the spread of communism in check, it was really about keeping a large empire in check. It didn't really matter that the Soviets were communists. They could have been capitalists and the US and its allies still would have tried to keep them from taking over too much of the rest of the world.

It is probably necessary to add some factual information to this page in order to counter the absurd statements contained in the "explanation".

1. Europe is a continent. It is not a homogeneous political entity, but a large number of independent nations. Some of those nations have joined together to form the "European Union", which is a federation. It does not include all of the nations of Europe and should not be confused with Europe.

2. There is a difference between "Socialism" and "Communism". That's why there are two different words. They may look similar to the simple-minded, but they are in fact two completely different political philosophies. There are no Communist nations in Europe. There are Socialist nations now, as there were during the Cold War. Some of those Socialist nations were, and still are, part of NATO.

3. "Atheism" is a religious philosophy. Religious philosophies really had nothing to do with the Cold War. One can find atheists across the political spectrum. Atheism is increasing all over the world, not just in Europe. Former Warsaw Pact nations have been moving in the opposite direction.

4. I'm not aware of any gradual movement towards the left of the political spectrum on behalf of Europe as a whole. I would tend to think that there has been movement in both directions, back and forth, depending on the nation in question.

5. The statement: "Communism is the complete left side of the political spectrum" is quite simply wrong no matter how one interprets it. If I take the statement at face value, it is wrong because obviously everything left of centre is not Communism. If I interpret it to mean that "Communism is [on the far] left side of the political spectrum", it is still incorrect because it is a matter of opinion. There is no strict authority as to where individual political philosophies fall on the political spectrum. One can usually make generalisations, but that is as far as it goes.

6. "The pre Cold War alliances are dissolving". Alliances have been shifting around and back and forth constantly throughout history. NATO has more member states now than it did during the Cold War. The United States has never managed to exert hegemony over all of her allies, at any time, as much as she may like to.

7. The European Union has a history which goes right back to the early days of the Cold War. Back then it was called the European Economic Community. Later it was shortened to the European Community.

8. The idea that anyone won the Cold War is absurd historical revisionism, obviously created to disavow the complicity of the United States in the insane hostage crisis that was the Cold War. I can only imagine that this nonsense is now being taught in American schools to children that didn't live through the Cold War and have no idea what it was really about.

Now I guess I will go on to tackle some of the other absurd statements contained on this page.

The whole reason it is called "the Cold War" is because the two participants never engaged each other directly in combat. Yes, both were involved in "Hot Wars" during the period, that were directly related to the Cold War, but US and Soviet soldiers never shot at each other on a battlefield.

The Cold War was not a pissing contest over who could spread [Democracy, Communism or Autocracy]. First of all, both nations' foreign policy opposed Democracy in the Third World, what they both wished to spread was hegemony. They did this in collusion by holding the entire planet hostage with a massive nuclear arsenal. The Cold War ended because Mikhail Gorbachev was the first leader, of either of the two nations, that wasn't insane enough to continue with this monstrous game.

The term "Cold War" was coined by British author, George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm etc.). Credit where credit is due, eh? This isn't a particularly obscure fact.

The US war against the people of Vietnam was sold to the public as a war against Communism. The truth was quite different. Perhaps you've heard of something called "The Pentagon Papers". Richard Nixon busted his ass trying to keep the truth from the American public. He can rest easy now. It seems that they don't teach this stuff to kids in school.

I can't help but find "But it seems they are embracing what we fought, just the same." pretty amusing. Prior to the Cold War, we fought Fascism. It seems that "they" could be the United States as well!

> It does not include all of the nations of Europe
> and should not be confused with Europe.
Soon, the EU won't be all European either, once the Turkey joins.

Yep, sure did.

So they're atheists, big deal. What does that have to do with anything. Socialism is a totally different thing from Communism. Besides, how socialistic was Europe to being with.

But isn't Turkey technicly part of Europe, or at least half of it?

> Socially, Americans are becoming more conservative,

since when?

I don't think that it's reasonable to say that either side won. I also don't think that your reasoning about Europe is correct. Europe may be more socialist than America, but there are plenty of right-wing political parties, some of whom are in government. It may also be secular compared to the US, but that was happening a *long* time before Stalin reared his head. I don't think Europe is moving further and further left either. We tend to oscillate, with the whole continent moving between fairly left and just right of centre together. The relationship between the US and Europe has nothing to do with the influence of Soviet bloc nations, and everything to do with America being crapty under Bush. The European Union does not undermine national sovereignty and helps to ensure economic stability and high employment - it isn't some sinister world government. NATO may have little in common with its origins, but so what? Things change.

> I wonder what brought that on? I guess Matty doesn't like having his
> puerile beliefs challenged. Oh well!

Since I think I'm filtered as well (for daring to challenge his set-in-stone beliefs), I might as well tell you what you did wrong. He took exception to your "dead person*" surveys, being a Catholic. He then decided that this clearly made you a "jerk" (his words, not mine). Kate had to ask bill to delete one of her surveys over it and everything...

I entered the realms of the hated by suggesting the outrageous theory that 12 year olds could possibly have valid opinions. I mean, what was I thinking??!

This is true, but as southernyankee pointed out, at least part of Turkey is in Europe. It used to be quite a lot more 100+ years ago.

Oh that! I forgot about that.

There are a number of indicators:

1. Church attendance

2. polls about social attitudes.

3. I'm not going to prepare a 1000 page researched report, but polling institutes information has lead much of the mass media to call this era, the "New Victorian Age."

4. Additionally, Bush never should have won this election; it was the return to "traditional values/conservatism" that pushed him over the top.

"Among the hated. Entered the realm of the hated."
I don't get that. I never said anything even close to that.

"dared to question his set-in-stone beliefs." Since when have my beliefs been unapproachable to you?

"Let me tell you what you did wrong?" Do you really think you know what I am thinking? That's qite a bit of supposition on your part; and no, you are not filtered.

You are however, becoming increasingly nasty and sarcastic, especially when I consider those comments directed at my daughter, which were incredibly and wildly inappropriate.

There are a number of other things I should like to address, but won't at this time.

yes, for you and me, perhaps Canadians have diffrent definitions of political geography and such.

