| Terror Alerts [message #107777] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 16:45  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/227/958/640/approval_alert_graph2.jpg
Hm, seems as if these terror alerts aren't entirely about terrorism...
EDIT - This picture is giving me some trouble properly accessing it, the link might not work, I find that the best way to view it is to copy & paste the link into your browser address bar.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107781] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 16:57  |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I fail to see the relevance between terror alerts and his approval rating. I don't see any jumps around the warnings, nor do I see "suspicious" alerts surrounding important events.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107807] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 19:06 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
No, as it seems quite obvious from that chart, whenever Bush's numbers drop, there's a terror alert, a little hop in his ratings, they go down a bit again, terror alert, yadda yadda.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107828] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 23:43 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It's true that it's almost too easy for the Bush administration to issue a terror alert to get some media attention, after which he can hold a speech, which will get him more attention and if he doesn't screw that up too much it will get people to vote for him.
Also, it's pretty much impossible to check whether or not those alerts are actualy based on something. I do not want to jump to conclusions, I just want to say it's too easy for him to abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107869] |
Sat, 14 August 2004 06:59 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Doitle, I'm not saying that every time Bush's ratings go down, he calls a terror alert. His approval rising without him using a terror alert is a good sign, but you can see whenever he calls a terror alert, his ratings get a little boost. You can also see that as his popularity lowers, there are more and more alerts.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107968] |
Sat, 14 August 2004 15:47 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
And you're saying there are no other possible events that would give a "little boost"?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #107980] |
Sat, 14 August 2004 17:52 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Whenever there's a terror alert, his ratings get a small boost. Unless something happens at the same time he calls a terror alert pretty much always, I don't see how terror alerts and rating jumps are unrelated.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108073] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 02:21 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Those triangles span several days... it's hard to pinpoint a true correlation. But I guess the real point is this... why is it a good thing for Bush when the country is in danger, real or fake? Why would Bush get a jump in the polls if a terrorist attack was imminent? Answer me that please.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108113] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 08:39 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
If I were bulimc and I puked every time I ate something, would you think I just ate something every time I puked?
Some things just aren't cause and effect related..
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108174] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 15:14 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
These, for the most part, are.
But that's not the point.
The point is is that there seems to be a terror alert whenever Bush's ratings start to fall, and as they get lower and lower, there are more and more terror alerts.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108189] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 16:43 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SEAL |
People think that the Bush administration is on top of things and has intelligence about terrorist activity. People feel safer when they think the US is aware of and ready to defend against attacks.
|
Do you remember what happened when we thought we were safe? Do you remember when 19 men hijacked 4 planes and took out two of the tallest towers in the world, part of the Pentagon, and were thwarted in one other unknown target?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108241] |
Sun, 15 August 2004 22:54 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Very good. Now if I give you this theory:
The Democrats questions the alleged "timing" of terror alerts and accuse the Bush Administration of using them for political gain. Now, my conjecture is... the Democrats feel threatened by this because they are weak on defense. They don't like Americans to feel they are in danger because they aren't as strong in handling such threats and responding to them... or preventing them altogether.
Given that theory, how would you argue against it?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108276] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 04:24 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, first, I would ask how the Democrats are weak on defense...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108294] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 09:10 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That is the point of my conjecture. If terror alerts = boost for Bush, is that because Dems are weak on defense? If no, explain why not.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108299] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 09:47 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
There's a difference in people believing that the Dems are weak on defence and them actually being it (or not, for that matter). The first, unfortunately, matters in such a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108307] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 11:13 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
So, hypothetically, Kerry wins in November... in March of next year, he raises the terror alert. Would you libs then still say it was for political gain, or that there is a reason for such an alert to occur?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Terror Alerts [message #108420] |
Mon, 16 August 2004 23:36 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
So, hypothetically, Kerry wins in November... in March of next year, he raises the terror alert. Would you libs then still say it was for political gain, or that there is a reason for such an alert to occur?
|
Yes, with a reference to what SEAL said.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
