What a schmuck. My roommate is in the green party, and all year he talked about the importance of breaking out of the two party system. Clearly, Nadar doesn’t really give a shit about that, doesn’t care about winning, and really doesn’t care what happens to this country anymore. At this point, he seems to just be padding his ego.
Interestingly, there are allegations that the Bush campaign secretly supported Nadar. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that make Bush anti-Israel. Shocking!!!

if you think nader’s lebanese heritage has anything to do with his position on israel you’re as racist as you think he is.

“if you think nader’s lebanese heritage has anything to do with his position on israel you’re as racist as you think he is.”
Why don’t you look at the statistics of Lebanese people supporting Israel before you call me a racist. I’m not saying just because he’s Lebanese, he hates Israel. It’s just something I wanted to point out given his opinions.

Go Nader 2004, let Bush win!

*ooh, me stupido… above comment not for this post. blargh.

no snafu — read it again — he called the israeli the pupeteer and the president and congress puppets.

Mo, you’re right. My own typo/mistake there. But, I wasn’t really commenting on that aspect of it. I was only commenting on the headline, and how it makes an attempt to combine the affect of the puppeteer statements. That is, it mistates that Nader called “Isreal” a puppeteer, when, in fact, Nader only called a single “Isreali” leader a puppeteer.
I was more interested in the assumptive jump in logic that calling a single Isreali a “puppeteer” somehow gets translated into calling “Israel”, ergo the entire nation, a “puppeteer”.
It’s manipulative journalism. Such a jump should be made my the public, not by a media source.

“presumption: lebanese people hate israel.”
this isn’t really a presumption when its based on facts: according to information-international.com, a 2002 poll of 1290 people concluded that “the existence of Israel was viewed by the majority of respondents as the root cause of the Arab world’s problems today.” 58.8% of lebanese consider Israel’s presence to be the arabs’ gravest concern.
“presumption, racist assertion: ralph nader is no fan of israel because he is lebanese.”
“if you think nader’s lebanese heritage has anything to do with his position on israel you’re as racist as you think he is.”
how can you guys rule out that his background has can play a role in shaping his opinions? noone said “nader is lebanese, therefore he is an antisemite.” but many arabs dislike jews, many scots dislike the english and many poles dislike the russians, precisely because of their respective backgrounds, just to name a few. so when someone draws a likely. self-evident even, if politically incorrect conclusion, dont get your leftist panties in a bunch and begin crying foul, or “racist” as the case may be. have a little common sense. the lebanese dont like israel. nader is lebanese.nader doesnt like israel. some kind of connection cannot be ruled out and suggesting that one exists is no more racist than saying that say, joe lieberman’s strong dislike for arafat is related partially to his jewish background.

Polls are not “fact”. They are statistical assumptions.

A poll is a survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information. It’s definitely not an “assumption”

Misha, surverys are “statistical assumptions”. That’s basic poll analysis 101. Duh. Everything is a statistical assumption. In the morning, I wake up assuming that the planet will not be destroyed. I brush my teeth assuming that the water will not be poisonous. I put one foot ahead of the other, assuming the ground will not crumble beneath it. Most of the time all these assumptions are good ones. Occasionally they are wrong. So it goes.
Life is made up of statistical assumptions. We rely on the ones that are reasonable. As for polls measuring public opinion, they are the best indicator of public opinion that is usually available. If you think the poll is misleading or incorrect or betrays the true sway of Lebanese public opinion these days, you are of course free to provide some actual explanation as to why.
presumption: lebanese people hate israel.
fact: ralph nader is of lebanese descent.
fact: ralph nader is no fan of israel.
presumption, racist assertion: ralph nader is no fan of israel because he is lebanese.
No, you’re mistaken: nobody asserted that the reason Ralph Nader is no fan of Israel is because he is Lebanese. The mistake comes from confusing correlation with causation.
Being born to Lebanese parents tells us nothing about a person at all. On the other hand, people’s social networks often align along ethnic boundaries. That’s why we call them communities. Communities have cultures. In many Lebanese communities — Shia Muslim Lebanese communities in Lebanon, Maronite Lebanese communities in Michigan, Antiochian Orthodox Lebanese communities in Montreal, whatever — Israel and its role is something that gets talked about.
That many Lebanese are Arabic-speaking, and are far more likely than non-Arab-speakers to watch the various racist Arabic television networks whose antisemitic attitudes towards the Arab-Israeli conflict seeps through all of their programming, doesn’t help.
So, yes, many Lebanese are racist and anti-Israeli. As to whether Ralph Nader is among them, who knows? As to whether he identifies as Lebanese, spends time with people who do identify as Lebanese: again, who knows? But, yes, someone who spends lots of time with folks among whom it is acceptable to denigrate Israel and the Jewish people’s rights, well, yes: it is a piece of the puzzle. Though not, quite obviously, the whole puzzle.
(In other words: not the reason. But, yes, a contributing factor.)