I have not once directed comments at your daughter, only at you. I know nothing about your daughter beyond the fact that there's an extremely sweet photo of her in your user page. All I know is what you have said yourself about your attitudes about taking childrens' opinions seriously. That has nothing to do with your daughter and everything to do with you. It was you I was expressing dismay towards so don't twist my meaning to suggest I attacked a child - that's ridiculous. And my surprise at your attitude wasn't even meant nastily - you assumed that, wrongly as it turns out. I've assumed your tone to be incredibly rude and overbearing on occasion, you've said I was wrong. I accept that because it is hard to determine tone in a forum such as this one. I was merely attempting to illustrate to you one child whose opinions I imagined you probably would have some regard for. I still wonder if you might not change your mind as she gets older. Isn't part of the wonder of having children that they constantly surprise you? I started smiling younger than I was supposed to - my mother thought it was impossible, but I smiled, so there it was - babies can smile at an early age and she accepted that.

And as for knowing what you were thinking, it was *you* who stated why you had a problem with Zang, I was just repeating what you said, since he'd apparently not had the chance to see it for himself. If it wasn't what you were thinking, then why did you say it? The only supposition that I made was that if you said something, you'd actually thought it.

At the time I'd say absolutely, but it appears communism is getting it's foot in the door.

I don't think there were any winners, but the U.S.S.R. certainly lost.

Man this is some funny stuff. I enjoy reading heated arguments between people. Keep going!!

That sounds like interesting reading. Are you saying, that particular interchange is no longer available?

> There are a number of indicators:

Allthough these "indicators" are either not true to begin with or irrelavant.


> 1. Church attendance

Maybe so, but that might have been due to 9/11 or the faltering economy as anything. Also, the increased chuch attendance could as well be due to the churches themselves becomming more liberal, thus causing less people feel alienated because of their politics, rather than the people becomming more conservative; which I actually think is the case.


> 2. polls about social attitudes.

Same as above. Also, it could be a backlash of the people who were conservative in the first place. Their attitudes have solidified as a last ditch effort against more libraral changes. If anything, social attitudes are getting more libral, and as a result, the conservatives are more ardent than ever about their positions.



> 3. I'm not going to prepare a 1000 page researched report, but polling
> institutes information has lead much of the mass media to call this
> era, the "New Victorian Age."

Ok, but this is the mass media we're talking about. Does it really matter what they say. Because they consider this the "New Victorian Age" doesn't mean crap.

You have to realize that these are the same people who went on a frenzie about child abducations when the actual number of them actually went down. Isn't this the same sort of thing? The media is just clinging to this because they can get ratings out of the people on this conservative fringe.



> 4. ... it was
> the return to "traditional values/conservatism" that pushed him over
> the top.

NOT TRUE. Election results have shown that most of the shift in popular vote took place in New York and New Jersy, and the number one polled reason people said they voted for W was terrorism. So it was his handling of terrorism and the fact that he made people feel safer that cause him to win the election. In fact, Bush actually lost votes in the mid-west.

You have to take into account Zang's twisted sense of humor before you judge him though. I think he sort of goes out of his way to either go for shock value or to purposely try to get a bad rating on his survey. He does this but only sometimes, but I think its more to calm down heated arguments and to maintain a level of sanity on here.

They do hold Constantinople, and Greece had to give up part of the territory to Turkey (forgot why), but they culture is not European.

Yep, the Ottoman Empire. They are the reason Albania and Bosnia are predominantly Muslim.

I don't really care why he does what he does; I just don't like him. I'm not his mother; it;s not up to me to make excuses for him. Maybe Zang should consider that where I come from, if you make the kind of comments he makes, you get your ass beat...a lot...and painfully.

You can exculpate the reasoning behind social changes all you like, that's not the point. The point is America has become more conservative over the last few years.

New York and New Jersey??? That's pure fudging fabrication. Bush won becasue he won Ohio. They even know that in Singapore.

You told me that you should feel sorry for my daughter for having a father like me...Or something very similar...Dress that up however you like, but it is nasty and inappropriate, as you haven't even the foggiest notion of my relationship with my daughter. Also, I said comment directed toward my daughter, not a direct ad- hominem attack.

Let me try the reverse so you can see how you fancy that. (Not that I actually mean this) I would feel sorry for your parents for having a daughter like you, who seemingly, is of little respect for others and such fickle moral fiber...Would you like me to say things like that? Is it appropriate? Would you consider that to be nasty?

Further, I said children should not have steadfast opinions, not that no one should ever pay attention to children. Frankly, I don't know how you walked away with that. Perhaps that was poor writing on my part or perhaps you quickly jumped to an opinion, just like you assumed that I hate you and am filtering you, however, I really don't know.

I have been told from various sources and very often, that children should not have strong opinions for a number of reasons. I have posted those reasons elsewhere in a conversation with Joalis, so I don't feel like going into it here.

As far as Zang is concerned, you most certainly did make an assumption that one of his surveys so incensed me that I filtered him. That is hardly the case. Admittedly, the jokes about the Pope before he was even dead accelerated the process and are indeed, the penultimate, proverbial nail in the coffin. However, it takes a lot more than one thing to make me dislike someone so.

BTW: I have a lot more than "some regard for" my daughter; I would consider that phrase to be sarcastic.

Wow, I can't believe how completely you got the wrong end of every single stick there. Every single one. I said that if you had already decided that when your daughter was older, her opinions would be without merit, I would feel sorry for her because I didn't believe for an instant that fatherly love and pride could allow such a thing. As I just said, it was an attempt to illustrate to you a child whose opinion would and should be held more dearly than any other. It was not sarcastic. I may be British but you really shouldn't assume constant sarcasm in what I write.

As for your example of saying you felt sorry for my parents, I can shrug that comment off because 1) you don't know me and 2) it isn't true. So I don't care. But more significantly, that wasn't a fair reversal. Let's try a fairer one. I have infact, made comments at this site about finding old people irrelevant and irritating most of the time. Which is not the same as, but might be used as a reasonable equivalent to the issue that we were discussing. Let's say you turned around to me and said "I feel sorry for your parents if, when they become elderly if you are going to disregard them like that." I would say "Well gosh Matty, you know, I hadn't thought of it like that. My parents are intelligent people and they both have their interests. I can't imagine them ever being irrelevant and irritating (well, not more irritating than they already are, but hey, they're my parents )! And now I think of it, I have spoken to other old people, some of whom have also been decent human beings who are very much relevant."

