Well, I wasn't planning on it, as I was making a general point, but since you asked...........

Environment A All researchers need to keep working so they fudge the data to look bad and keep em in jobs

Few scientists, if any, are fudging data deliberately. It remains true that scientists who say there is a major environmental problem do get a lot more funding than scientists who think things are stable. Evolution in action.

So where does the data come from? Should I have wrote "skewing their interpretation to keep their jobs"?
Couldn't possibly be that the data fits the interpretation?


Environment B All radical environmentalists want to regress mankind back to stone age, or better yet back to ape

The key modifier here being "radical." This is largely correct, although most of them have some vague fantasy with everyone living in some odd collectivist post-tech age where nobody is burning fuel but everyone has a computer. When I was in college, geodesic domes with windmills figured prominently in their illustrations of the future. None of them are very clear on the details.
Actually, some radical environmentalists just want mankind extinct. Included in these ranks are Earth First, David M. Graber, David Foreman, John Davis, and others.

You know what, in certain cases I actually agree with you. My problem comes when you overstate the power the lunatic fringe has.


Iraq A It was all about the children and the regime

The regime is gone, and the children aren't dying of the regime's neglect any more. Doesn't suck.

No it doesn't suck. Just the endless "Well we didn't know he was that bad" excuses get old after a while. If we were all so concerned why weren't we screaming about it 2, 5, 10, 25 years ago?


Iraq B We know he HAD WMD before we invaded. It was all for our security.

If Saddam didn't have WMD, he sure gave a good imitation of someone who did. I'm still wondering about that. I find it very hard to believe that Saddam abandoned permanently an ambition he carried through decades, and the first Gulf War.

It is curious isn't it?


Superceded by: Iraq B1 - All WMD gone to Syria

Nobody has stated this as a fact, especially me. I have seen no credible evidence for it. If WMD or equipment were hidden, it is much more plausible that it is hidden in Iraq where it could be recovered by a returning regime in the future. I can't visualize Saddam trusting Syria or any other nation with it.

No facts, one of Dan's favorite theories, and also floated by Rummy et al a while back.


Iraq B2 - It's the size of California? How we supposed to know where it's at?

Well? Do you have an answer for that question? Divide the 168,000 square miles of Iraq by the thousand or so people currently assigned to find things.

Not to be confused with "We know where they are", later followed by "Well, I meant to say the general area".
Is that general area the size of California also?


Iraq C It was all about the oil

Oops...you stuck one of the Left's in there.

For sake of balance :-)
Always struck me as ludicrous as the other Iraq statements above.
One has to wonder though - if Halliburton got the oilfield reconstruction contract because of their expertise, why did they contract it out?


Iraq D/Terrorism A Anybody who disagrees with US policy is supporting terrorism

No, but the people currently shooting at us in Iraq are no doubt greatly encouraged by reports of political pressure on America to pull out of there, or turn it over to the human targets in blue helmets. And it would be refreshing to see something constructive from the anti-war folks once in a while. Listening to the Left in this country, one would think that absolutely nothing at all had gone right in Iraq.

Not directed at you - though you come close with some responses to Don's posts.
You think that Sadaam wherever he's holding out reads this board or takes delight in NYT coverage of lack of electricity in Baghdad?
Unconstructive and constructive arguments are coming out of both left and right these days. You tend to only focus on the stuff you don't agree with, then start swinging with the broad brush.


Iraq E/Terrorism B All those who disgree are just out to get Bush

Not JUST out to get Bush. But nine times out of ten, Bush is right near the top of the list. Do you listen to these people? Okay, I will grant there are certainly many anti-war people who would be just as hard over against the war in Iraq if Gore was president and he had gone in. However, there are damn few Democratic politicians among them.

How convenient that 9/10 of them are out to get Bush. They couldn't possibly be standing on principle could they? Are all the UK protestors out to get Bush too? The French, Germans and Belgians? Newsflash - the vast majority couldn't give tuppence for him.


Race The Democrats agenda is to keep black people poor

The more accurate word is "dependent," and it isn't confined to minorities (think elderly). A middle-class, prosperous, educated black person is in serious danger of deciding that maybe the government is more of a liability to him than otherwise. The virulent hatred of the Left for conservative blacks is obvious to any observer.