8upus, your comment above is so full of analytical errors and jumps in logic and fallacies, it’s hard to know where to begin…
Everything is a statistical assumption. In the morning, I wake up assuming that the planet will not be destroyed. I brush my teeth assuming that the water will not be poisonous. I put one foot ahead of the other, assuming the ground will not crumble beneath it.
Um, no. Not everything is a STATISTICAL assumption, meaning an assumption based upon gathered numbers, and analysed for trends and commonality and level of occurance. Comparing the statisical assumptions of a pollster with a logical assumption, say, that you wake up and the planet is destroyed, or the water is poisoned, etc etc, is like comparing night and day. The former is based upon STATISTICS, data gathered by a pollster. The latter are simply logical assumptions based upon faith, that is, you can’t really know the answer to those questions, and statistical analysis of such problems would be based on entirely random factors, most of them unknown. So, your comparison is erroneous and fallacioius at best… which leads us to…
Life is made up of statistical assumptions.
No. Life is made up of LOGICAL assumptions. It’s logical to assume that it’s fairly safe to drink the tap water in your sink and not get poisoned. Statisitically, there is a probability that you will get sick by drinking the tap water, but those current and definable numbers are more than likely astronimical given the randomness. Simply put, accepting for random factors, (such as a terror attack, for which there is no reliable statistical data at the moment) you have a better chance of getting hit by lighting than you have of getting poisoned by tap water or waking up and having the earth be destroyed. It’s a logical assumption that such things are statisically rare, since there is no real statistical data to establish a sample and thus a conclusion. Although, in both cases, there are plenty of people who are willing to fathom an educated guess, which is an entirely different matter.
As for polls measuring public opinion, they are the best indicator of public opinion that is usually available.
Usually stated by those who most benefit by the information proffered by polls. And, no, they are not considered the best indicator of public opinion by a long shot. Public votes are considered higher on the opinion scale, as are focus groups (A 1200 f group vs a 1200 poll sample is no contest.) and grassroots analysis; financial data, marketing data, response campaigns, legislative sampling, TV and radio ratings, consumer trends, email traffic etc. Polls are simply the most media friendly and the one with which the public is most familiar. “65% of American’s say….” goes over well in a 45 second blurb between the sports and the human interest. It’s an assumption, an incorrect one at that, that polls contain emperical data.
If you think the poll is misleading or incorrect or betrays the true sway of Lebanese public opinion these days, you are of course free to provide some actual explanation as to why.
First of all, the question: “a 2002 poll of 1290 people concluded that “the existence of Israel was viewed by the majority of respondents as the root cause of the Arab world’s problems today.” 58.8% of lebanese consider Israel’s presence to be the arabs’ gravest concern. ”
It’s not unreasonable to presume that a large proportion of an Arab nation is going to consider the existence of Israel to be a root cause of their problems. Considering the propaganda, the hatred, the social problems, the political problems etc etc. That’s a given. Especially in a population which has been at war with Israel and experienced a certain amount of hardhip and oppression. The other issue is statistical, since 1290 of nearly 4,000,000 Lebanese is a hard curve, to say the least. The actual poll is in Arabic, which I don’t read, so I’ve no idea what the demographic breakup of the poll was, how it was conducted, what the actual questions were etc.
Further, while poll question contains the word “existence”, it’s not possible to tell under what context that question is offered. While it’s a buzzword for some who automatically equate mistrust or hate of Israel and Israeli policy with anti-semitism (an argument comparible to stating that hatred of Bush or US policy is automatically anti-American. Not entirely apropos or true, but statistically apparent.) it’s not an unlogical assumption from a certain perspective, as a person in Lebanon who may have lost family from Isreali military policy and actions, it’s a safe to presume that a certain proportion of the populatin will feel that Israel’s existence might be the root cause of their woes. Now, does that mean that those SAME people ALSO think that Isreal has no right to exist? Doubtful, since to my mind, if it did, that would be quoted above instead. It remains unclear at the moment. But, assuming that is a great leap.
The issue as germain to this discussion is that it’s a logical fallacy to presume that since a poll of Lebanese people states that a majority POLLED believe that Isreal’s existence is the root cause of Arab problem’s today”, assuming that such a statement is anti-semitic and THUS all Lebanese, such as Ralph Nader, are anti-semitic. It’s both an inductive fallacy and a popular fallacy. You are stating that since a sample of Lebanese polled beleive in something, thus ALL Lebanese believe it. Fallacy. Which was Mo’s point as well I believe. You can cite polls, but such data, again is far far from imperical.
Example: under what circumstances was the poll taken? Was it right after a young child was killed by the IDF and it was all over the TV? And, that’s only the first of it… polls are not emperical. Usually, the information they gather is badly tainted. That doesn’t stop them from being used as political fodder, as “emperical” data, as “proof”.
Sad but true.