And you know, you've already indirectly attacked my parents - without realising or meaning to I know, but still...I was raised by parents who always thought that my opinions and those of my brothers mattered. I was encouraged to think things through properly, but what I thought about any issue was considered seriously. Of course, at 12, if I told my mother that I didn't like black people because they were scary (not something I have ever said or though btw, please don't take me literally), she would have encouraged me to look at other sides of whatever it was I had used to draw such a ridiculous conclusion. But she would never, ever have turned to me and said "Claire, you are 12 years old. 12 year olds do not have the ability to hold opinions." Of course it wouldn't have been a balanced and informed opinion, and of course opinions should grow and develop over time. But that's true of adults as well as children. I know that my opinions develop over time, although at the core many of them are now relatively steadfast. I've been a vegetarian since I was 12 (very apt age for this discussion) - a decision that I made based on an opinion and have stuck by ever since. I've recently been re-evaluating my thoughts on the subject, trying to decide whether I would be happy eating locally produced meat where I know that a lot of the issues that I have with the meat industry have been dealt with. At the moment, I've decided that I'd still prefer not too, for health issues, but I cannot come up with a true moral objection (I'm a biologist, I dissect stuff...) So you see, I'm still acting on the basis of an opinion that I first held fully-formed at 12. My mother did not discourage me from being a vegetarian - she went out and bought cookbooks so that she could make sure I got a properly balanced diet. Then she supported me in my decision over the years, moving increasingly closer to a vegetarian diet herself as she realised the benefits.

All of which does have a point. Having my opinion taken seriously throughout my childhood has been very important for my personal development. I'm strong-minded (not close-minded), confident about my own choices, willing and prepared to actively debate matters of opinion with people in the hope of finding some middle ground. I am also not afraid to have my beliefs challenged. I can tell you for a fact, that if my opinions had been batted down when I was young and I was encouraged not to form them at all, I would not be where I am now. I'm about to graduate from one of the best universities in the world with (exam results willing) a good degree in a difficult subject. I'm also a thoroughly pleasant and tolerant human being. You may not think so, but it's true. I can't think of a better testament to my upbringing, and encouraging opinions in children, than that.

I'm really not interested in reopening the debate of how to handle children's opinions again, other than to say, I think you've misread me and we'll leave it at that. You can, if you are interested, read the conversation I had with Joalis about the subject; I think my thoughts are fairly well represented there.

However, I am willing to admit that I was wrong about the comment you made with respect to my daughter. I might have just read it quickly, gotten a little annoyed, and become less rational. Understand, I would defend my family to my own death if need be, and perhaps because of my intense felings, am a little touchy on the subject.

About 5 years ago, as I was coming home from a very short-term deployment (30 days) to discover two men trying to come into the window of my apartment. It was about 4 in the morning; I dropped my things and beat them, badly, very badly. They crawled to their vehicle with great difficulty and I watched to make sure they left. The incident was never reported to the police. I soon began to teach my wife how to shoot a pistol. Anyway, the point is that when someone makes a remark or does anything directed at my family I am over sensitive. Maybe that's what happened with your comment.

Yet, as I am willing to admit my error and shortcomings, I think you should admit that you may have jumped to conclusions erroneously yourself. I know I am not perfect and have "sharp elbows," but I also know that I am not the only one.

I realise now that I should probably not have mentioned your daughter - it was just an example to try and bring the issue closer to you, but clearly it runs too close to home. I should have recognised that it would for you. I may well have jumped to unfair conclusions, but I'm still unsure as to what they were, since you only responded by commenting on the way I'd said things, rather than what I'd actually said. I never feel that I actually debate with you - the issue gets sidetracked. I'd much prefer if, when you think I'm misrepresenting what you have said, you would spell out more clearly what you did mean rather than assess my motives for doing so. I think it would make things easier, and I will continue to try and remember to do the same back.

> ... but they culture is not European.

ok, but define "European culture".


...culture is not European.

Couldn't you have said the same thing about Great Britain?

to be more explicit, yes, I think that's a reasonable M.O. for you and me. I will endeavor to do so.

I didn't know continents were defined by culture; I thought it was geography.

Here's our conversation if you want to look
http://surveycentral.org/survey/21357.html

Bosnia is not predominantly Muslim; it is almost equally Serbian, Coatian, and Muslim. Bosnia is the most diverse Balkan State, thus the conflict. Kosovo is predominantly Muslim.

Well, I am not going to tell you how to feel about other people and who to and who not to filter, since I reason that you can think for yourself and make that decision for yourself; but it does strike me how a few off-the-wall comments by someone (on cyber-space non-the-less) can make someone else totally not like them. I guess some people have lessor or a treshhold as to what offends them beyond recovery. Not saying that there is anything inherantly wrong with that attitude, I am just saying I never meet anyone so "uptight" (at least that's how I see it though my glasses) about something seemingly so stupid.



"Maybe Zang should consider that where I come from, if you make the kind of comments he makes, you get your ass beat...a lot...and painfully."

Well, like I said, where you come from is a totally different place. Certainly you see things through a different lens. Apparanlty in your world, there is a zero-tolerance policy towards certain things and people get set off a lot more easily. I just find that rather strange, but hey; in your world it might be the difference between life and death so I won't judge it.


...., you get your ass beat...a lot...and painfully."

Kinda overkill don't you think. Wow, some people do take things a bit seriously.

a few off-the-wall comments by someone (on cyber-space non-the-less)
> can make someone else totally not like them. I guess some people
> have lessor or a treshhold as to what offends them beyond recovery.
> Not saying that there is anything inherantly wrong with that attitude,
> I am just saying I never meet anyone so "uptight" (at least that's
> how I see it though my glasses) about something seemingly so stupid.

1. it's more than a few off-the-wall comments; it's who he is. Zang is an Anti-American, Anti-Religion, Marxist Revolutionist. I am a 3-time combat veteran, current Secret Service policy analyst/program officer, struggling Catholic. We are polar opposites before one word has been said. Multiply that by Zang's lack of decorum and my natural intensity, and you don't have to be a soothsayer to figure out there might be a rift

2. I am so not uptight; intense, for sure, but to think I am uptight is not to know me.

> "Maybe Zang should consider that where I come from, if you make the
> kind of comments he makes, you get your ass beat...a lot...and painfully."
>
> Well, like I said, where you come from is a totally different place.
> Certainly you see things through a different lens. Apparanlty in
> your world, there is a zero-tolerance policy towards certain things
> and people get set off a lot more easily. I just find that rather
> strange, but hey; in your world it might be the difference between
> life and death so I won't judge it.

