I guess that depends on what you call "the basic facts." He seemed to have those down just fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing the specifics.

What I call the basic facts would be something resembling the truth, not this scare-tactic "the election was stolen OMFG! OMFG!" crap these authors keep saying. That's what I would call the basic facts. Nothing was "stolen" - Florida election law required that the election be certified by a certain date, a date upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. That court made an incorrect interpretation on the issue/methodology of recounts, though, which is what the Supreme Court was addressing in the comments I quoted earlier. Subsequent recounts by a consortium of newspapers found that the count may have varied by a few hundred votes depending on if the Court ruled for Bush or Gore, but the outcome was the same - a Bush victory.

If you insist on not demanding somewhat factual data in the articles you put forth as the basis for your support of a particular candidate, you've got to expect someone to call you on it.

I said, "Bush supporters don't know Bush's positions." You replied with: "Yeah, but you can say that about either candidate."

The same study showed that Kerry supporters mis-perceive some of his positions as well, and I'm sure this is true on other issues.

Now you get it! Congrats! There is a matter of degree, but my statement is still valid. Thanks for backing me up there.

Anyway, I'm thoroughly sick of talking about the election with you. I won't reply to your posts on the subject in the future, and you can feel free to do the same to me.

Oh, come on, don't pout. I enjoy our discourses much more than the ones Halsy is involved in. At least you are civil and respectful.


*************
* Warhawk *
*************

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

No, but when the author can't even get the basic facts straight in the first couple paragraphs

I guess that depends on what you call "the basic facts." He seemed to have those down just fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing the specifics.

Nothing empty about it. Just because I wasn't specifically addressing you doesn't mean it's empty, does it? Are you that self-centered? Can I not make general comments in addition to specific ones? I didn't realize that was a restricted activity.

First, your attempts at wit and sarcasm are tiresome and add nothing to the discussion.

Second, it had nothing to do with comments being addressed to me -- your statement didn't say anything, hence it was empty. We were looking at a study which showed that on six separate issues, the majority of Bush supporters were wrong about Bush's positions while the majority of Kerry supporters were correct about his. I said, "Bush supporters don't know Bush's positions." You replied with: "Yeah, but you can say that about either candidate." Well, not on these issues, according to the numbers. Which issues were you talking about? What support were you using? None. The same study showed that Kerry supporters mis-perceive some of his positions as well, and I'm sure this is true on other issues. But the amount of misperception was clearly much heavier on the Bush side. On average, 71% of Kerry supporters correctly perceived his positions, while 38.5% of Bush supporters were correct about his. This is a significant disparity. You dismissing this fact by making a vague and unsupported statement about how it goes both ways doesn't make it true, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm thoroughly sick of talking about the election with you. I won't reply to your posts on the subject in the future, and you can feel free to do the same to me.

~Steve

warhawk, I think we can all agree that the 2000 election was not the central point of that editorial.

No, but when the author can't even get the basic facts straight in the first couple paragraphs, I usually don't waste much time on the rest of it. Maybe you do. Whatever.

I don't see how you can call it "just another hit piece on Bush" like it's part of some kind of smear campaign talking about the guy's fictional illegitimate children or something. It dealt with his record as well as Senator Kerry's record and made a perfectly reasonable case.

Again, what part of no credibility do you not get? The facts are wrong and its clearly biased with no attempt at honestly looking at the facts. It's a "perfectly reasonable" bit if you check your brain and don't read it for facts, I guess.

As for the rest "not being worth your time," I don't see how you figure that.

Because I was leaving town for the day for work and really didn't have the time to waste on drivel.

The whole article is "mute" (moot) because you disagree about the handling of the 2000 election debacle?

OK, I used the wrong word in my haste, sue me. I'm sure you've done the same at some time, as well. The fact that right off the bat the author can't even get the facts straight about something that happened 4 years ago is a pretty good tip that, yeah, it isn't factual or even close to being fair/reasonable.

It seems that if you are still supporting Bush it would be well worth your time to consider. But I can't say I expected any different from someone with your attitudes.

I've already voted. So you don't like accuracy in the articles you read? Interesting. I had higher hopes for you.

You mean you were making an empty statement? I agree.

Nothing empty about it. Just because I wasn't specifically addressing you doesn't mean it's empty, does it? Are you that self-centered? Can I not make general comments in addition to specific ones? I didn't realize that was a restricted activity.