Um, no. Not everything is a STATISTICAL assumption, meaning an assumption based upon gathered numbers, and analysed for trends and commonality and level of occurance. Comparing the statisical assumptions of a pollster with a logical assumption, say, that you wake up and the planet is destroyed, or the water is poisoned, etc etc, is like comparing night and day. No, that’s incorrect. Some of the time the ground crumbles beneath people’s feet, for instance, an eventuality which increases as we approach faultlines but can happen pretty much anywhere — even here in Montreal where, much to folks’ surprise, there have been occasional earthquakes. We’re always playing the odds. But unless we’re complete idiots, we realise that some odds are greater than others. That’s how the game of life is played. Welcome.
Similarly: No. Life is made up of LOGICAL assumptions. It’s interesting to me that you feel that the worlds of logic and statistics are separate ones. How do you think statistical experiments are designed, exactly? Or perhaps these are the musings of a philosophy enthusiast who feels that we can skip the empirical world, embed the empirical assumptions we figure are true, and call our refusal to acknowledge this embeddedness “logic”? And again: It’s a logical assumption that such things are statisically rare, since there is no real statistical data to establish a sample and thus a conclusion. Yes, there is the idea out there that things which have not been measured do not actually exist. Few people hold such ideas, however. Fortunately. The rest of us rely on the best information we can get.
Don’t get me wrong: rejecting all empirical evidence that isn’t perfect is great fun since, by definition, no empirical evidence can be perfect. To be convincing, though, it’s usually more useful to explain why empirical evidence isn’t plausible — perfection is an awfully high standard, and has the unfortunate drawback of making it hard to get out of bed in the morning (see earlier post). That’s why trashing polls usually has to involve trashing specific polls.
Which isn’t really the point at hand, either (Ralph Nader is). Though it’s nice of you to play. Usually stated by those who most benefit by the information proffered by polls. Yes: and, by all means, go ahead — argue with it, rather than the platitudes you’re serving up here. And, no, they are not considered the best indicator of public opinion by a long shot. Public votes are considered higher on the opinion scale, as are focus groups (A 1200 f group vs a 1200 poll sample is no contest.) Yes. Long interviews with every member of the population would be good, too. On the other hand, I’m reasonably confident that the Lebanese government has not held a referendum on this particular issue. Or am I missing something? and grassroots analysis; financial data, marketing data, response campaigns, legislative sampling, TV and radio ratings, consumer trends, email traffic etc.
Tee hee. Now you’re just grasping; suffice it to say that most of the available data sets generated from all that stuff are at least as fucked as most polls. Methodology problems, y’know. Real world stuff — pesky, but important. Which leads back to restating your original proposition, which makes no more sense for repeating it than it did when you first asserted it: it’s a logical fallacy to presume that since a poll of Lebanese people states that a majority POLLED believe that Isreal’s existence is the root cause of Arab problem’s today”, assuming that such a statement is anti-semitic and THUS all Lebanese, such as Ralph Nader, are anti-semitic.
… and the reason it doesn’t make sense is that you’re grappling mightily with a straw man. You’re arguing with something noone has asserted. Why you’re staging that argument, I can only imagine. As to what was asserted, see above: people were off-the-cuff surmising as to some of the things which might have led Nader to adopt the attitude he did. They were wondering whether his social circles and communal ties may have contributed.
Did they? As stated above: who the hell knows? Few of us have a window to Nader’s brain, nor much insight as to who he hangs out with. Now, that would have been a more interesting discussion. I mean, when Nader calls Israel a puppeteer and America its puppet, what are the social circles he travels in where that’d be considered appropriate or normal? Or, alternatively, is he saying something that even he thinks is outrageous — and, if so, to what end?
‘Course, you’d rather bluster about how polls should be ignored in the absence of a shining beacon of statistical perfection. Which is your right. Seems kind of silly, though.