No, I spoke badly here, and failed to make th point I intended. The point I was trying to make is that where I come from, you take care to respect how others may react to things. People who don't quickly learn that they should have. Remember, I am from the 5 boros, a very very tolerant, yet very very intolerant of intolerance kinda place. Yeah, you'll have to read that a few times.
>
>
> ...., you get your ass beat...a lot...and painfully."
>
> Kinda overkill don't you think. Wow, some people do take things a
> bit seriously.

Yes, you're a hundred percent right here; that was unnecessary, personally gratifying for a moment or two, but unnecessary and wrong.

Okay, you got me there. I cannot define European Culture. The only thing I had in mind for defining it was non-Turkish.

"The point is America has become more conservative over the last few years."

I still disagree and I still have yet to see one iota of evidence.



Unless off course you bring up the whole deal with the gay marriage amendment thing as conservative. Again (assuming thats the point you were gonna make, but I could be wrong), like I said eariler; the supposed conservative movement is really just a last ditch effort to keep the country from going even more left-winged (at least socially) than it allready is. So people think we're going consevative because there not is an amendment on the ballot. But think about it, why is it on the ballot in the first place? Could it be because 20 years ago, this would have been unthinkable? Nobody on the conservative side cared because this wasn't even an issue.



"That's pure fudging fabrication. Bush won becasue he won Ohio. They even know that in Singapore. "

I am not disputing that. My point is, back in 2000, Bush won Ohio by a land slide. I don't have the exact voting statistics on me, but I think that the trend showed Bush generally losing votes from the Mid-West.

fact #1) Every state that Bush won in 2000, he won in 2004. Every state that he lost, with the exception of Arizona (and maybe one more I am not sure), he lost again in 2004.

fact #2) In 2000, he won Ohio, and most other Midwestern states by a land slide. By 2004, he won Ohio by a spilt hair. Ok, he still won, I get that, but it was by a much smaller margin. Also, his margin of winning in other mid-western states was a bit smaller (allthough still enough to be a definitive winner)

fact #3) Bush won Florida by a much larger margin in 2004.

fact #4) Bush actually won plenty of votes in NY and NJ, which made up the bulk of his increase in popular votes, even though dispite this, he still had no fighting chance of winning NY overall. fact 4.1: Part of the reason was the 9/11 attacks where people felt safer with him being reelected. Bush was also an incumbant and we were in the middle of a war, so naturally he had a huge advantage. Not that people distrusted Kerry, its just that why change things when whats in place now works. Not worth taking that risk. Also, didn't Juliani (someone, just like Powell, I wouldn't mind voting for if the Republicans weren't such duchbags and actually nominated him) help Bush gain votes in NY.

fact #5) If those few votes in Ohio tipped over to the other side, which Bush was just lucky they didn't, he would have actually lost the election because of the electrol collage while winning the popular vote: a reversal from last time. Face it, the popular votes he gained were mostly from blue states worried about another terror attack.

fact #6) Bush was an incumbant. This by itself partially explains why he got the extra votes. The people voted for the person, not the politics. Also, in times of a crisis or a war, the incumbant has a *huge* advantage. I think its been said once that no president has ever lost a reelection in the middle of a war.


fact #7) It doesn't really matter what I say or what you say cause we won't change each other's minds probabbly and I don't know why I am doing this. Perhaps I just have too much spare time on my hands.


Anyway, all of this only proves that the voting pattern shows a loss in the Mid West and a gain in the Northeast. Allthought this does NOT *prove* my point and has not that much to do with how conservative the nation is or is not, it at least give you something to think on.

Fact: more and more women claim to be waiting for marriage to first have sex

Fact: the same with men.

Fact: Bush's approval rating before the Democratic primaries started was 53%; the Democrats should have kicked his ass, instead, they failed to gain even 1%, the popular vote had Bush ar 53%. Most political strategists say an encumbent needs at least a 58% (before the campaigning begins) approval rating to win reelection.

Fact: despite what you may say to exculpate, religous attendence is up since last year; 9/11 was in 2001.

Fact: Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won it this time around.

Fact: for the first time in over 20 years, according to the Marist College/CBS scientific poll and Roper Polling Group, Pro-life is more popular than Pro-choice.

Fact: Conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, according to Interep and Clear Channel.

Fact: There have been more "public decency" fines by the FCC and law suites filed in the last two years than the previous 5 years.

Fact: Fox news, a right-leaning network, is the most popular news network.

Fact: There is less government regulation of big business now than there has been since the sixties.

Fact: the Marist College/CBS poll says that environmental concerns have been less popular the last two years.

Fact: According to the D Ed, despite objections from educators and Democrats, charter and voucher programs are gaining popularity; private school enrollment is up; and the public supports a "return" to standardized testing.

Fact: According to the DoJ, with the exception of Maryland and Massachusettes, there is a "marked and general increase in America's prison population directingly resulting from togher sentences for convicted criminals." In other words, judges are getting tougher. No, not federal judges, elected ones. Federal judges are usually appelate and don't hand out many sentences.

Fact: Law enforcement and intel/security law is increasingly favoring the government as opposed to the individual.

How many iotas is that?

> 1. it's more than a few off-the-wall comments; it's who he is. Zang
> is an Anti-American, Anti-Religion, Marxist Revolutionist. I am a
> 3-time combat veteran, current Secret Service policy analyst/program
> officer, struggling Catholic. We are polar opposites before one word
> has been said. Multiply that by Zang's lack of decorum and my natural
> intensity, and you don't have to be a soothsayer to figure out there
> might be a rift

Ok, I can see how that can cause problems. But you have to keep in mind that #1) he's Canadian, so don't exactly expect him to wave the US flag, #2) Most of his Anti-Americanism is just him being critical of our flaws and arrogance, which I am reluctant to admit, exists. He does have a point there. #3) He also makes fun of his own people; I've seen him make cracks about Canada.

As for his lack of decorum, I haven't exactly been the most decoruous person here either



> 2. I am so not uptight; intense, for sure, but to think I am uptight
> is not to know me.

#1) I never claimed to have known you, 2) I was just saying that you came off as uptight/easily offended, not that you are. I was stating a personal observation, at least up to this point, not a fact to be taken for gospel. Besides, I damn well know a thing or two about how crappy first impressions are. I was just saying what mine was.



> No, I spoke badly here, and failed to make th point I intended. The
> point I was trying to make is that where I come from,

When you first made "where I come from" my assumption was that you were talking about your millitary life, not NY. The whole thing about you're lenses and whre you come from comment, I figured you were reffering to some millitary thing (which is what probabbly made me think you're being uptight). LIke I said, first impressions aren't very reliable.


you take care
> to respect how others may react to things. People who don't quickly
> learn that they should have. Remember, I am from the 5 boros, a very
> very tolerant, yet very very intolerant of intolerance kinda place.