The goal of the Democrats, and those who share their politics, is a citizenry who is convinced that nothing can happen unless the government makes it happen.

Apologies for my wording. Same principle. How convenient that you are on the side of goodness and righteousness.
Still wrong though.


Government The Democrats would have increased the budget more

Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is true at all any more, although who knows what Gore would have done? Did he sound like Mr. Frugal during the campaign? Certainly I'm not that happy with the Republicans as far as spending goes. I do know that if Hillary had managed her health care coup, Clinton would not have ended his term bragging about surpluses.

So why aren't you rightists railing against the current spending? If this was a Democratic govt you'd be in apoplexy.


Politics Democrats have only one agenda - to make the US a socialist state

As a deliberate policy? Probably not, with a few notable exceptions. But if you can demonstrate a major Democratic political agenda that doesn't end up going down that road, please point it out.

An accidental policy? come on Tom, this has been an argument of yours for years.


California Look, if the shoe were on the other foot, the dems would be leading the parade, the hypocrites. (Davis Out!, Davis Out!)

Talk to the "Impeach Bush" crowd out here. Like I said, there were three recall attempts on Reagan. They just couldn't get the signatures.

There is no Impeach Bush crowd. More like a small tea-party. The glee that was shown by the same people who accused the dems of trying to steal the prez election is rank hypocrisy.


Media A Mainstream media is 100% biased towards the left

To be accurate, it's more like 94 percent by actual survey, and that's just the views of the personnel, not an official policy of the media organizations. It's a mindset, not an organized conspiracy of any kind.

See, you cant help yourself.
You cling to that poll like it was manna from heaven, and post only those articles that "show" the bias of the left.
"For every article like this, I could post a hundred more"
Yup - and for every post you make, I could show another 1000 that don't show a bias. Narrow view cherry-picking (the blogger's delight) doesn't cut it.
There are a zillion and one things the media could be probing into Bush, from drug-use, to military record to campaign promise backtracks. Yet they are largely silent - with the occasional mention here and there with no real investigation.
Why is this? Aren't they out to get him? Why not probe every facet of his life and politics like they did elsewhere.
Oh yeah, they're really out to get him.


Media B Mainstream media is 100% biased against Israel (Note: Not to be confused with old rightist canard that media was all too Jewish)

Not sure what the percentage is here. Lower than 100 percent, certainly. Go back and find how many articles stated that the "roadmap to peace" was not derailed when the Palestinians blew busloads of people to shreds, but days later when Israel responded to the attack. Typical example from the Guardian: The militant groups abandoned the truce on August 21 after Israel assassinated a Hamas leader in a missile strike that followed a suicide bombing which killed 22 people in Jerusalem.
The bias is not anti-Semitism specifically, it's more a general hostility toward any Western nation which is in conflict with...well, those who hate Western nations.


The 'left-leaning" Philadelphia Inquirer did a survey of complaints about it's Israel bias. They found that complaints were almost exactly divided between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian accusations of being in the opposite camp.
Again, you're cherry picking. And I'd really like to see that example from the Guardian........


Economy A Democrats will do all they can to tank the economy in time for next election

Oh, yeah, the Democrats and the press have been talking up the economy for months. You must have missed it.

Recall the 200 election? Who was it going from stump to stump, photo-op to photo-op saying the economy was tanking fast, we had an energy crisis, everything was going to shit? That must have helped consumer confidence....
Who was the last politician who said, everything is good, but it's not good enough, I'll make it better.
Wait that may have been Gingrich or Dole, complaining that a 4-5% growth rate was not enough.......
And talking down the economy is diferent from actively tanking it - something you have bee accusing the dems of doing.
Must be all about Bush again.


Economy B Everything is looking rosy

Predicted growth rate of 4 percent next year. Don't know where you set the bar for "rosy." Let me know.

Cherry picking indicators won't help. 4% is good. Debt levels are not. Deficit levels are not. Jobless levels are not. Stagflation indicators are not. Various theories abound that the current rosy picture is built on a housing market bubble.
I don't know - and I defy forecasters to foretell - if the economy is good, bad or middling. I'd probably say middling.