Polls are NOT empirical evidence! Continually stating that they ARE doesn’t make it so.
SNAFU:?Um, no. Not everything is a STATISTICAL assumption, meaning an assumption based upon gathered numbers, and analysed for trends and commonality and level of occurance. Comparing the statisical assumptions of a pollster with a logical assumption, say, that you wake up and the planet is destroyed, or the water is poisoned, etc etc, is like comparing night and day.” 8upus:” No, that’s incorrect. Some of the time the ground crumbles beneath people’s feet, for instance, an eventuality which increases as we approach faultlines but can happen pretty much anywhere — even here in Montreal where, much to folks’ surprise, there have been occasional earthquakes. We’re always playing the odds. But unless we’re complete idiots, we realise that some odds are greater than others. That’s how the game of life is played. Welcome. We are stating the same thing is different ways. “Playing the odds” are you say is another way of saying we use “logical assumptions” from day to day. It’s logical to assume that the odds favor us usually. It’s not always entirely true, which leads to problems, but generally, it’s considered a logical assumption and thus fair.
Don’t get me wrong: rejecting all empirical evidence that isn’t perfect is great fun since, by definition, no empirical evidence can be perfect. To be convincing, though, it’s usually more useful to explain why empirical evidence isn’t plausible — perfection is an awfully high standard, and has the unfortunate drawback of making it hard to get out of bed in the morning (see earlier post). That’s why trashing polls usually has to involve trashing specific polls.
You are misreprenting what I’ve said. No one said ANYTHING about rejecting ALL empirical evidence. I stated only that polls are used as “emperical” data, when they are not emperical at all. And, if you notice, I’m not “trashing polls”, (you misrepresent again.) I’m stating that pollstering is misused and misunderstood, primarily by the media and thus by the public. Polls are only statistical samples meant to show how a given demographic is thinking at any given time on a series of or specific singular issues. The statistical analysis is meant only to show a probability, not a defined fact. So, when they say that “65% of American’s support the war in Iraq”, it’s MEANT to be a probability that such a number is possible. It’s not meant to be conveyed as a FACT, nor is it MEANT to be conveyed as such. But, the language that is often used to report such polls gives that impression, which is thus conveyed to the public and people PRESUME that such data is emperical and true, when it’s only meant to be a SAMPLE OF PROBABILITY. Possible but not infallible, given specifics of the questions, timing, randomness, sample, bias of the questions, leading questions, etc.
You can talk about “perfecion” and stuff, but it’s not really germain to the discussion. Beleiving in polls is statistically probable, yes, but not entirely reliable.
As a PHd in Mathematics friend of mine likes to say, you can prove or disprove pretty much anything with numbers given you understand the language.
… and the reason it doesn’t make sense is that you’re grappling mightily with a straw man. You’re arguing with something noone has asserted.
Are you even paying attention? From above:
FYI, Nader is of Lebanese descent.
mike • 07/02/04 06:23pm
***
if you think nader’s lebanese heritage has anything to do with his position on israel you’re as racist as you think he is.
Mobius • 07/02/04 07:09pm
Why don’t you look at the statistics of Lebanese people supporting Israel before you call me a racist. I’m not saying just because he’s Lebanese, he hates Israel. It’s just something I wanted to point out given his opinions.
mike • 07/02/04 10:20pm
So, why point it out at ALL if not to make the presumption that Nader’s Lebanese background should be on the table?
And, um 8upus, I’d say that the little discussion above qualifies.
Thereafter, if you rread above, I proceeded to discuss how polls are not really a reliable indicator of public opinion, especially in contentious areas regarding issues with deep polarization within polarized demographics.
I was, wrongly, assuming that person’s in here, by defending polls, were supporting Mike’s assertion. My bad. It wasn’t a definitie presumptoin on my part, it was only suspected. But, I take all your words for it that you don’t beleive that to be the case…
It’s a complicated issue to say the least.