> Yeah, you'll have to read that a few times.

Well, actually no, but I guess us comp sci majors are good at these kinds of things




Actually I though the ass-kicking thing was kinda funny (overkill and inappropriate, but funny). Actually once again, I thought you were talking about the millitary, not NY.



Anyway, I never noticed Zang being intollerant. Pot-shots maybe, rude maybe (not nessasarily in a bad way), but not intollarant. I still don't have a clue where you got that one from.

>
> Ok, I can see how that can cause problems. But you have to keep in
> mind that #1) he's Canadian, so don't exactly expect him to wave the
> US flag, #2) Most of his Anti-Americanism is just him being critical
> of our flaws and arrogance, which I am reluctant to admit, exists.
> He does have a point there. #3) He also makes fun of his own people;
> I've seen him make cracks about Canada. |>

This is irrelevant to me.


> |> 2. I am so not uptight; intense, for sure, but to think I am
> uptight
> |> is not to know me.
>
> #1) I never claimed to have known you, 2) I was just saying that you
> came off as uptight/easily offended, not that you are. I was stating
> a personal observation, at least up to this point, not a fact to be
> taken for gospel. Besides, I damn well know a thing or two about
> how crappy first impressions are. I was just saying what mine was. |>

Fair enough.

> When you first made "where I come from" my assumption was that you
> were talking about your millitary life, not NY. The whole thing about
> you're lenses and whre you come from comment, I figured you were reffering
> to some millitary thing (which is what probabbly made me think you're
> being uptight). LIke I said, first impressions aren't very reliable.

Again, fair enough.


> Actually I though the ass-kicking thing was kinda funny (overkill
> and inappropriate, but funny). Actually once again, I thought you
> were talking about the millitary, not NY.

ok

> Anyway, I never noticed Zang being intollerant. Pot-shots maybe,
> rude maybe (not nessasarily in a bad way), but not intollarant. I
> still don't have a clue where you got that one from.

That wasn't my point at all, I would expect Zang to be one of the most tolerant people around; he would have to be with that mouth.

My point was that in NY, though known for its tolerance, is also very politically sensitive. Rudeness, obnoxiiousness, etc., is quickly shot down, sometimes with a pistol.

> My point was that in NY, though known for
> its tolerance, is also very politically sensitive.
> Rudeness, obnoxiiousness, etc., is quickly
> shot down, sometimes with a pistol.
|

How sad.

Not for me, I love th city; it's just a matter of knowing boundaries.

True, although Bosnia's largest single religious group is Muslim, they don't constitute a majority.

I might be a Revolutionary Marxist, but I am neither Anti-Religion nor Anti-American. I don't personally have a great appreciation for organised religion, but I can see how it can be of benefit to others. I'm an iconoclast. I'm willing to make jokes about absolutely anything. I'm not adverse to criticising US foreign policy. I don't think that makes me Anti-American.

I don't think many people would disagree.

Something as simple as rudeness or obnoxiousness could get someone shot, though? Does that make for a lot of tragic misunderstandings?

see that's what I don't get if someone takes exception to a survey--why don't they just abstain? That is what I do. I just don't answer it, but I also don't rate it.

Under the right circumstances in a very bad neighborhood that's possible, sure, but extremely rare. However, I was using hyperbole to illiustrate a point that in the boros, you don't act deliberately rude and disrespectful to people because anyhting can happen.

I think my use of hyperbole may have given you the wrong impression, the Wild West hasn't been reborn in NYC.

ok. I'm still not sure I'd want to live in that kind of atmosphere, though. I guess I'd have to see it or hear more about it.

hey, these aren't my words, these were Matty's. I guess in Matty's world, small menial offenses can multiple several times over.

"Fact: more and more women claim to be waiting for marriage to first have sex

Fact: the same with men."

I think the operative word here is CLAIM. These are self-reporting surveys, which have a not such great reputation for their accuracy and/or honesty.

Also, take into account how many people these days engage in oral or anal sex but when asked on that survey, they don't count that as sex.

Thirdly, even if this all were true, this still doesn't mean it is a religious (much less a right-leaning) thing. It could as well be some new psydo/new age feminism or a straight edge thing. Or it could even be a drive to being more responsible, sort of the same way that the remaining people who aren't waiting are more likely to use birth control. Sort of like how there now is a movement to educate kids about bad credit and how to use credit cards responsibly. Now, I guess you could sort of say its conservative, sort of.


Fact: Bush's approval rating before the Democratic primaries started was 53%; the Democrats should have kicked his ass, instead, they failed to gain even 1%, the popular vote had Bush ar 53%. Most political strategists say an encumbent needs at least a 58% (before the campaigning begins) approval rating to win reelection.

Most political strategists say ..... this and that, yack yack yack. Just what the world needs, more self proclaimed experts. Apparantly 53% was enough. Just as they predicted Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman right?



Fact: despite what you may say to exculpate, religous attendence is up since last year; 9/11 was in 2001.

Ok, but does religious nessasarily equate conservative. You have heard of the religious left have you?



Fact: Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won it this time around.

Yet again, he was the incumbant. Plus take into account that Al Gore somehow was more electable than John Kerry. Plus Gore was more to the right than Kerry to begin with.



Fact: for the first time in over 20 years, according to the Marist College/CBS scientific poll and Roper Polling Group, Pro-life is more popular than Pro-choice.

I never heard such thing. Allthough I will take your word for it. But allways you got to take into account that because of more socially left-winged push over the years, condoms and birth control were more available and encouraged, thus leaving less room for excueses for people who did end up pregnate after volentary sex. Its sort of like the "yes it was a choice, a choice they made in the bedroom" argument excpet in addition "...and on top of that they didn't even wear a condom" thrown on top of it. Again, back to the responsibility thing.




Fact: Conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, according to Interep and Clear Channel.

Perhaps. I haven't looked into that. But like I said eariler, this could be a thing out of desperation. This could as well be a niche market towards people who feel disenfransided (for some strange reason).



Fact: There have been more "public decency" fines by the FCC and law suites filed in the last two years than the previous 5 years.