as easy and inviting as it is to write an argument off as semantics, this isnt a case where you can do that. i wanted to reiterate my point regarding the lack of definite causality between nader’s background and his views in the original post, but i assumed that writing it twice would insult your intelligence. apparently i was wrong, so let me clarify:
“the lebanese dont like israel. nader is lebanese.nader doesnt like israel. some kind of connection cannot be ruled out” +
“people were off-the-cuff surmising as to some of the things which might have led Nader to adopt the attitude he did. They were wondering whether his
social circles and communal ties may have contributed.” +
“FYI, Nader is of Lebanese descent.”
..still does not, in any world, add up to “if A then B.” if you get caught, as was said earlier “wrestling mightily with a straw man,” maybe you ought to move on in a more graceful way then throwing the “semantics” towel.
as for my profoundly lacking understanding of political polling and statistical analyses, despite having both used and critized polls in every political science class ive ever had, i can say that i am defenseless. if “you dont understand the nature” is how i am to be discredited, then i give up. i hope however, you won’t find it rude, that i ask what your credentials are. im asking because i find a ton of big words from psc, stat and econ in your speech, but many seem either misplaced or irrelevant…

Misha references this statment by 8upus:you are grappiling mightily with a straw man…You’re arguing with something noone has asserted”
Not true at all. It’s not a straw man, not even close. It was inferred by Mike (intentionally or not) that because Nader was Lebanese, that he was, or it was possible, that he was an anti-semite. That is called a fallacy of compostion. This little tidbit was picked up and run with by Misha when he cited the “facts” of the poll.
My argument is not a straw man because it was indeed stated, inferred if you will, that “if you are Lebanese, there is a good chance you are anti-Isreal”. Here is the proof:
Micha stated the following: this isn’t really a presumption when its based on facts: according to information-international.com, a 2002 poll of 1290 people concluded that “the existence of Israel was viewed by the majority of respondents as the root cause of the Arab world’s problems today.” 58.8% of lebanese consider Israel’s presence to be the arabs’ gravest concern.
I then stated, to truncate, that it’s not really prudent to cite polls as supporting data in a situation like this. First, it has nothing to do with Nader, second, polls are not reliable in areas such as Lebanon. And, further, without the actual poll, (which is in Arabic) it’s impossible to establish the truth. But, the point is, polls are not emperical data. They are samples meant to indicate a probability. That’s all. Further, my point was, that you can’t use a POLL which states that “the existence of Israel was viewed by the majority of respondents as the root cause of the Arab world’s problems today.” to bolster the theory that Nader, who is also Lebanese, feels the same way or is anti-semitic. That is what you did.
See, the thing is Misha, no one would say that what you are stating isn’t partially true. The problem is, you used a LOGICAL FALLACY to make your point, then you engaged in semantics to hide it. (And, apparently, blindly followed 8upus accusation that I engaged in my own fallacy, which is unfounded and unsupported by anything in this comments area.)
Read it again Misha. Here’s the whole thing for you:
First, you state that Lebanese hate Isreal:
“presumption: lebanese people hate israel.”
(Msha)”this isn’t really a presumption when its based on facts: according to information-international.com, a 2002 poll of 1290 people concluded that “the existence of Israel was viewed by the majority of respondents as the root cause of the Arab world’s problems today.” 58.8% of lebanese consider Israel’s presence to be the arabs’ gravest concern.”
Second, you CONNECT the above statement to Nader as PROOF that Nader hates Isreal.