Ok, but more things considered "indecent" have had happened too. Oh, like Howard Stern didn't get hammered by them back in '96? And the Janet Boob thing, if this had happened back then, you somehow think people that people would have been less outraged. If anything, they did this because they overestimated how much things went to the left. (Ok, I am not trying to argue here that they're moving left, I am just arguing that they AREN"T going right).




Fact: Fox news, a right-leaning network, is the most popular news network.

Yes, but they're also not AS right-winged as they used to be. Someone pointed that out for me on a couple of occations.


Fact: There is less government regulation of big business now than there has been since the sixties.

This is true, but my arugment is about SOCIALLY left vs right, not ECONOMICLLY. Being fiscally conservative is not the same thing as being socially conservative just as being fiscally liberal is not the same thing as being socially liberal. Examples: Ahhrnold and Juiliani.


Fact: the Marist College/CBS poll says that environmental concerns have been less popular the last two years.

True that



Fact: According to the D Ed, despite objections from educators and Democrats, charter and voucher programs are gaining popularity; private school enrollment is up; and the public supports a "return" to standardized testing.

This could just as well be a libertarian movement of some sort or even an economiclly libral grass roots movement to help minorities get into private schools.



Fact: According to the DoJ, with the exception of Maryland and Massachusettes, there is a "marked and general increase in America's prison population directingly resulting from togher sentences for convicted criminals." In other words, judges are getting tougher. No, not federal judges, elected ones. Federal judges are usually appelate and don't hand out many sentences.

True. This has happened during the Clinton administation as well. Also, this has happened ironicly in California. For some reason, ironiclly, the most liberal state in the union has passed the idiotic 3-strikes-and-your-out law; a place where you would least expect this. Same thing with Hawaii. I think I had a slate article somewhere about this.



Fact: Law enforcement and intel/security law is increasingly favoring the government as opposed to the individual.

This sounds more like an anti-libertaian movement if anything.



How many iotas is that?

About 2 or 3. 4 if I give you the waiting thing.



Ok, granted, some facets of our society have a conservative direction to them, but overall, I don't see that. Also in others, its more libral direction. Overall, I think the left is winning, but there is a pendulum swinging back and forth in a few areas. Also, there is a lot of side-to-side movement as well. Granted, you make the claim that we are moving into a Victorian conservatism. But to me, it seems more as if (assuming that the conservatives are taking over) its a different KIND of conservatives here. The modern-day conservative chistian view of things (excluding nutcases like Jerry Farwell who only make a lot of noise) tends to be more in a direction towards personal responsiblity and libertainism rather than a prudish finger pointing in the past. We're dealing with totally diffrent sets of people here.

oh yeah, I almost forgot, for my proof as to why it wasn't the "values" that elected Bush into office.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109275/



(such a good thing that I am such an obsessive complusive that I save these things )

I'm done with this; if you want to think we are more liberal, that's your perogative.

an oversimplified editorial hardly constitutes proof; you're sure to see that when you move on to professional education

I know they weren't your words, but I just found out that he is filtering me and as the comments were directed at you, I felt the urge to say something...

ok point taken but still. It's a pretty good analysis. Besides, it wasn't JUST the article where I heard this information from; I think I heard my journalism professor independantly mention this tid bit even before this article was written.

Now I am not saying my sources are infallible, I am saying that I have a pretty good case. Also voting stats don't lie. Besides, if anything, you're long list of things is a good bit of oversimplification in it self. Believe me, any point can be shut down if you really look closely.

I didn't nessasarily say THAT, I am mostly saying that we AREN"T moving to the right. But I guess I should stop now before I start to argue in circles

Your journalism professor? That's part of the problem right there. Theory is a good thing; I'll soon be going for my J.D., but it only has limited application. Your professor certainly isn't a journalist and is in all likelyhood, so liberal he wets his bed. That's another dource I would not pay much attention to.

I would suggest you read an opposing analysis before you form an opinion.

Your journalism professor? That's part of the problem right there.

Why so? Anyway he's not ONLY a professor, he's also the Vice Administrator (or something like that). Plus he does some other kind of work.


"Your professor certainly isn't a journalist and is in all likelyhood, so liberal he wets his bed."

Actually he's an independant who voted for Bush in the 2004 election. (he waited till a very short time right before the election to even mention this, as he didn't want to tell us whose he voting for). No he's not a jornalist but he is very critical of the media, the government and such. No, he's not anti-government per se (he even has friends who are friends with the state attorny general) just very critical and a bit skeptical on what anyone says. I think it was he who once told me "believe nothing and everything that you hear." That all being said, he also told us of an analysis/theory about security moms and how the reason why Bush won is cause he got the female votes away because women were afraid of terror attacks, a theory which I didn't buy.

So no, I don't take his word as gospel, nor do I take slates. My point being that its kinda strange that he made that point while the rest of the media was talking about the "values" votes while later on some time someone else at slate independantly came up with the exact same observation about half a month or so later. Taking all of that information plus the fact that Bush lost many votes in Ohio (hell, he could have lost the entire election even while winning the popular vote) I came up the conclution that their analysis is right. Plus I even looked that the voting results somewhere. And no, I am not taking their analysis/theory as gospil, but because the evidence is so compelling in their favor, I will believe them until proven otherwise.



"I would suggest you read an opposing analysis before you form an opinion."

I have ----- its called Fox News. Every right-winged religious leader that they could find/that found them came on gloating (falsly) how *their* people WON by a landslide. Anyway, the good critical-thinker that I am, I am aware of their hidden adendas/biases (in this case ego) which probabbly influenced them into believing that it was the "values" votes. Compare that with "the other side" of independant analysists who have no vested interest or reason to be biased except for wanting to analyze the election; not saying they're infallible, and vollah, I have formed an opinion.

> Why so? Anyway he's not ONLY a professor, he's also the Vice Administrator
> (or something like that). Plus he does some other kind of work.

So not only is his life immersed in theory rather than reality; he doesn't even manipulate the theory full-time. Yeah, that's some source indeed.

> Actually he's an independant who voted for Bush in the 2004 election.
> (he waited till a very short time right before the election to even
> mention this, as he didn't want to tell us whose he voting for).
ok
> No he's not a jornalist but he is very critical of the media, the
> government and such.

That's his job as a theorist.

>No, he's not anti-government per se (he even
> has friends who are friends with the state attorny general) just very
> critical and a bit skeptical on what anyone says. I think it was
> he who once told me "believe nothing and everything that you hear."
> That all being said, he also told us of an analysis/theory about
> security moms and how the reason why Bush won is cause he got the
> female votes away because women were afraid of terror attacks, a theory
> which I didn't buy.

I don't understand why you brought this up.

> So no, I don't take his word as gospel, nor do I take slates. My
> point being that its kinda strange that he made that point while the
> rest of the media was talking about the "values" votes while later
> on some time someone else at slate independantly came up with
> the exact same observation about half a month or so later. Taking
> all of that information plus the fact that Bush lost many votes in
> Ohio (hell, he could have lost the entire election even while winning
> the popular vote) I came up the conclution that their analysis is
> right.

Two people who think the same way constitutes proof for you; did it ever occur to you that as a professor part of his job is to stay current with leading theories?
Did it ever occur to you that part of his job is also to discuss the atypical? Stop being an intellectual slave to academia; part of graduating is realizing that half of the things you learned are nonsense. No, not in the "get some learnin'" sense; in the sense that theory itself is is an attempt to describe what happens in real life. Don't take the description as the thing of value; the real value is what's being described.

>Plus I even looked that the voting results somewhere. And
> no, I am not taking their analysis/theory as gospil, but because the
> evidence is so compelling in their favor, I will believe them until
> proven otherwise.

What evidence is that?

> I have ----- its called Fox News. Every right-winged religious leader
> that they could find/that found them came on gloating (falsly) how
> *their* people WON by a landslide.

No broadcast is ever as dense as a written presentaion; further, Fox News is entertainment, not critical analyses.

> Anyway, the good critical-thinker
> that I am, I am aware of their hidden adendas/biases (in this case
> ego) which probabbly influenced them into believing that it was the
> "values" votes.

No, exit polls are what first indicated values, Fox merely reported that.

>Compare that with "the other side" of independant
> analysists who have no vested interest or reason to be biased except
> for wanting to analyze the election; not saying they're infallible,
> and vollah, I have formed an opinion.

What makes them independent? Their vested interest is to gather support for their ideas...to gain a greater audience...to earn more money.

Voila, indeed.

So not only is his life immersed in theory rather than reality; he doesn't even manipulate the theory full-time. Yeah, that's some source indeed.

When did I say anything about theory? No, no, no, he's not immersed in theory. This piece of info I brought up he mentioned during one of those off-topic class discussions. THis was not something he "preached to us", it was some interesting piece of fact he brought up. Also, he deals with a lot of campus politics and is some kind of business administrator guy too. If anything, he is just as much a realist as you. I don't know where you got the "theorist" thing from, that came out of nowhere. Trust me, I was in two of his classes and know him kind of well, I can tell you right now he's one of the most realist-thinking people I know.




"Two people who think the same way constitutes proof for you; did it ever occur to you that as a professor part of his job is to stay current with leading theories?"

No, not at all. Otherwise there would be a lot of proof going around. My point is that two people brought up interesting tid-bits of information and a conclusion, which I thought about it and it actually made sense. Yes, I could be wrong completly, but that's still "proof" as you call it. Anyway, two people who think independantly obtain a piece of data and draw a conclusion on their own hardly constitutes proof; but that piece of data in itself is proof, if nobody refutes it.




What evidence is that?

#1) Bush won Ohio by a slip margin, as opposed to a land slide. Plus, he lost a lot of midwestern states
#2) Bush won more votes in states like NY and NJ up in the NorthEast
#3) In exit polls, Bush won the independant male vote 4-to-1. The number one reason cited: security




No broadcast is ever as dense as a written presentaion; further, Fox News is entertainment, not critical analyses.

My point being, most of the sources pointing out why Bush won by such decisiveness were Christan conservatives. Given their big ass egos, naturally they would have the whole country (as well as themselves) to believe that it was them who got Bush all those votes. THey obviously like to think that they're more influential and in the mainstream that they actually are. And because of their huge balls, somehow the media buys it (without questioning it). Sort of like the euqivilant to the confident 19-year-old with a fake id walking in a bar, except in this case EVEN he believes that's he's 21.




No, exit polls are what first indicated values, Fox merely reported that.

According to the tid bit facts I got from my proff, terrorism is the number one reason according to exit polls. Obviously one of you is wrong (which I don't know which one and I won't take sides until I see some proof from either side).



What makes them independent? Their vested interest is to gather support for their ideas...to gain a greater audience...to earn more money.

True, but if their analysis turns up wrong, that shuts up their credibility, so it is in their vested interest to be right. Like I said earilier, no source is perfet (not even my prof)

> When did I say anything about theory? No, no, no, he's not immersed
> in theory.

This is where you just don't seem to get it. College (especially arts programs) is an exercise in theory. What your professor does for a living is disseminates theory to you. Otherwise, he would send you to work for a newspaper for 6 months.

> My point is that two people brought up interesting tid-bits of information
> and a conclusion, which I thought about it and it actually made sense.
> Yes, I could be wrong completly, but that's still "proof" as you
> call it. Anyway, two people who think independantly obtain a piece
> of data and draw a conclusion on their own hardly constitutes proof;
> but that piece of data in itself is proof, if nobody refutes it.

The flat-earth society has a membership of over 3-million people; I still don't think the earth is flat.

> #1) Bush won Ohio by a slip margin, as opposed to a land slide.

So, Ohio lost literally hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, where's the mystery?

> Plus, he lost a lot of midwestern states

No, he didn't; either you are making that up, or you are thinking of other states.

> #2) Bush won more votes in states like NY and NJ up in the NorthEast

No, Kerry won Jersey and NY, and solidly, too. Some polls said Bush was gaining ground prior to the election, but it never came to fruition.

> #3) In exit polls, Bush won the independant male vote 4-to-1. The
> number one reason cited: security

Again, I don't know where you getting this stuff, but it bears little resemblence to official election results. Maybe that's the problem, you might be referring to someon'e quoting of election results, not realizing you have been lied to. Journalists are liars, remember that.

> "No broadcast is ever as dense as a written presentaion; further, Fox
> News is entertainment, not critical analyses."
> My point being, most of the sources pointing out why Bush won by such
> decisiveness were Christan conservatives. Given their big ass egos,
> naturally they would have the whole country (as well as themselves)
> to believe that it was them who got Bush all those votes. THey obviously
> like to think that they're more influential and in the mainstream
> that they actually are. And because of their huge balls, somehow
> the media buys it (without questioning it). Sort of like the euqivilant
> to the confident 19-year-old with a fake id walking in a bar, except
> in this case EVEN he believes that's he's 21.
>
While Fox may lean to the right, to suggest it is run by Christian Conservatives is just plain stupid; you know better tham to come at me with conjecture that outlandish. Save nonsense like that for a big-boobed blonde who is too drunk to remember your name at 2 in the morning.