“presumption, racist assertion: ralph nader is no fan of israel because he is lebanese.”
“if you think nader’s lebanese heritage has anything to do with his position on israel you’re as racist as you think he is.”
(Misha)”how can you guys rule out that his background has can play a role in shaping his opinions? noone said “nader is lebanese, therefore he is an antisemite.” but many arabs dislike jews, many scots dislike the english and many poles dislike the russians, precisely because of their respective backgrounds, just to name a few. so when someone draws a likely. self-evident even, if politically incorrect conclusion, dont get your leftist panties in a bunch and begin crying foul, or “racist” as the case may be. have a little common sense. the lebanese dont like israel. nader is lebanese.nader doesnt like israel. some kind of connection cannot be ruled out and suggesting that one exists is no more racist than saying that say, joe lieberman’s strong dislike for arafat is related partially to his jewish background.”
It’s a LOGICAL FALLACY to state, as YOU HAVE, that since many Lebanese hate Isreal, and Nader is Lebanese, thus he hates Isreal. That is what you did Misha. Forget the “FACTS” of the poll. It’s irrelevent. You used a fallacy to make your point. It’s called a fallacy of composition. You stated this fallacy IN YOUR OWN WORDS as well.
From Nizcor: “The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the “reasoning” would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics. ”
To wit: Just because a sample of Lebanese polled are statistically determined to be anti-Isreal or have anti-semitic characteristics, does not mean 1) that ALL Lebanese anti-Isreal or anti-semitic. 2) That a specific American born of Lebanese descent is anti-Isreal or anti-semitic.
I’ll let slip the agreed LANGUAGE of the actual poll question only implies that Isreal is to blame for Arab woe.
I accussed you of engaging in a semantic argument to hide the fact that you used your own logical fallacy to prop up your argument. I was being nice.
But, you had to go on didn’t you?
Misha:as easy and inviting as it is to write an argument off as semantics, this isnt a case where you can do that. i wanted to reiterate my point regarding the lack of definite causality between nader’s background and his views in the original post, but i assumed that writing it twice would insult your intelligence. apparently i was wrong, so let me clarify:
“the lebanese dont like israel. nader is lebanese.nader doesnt like israel. some kind of connection cannot be ruled out” +
“people were off-the-cuff surmising as to some of the things which might have led Nader to adopt the attitude he did. They were wondering whether his
social circles and communal ties may have contributed.” +
“FYI, Nader is of Lebanese descent.”
Point by point:
For starters….
but i assumed that writing it twice would insult your intelligence. apparently i was wrong,
Nice… very nice. Sound argument. Good form.
Moving on…
My issue with SEMANTICS with you was in reference to THIS statement, mde my YOU:(which I will repeat for your convenience YET AGAIN.)
NOONE said that nader is an antisemite because he is lebanese. what has been said is that its a related factor that cannot be ruled out altogether, because- are you ready for this one? the lebanese, due to their history, religious and social identification, and various other factors, by and large do not like israel.
And, my reply, as above, WHICH I’LL REPEAT FOR YOU ONCE AGAIN: “Come on Misha, that’s just semantics. It was being implied that because Nader was of Lebanese heritage that it therefore makes sense that he’s anti-semitic. I wasn’t the only person to make that connection. So, why is it all of a sudden OFF the table when it was on ON the table? You can get all deep in semantics on it, but it’s right up there for you to read… which I DID do btw. Nice try, but read it again Misha. ”
You really do love semantics. Here it is AGAIN:
NOONE said that nader is an antisemite because he is lebanese. First, again, it was impied by Mike, and you engage is a semantic argument by misrepresenting via language, what you DID write, which is engage in a LOGICAL FALLACY.
Misha:“the lebanese dont like israel. nader is lebanese.nader doesnt like israel. some kind of connection cannot be ruled out”
Again, THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY. YOUR WORDS.

Actually, to be specific, Misha’s fallacy is a combination of a composition and biased sample.

I read what you posted Misha. And, I used your own words. And, you do so once again… but, now you are backpedaling…
a-nader is lebanese
b-many lebanese dislike israel
c-nader dislikes israel
these are all individually introduced variables held to be true. no causal relationship here is needed, nor is one established. noone is saying “if a and b, then c” we know “c” is true because of nader’s own words.
No, you are the one who combined the issues, by introducing the poll of Lebanese and linking it to Nader. You did that.
Take responsibillity for you fucking bullshit.

Misha. First of all, um… I’m calm. Why you would think otherwise is a mystery. If I were angry, you’d know it. Methinks you are simply trying to divert, AGAIN. Yay for you.
And, no, your little analogy is wrong, although it is entirely correct in showing your convuluted attempt at backpedaling from your initial statment. Fine.
Hint: “although we dont understand exactly why timmy likes ice cream, he is a kid, and that may play a role ” is playing semantics with the established subject above.
And, seriously… learn to admit when you are wrong bro.