> No, exit polls are what first indicated values, Fox merely reported
> that.
>
> According to the tid bit facts I got from my proff, terrorism is the
> number one reason according to exit polls. Obviously one of you is
> wrong (which I don't know which one and I won't take sides until I
> see some proof from either side).

Check it out for yourself; anything I point out may seem tainted. I point you to the census bureau for starters.

> True, but if their analysis turns up wrong, that shuts up their credibility,
> so it is in their vested interest to be right. Like I said earilier,
> no source is perfet (not even my prof)
>
Not true, conservative and liberal pundents are often held up by other funding until a lie catches hold. Remember, if you say a lie often enough and to enough people, it will eventually become true. Example, the New Deal saved America from the Great Depression. That crap is still taught in many schools.

Sorry for procrastinating for so long. I meant to reply much sooner.



"This is where you just don't seem to get it. College (especially arts programs) is an exercise in theory. What your professor does for a living is disseminates theory to you. Otherwise, he would send you to work for a newspaper for 6 months."

Yes, I am fairly familiar with the concept, as many of my classes seem to be total bullcrap waste of time. BTW: my professor once worked for the Times Picaunye so he understands a thing or two about the business. Also, in this class, we had to write news story paragraphs given certain information and got a grade based on how well it was written. So in that sense, we had some real world experience.




"Again, I don't know where you getting this stuff, but it bears little resemblence to official election results. Maybe that's the problem, you might be referring to someon'e quoting of election results, not realizing you have been lied to. Journalists are liars, remember that."

Yes, I am aware of that too. Like I said eariler, I don't take what they say as gospil. I did say that I might be wrong, didn't I?




"While Fox may lean to the right, to suggest it is run by Christian Conservatives is just plain stupid; you know better tham to come at me with conjecture that outlandish. Save nonsense like that for a big-boobed blonde who is too drunk to remember your name at 2 in the morning."

I never said that. My point was, because of a disproporiante number of Christain Conservatives (and not even a representive sample of Christian Conservatives) that appear on Fox News, this enables them to make a lot of noise and convince the public that there is more of them than there really is. I am saying that they're ego inflated noisemakers using Fox News as a medium. Fox News on the other hand, allthough leaning towards the right, I never said that they were controlled by the Christain Conservatives, just saying that they have plenty of them on the air.




"Not true, conservative and liberal pundents are often held up by other funding until a lie catches hold. Remember, if you say a lie often enough and to enough people, it will eventually become true. Example, the New Deal saved America from the Great Depression. That crap is still taught in many schools."

Ok point taken. The pundents aren't exactly a bastian of truth. But that being said, whose to say that your source (whichever that may be) that says that it was the values vote that won Bush is acurate (or honest). All I am saying is that after hearing all that jibber-jabber on both sides, some people saying it was the values voters the other that it was terror; I simply decided and am convinced that it was the terror. Not to say that "my" source is infallible, its just that I would take the word of my professor AND that of a slate reporters over Fox News. Is that so unreasonable?

So yes, maybe its the people saying that it was the values voters that are repeating the lie, and are just more effective at it.



Anyway, my overall original point was not that our current society is more liberal than YOU think it is (which seems to be what you think my point is) but rather that we were pretty conservative to begin with. I think that you underestimate how conservative the nation used to be rather than me underestimating how conservative it is now. Thus, if that's the case; we are not really becomming more conservative, we allready WERE conservative to begin with. Granted, yes I do think that our current society is conservative, if that's what you are trying to convince me.

> Sorry for procrastinating for so long. I meant to reply much sooner.
>
given the length of this discussion; I'm not surprised
>
> Yes, I am fairly familiar with the concept, as many of my classes
> seem to be total bullcrap waste of time. BTW: my professor once
> worked for the Times Picaunye so he understands a thing or two about
> the business. Also, in this class, we had to write news story paragraphs
> given certain information and got a grade based on how well it was
> written. So in that sense, we had some real world experience.
>
It would be a lot more "real world" if a copy editor looked at your work after having given you an assignment...as in an internship. That's what I mean
>
> Yes, I am aware of that too. Like I said eariler, I don't take what
> they say as gospil. I did say that I might be wrong, didn't I?
>
Yes you did, and that's honorable
>
> I never said that. My point was, because of a disproporiante number
> of Christain Conservatives (and not even a representive sample of
> Christian Conservatives) that appear on Fox News, this enables them
> to make a lot of noise and convince the public that there is more
> of them than there really is. I am saying that they're ego inflated
> noisemakers using Fox News as a medium. Fox News on the other hand,
> allthough leaning towards the right, I never said that they were controlled
> by the Christain Conservatives, just saying that they have plenty
> of them on the air.

That's reasonable.
>

> Ok point taken. The pundents aren't exactly a bastian of truth.
> But that being said, whose to say that your source (whichever that
> may be) that says that it was the values vote that won Bush is acurate
> (or honest).

The Roper Group and the US census...they say almost the exact same thing. I don't think they are biased


>All I am saying is that after hearing all that jibber-jabber
> on both sides, some people saying it was the values voters the other
> that it was terror; I simply decided and am convinced that it was
> the terror. Not to say that "my" source is infallible, its just
> that I would take the word of my professor AND that of a slate reporters
> over Fox News. Is that so unreasonable?

When you have access to real sources, yes, it is unrerasonable. Roper and the US census have web sites.
>
> So yes, maybe its the people saying that it was the values voters
> that are repeating the lie, and are just more effective at it.
> Anyway, my overall original point was not that our current society
> is more liberal than YOU think it is (which seems to be what you think
> my point is) but rather that we were pretty conservative to begin
> with. I think that you underestimate how conservative the nation
> used to be rather than me underestimating how conservative it is now.
> Thus, if that's the case; we are not really becomming more conservative,
> we allready WERE conservative to begin with. Granted, yes I do think
> that our current society is conservative, if that's what you are trying
> to convince me.


What I said, was that America has become more conservative over the last few years, the reasoning is irrelevant to me (though I am sure much of it has to do with 9/11)

It sounds to me as if the Western world is softening up more toward left-leaning ideals. To me, if the West had won the Cold War, it would be the total opposite. Hell, even America is becoming more and more socialist.

So, no...I don't think the West won.