*************
* Warhawk *
*************

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

warhawk, I think we can all agree that the 2000 election was not the central point of that editorial. Calling it "biased" is rather meaningless - it's an editorial. Give up on the "you Democrats" crap. Nobody here wrote the article, and I don't see where the author stated a party affiliation.

I don't see how you can call it "just another hit piece on Bush" like it's part of some kind of smear campaign talking about the guy's fictional illegitimate children or something. It dealt with his record as well as Senator Kerry's record and made a perfectly reasonable case.

As for the rest "not being worth your time," I don't see how you figure that. The whole article is "mute" (moot) because you disagree about the handling of the 2000 election debacle? But I suppose it is your time after all. It seems that if you are still supporting Bush it would be well worth your time to consider. But I can't say I expected any different from someone with your attitudes.

EDIT:

Which clearly indicates I wasn't referring to the study you were looking at but was making a more general statement on the candidates.

You mean you were making an empty statement? I agree.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 26, 13:10.

Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates

Maybe, but that's not what this study showed.

You cut off the rest of my statement:

Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates, depending on the issues important to you...

Which clearly indicates I wasn't referring to the study you were looking at but was making a more general statement on the candidates.



*************
* Warhawk *
*************

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?


This comment was edited on Oct 26, 13:04.

Well worth a read, even to those that are never going to agree with the final sentence. Looking at my buddy Warhawk - I'd be genuinely interested to read his (and others') coments.

I glanced through it (read the first few paragraphs and a few other sentences) - its just another "hit piece" on Bush. I've seen a lot of them. Surprised Halsy's name wasn't listed in the credits, actually.

I could tell there was no interest in fairness/accuracy after the 2000 election spiel, one of the first issues your "article" brings up. I saw no need to give it serious consideration after that, if it can't even get those facts straight. The article conveniently fails to mention that:

The Supreme Court correctly interpreted Florida election law and post-election recounts still showed Bush winning.

But you already knew that and just want to complain/whine/bitch more about an election that happened 4 years ago and you just can't get over it.

In case you missed it:

All of these problems are inconsistent with the minimum procedures needed to protect the fundamental right of each voter in these particular circumstances of a statewide recount under the direction of a single judge. Because this is a statewide "remedy" being imposed, there "must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

Given the Florida Supreme Court's stated desire to dock in the December 12 safe harbor, there is no time remaining to implement a constitutionally sound recount.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

So this whole issue is mute. The article is clearly biased and not interested in presenting facts. The court ruled correctly based on Florida election law and a recount after the election was over also showed the final result was valid. Enough already with this old topic you Democrats just can't leave alone.

Given this, I didn't bother with the rest, it isn't worth my time.

And no, I'm not going to go into this situation any more than I have here. I'm sure we all have better things to do with our time.



*************
* Warhawk *
*************

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?


This comment was edited on Oct 26, 12:51.

That editorial is a great read!

Agreed. While it is certainly easier to bash Bush than to extol John Kerry, and while it (obviously) paints a partisan picture, it's good to read all that kind of stuff without Michael Moore voiceovers.

Well worth a read, even to those that are never going to agree with the final sentence. Looking at my buddy Warhawk - I'd be genuinely interested to read his (and others') coments.
As long as the lefties can all promise not to start any replies with "How stupid are you" or "You are a retard." That doesn't advance the debate does it?! Team Tango: Forum Police.

______________________
As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster.

That Kart Vader guy/gal is nowhere near as mental as the motorcyclist who went round the perifique in 13 minutes.

That video had me cringing.

Oh the one that say's conservatives are victims of mental defect? That's not biased at all.

Funny how we keep coming back to seeing actual demonstrations of how most conservatives never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Try reading the study first. If you think it's wrong, the APA would love to hear about it seeing as they have no problem with it. In fact you've just helped to demonstrate the validity of that study with your very response.



"Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus."
- Monty Burns
This comment was edited on Oct 26, 02:26.

If you want the why's of it there are papers that better explain it (e.g. read Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition).

Oh the one that say's conservatives are victims of mental defect? That's not biased at all.

Looks like Bush pulled off another first. Got the New Yorker to come out for Kerry. The first time in it's 80 year history it's ever backed a political candidate.

This is an absolutely brilliant bit of writing. This is a must read.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors

That editorial is a great read!

Holy crap -- how do we get people talking about that the way they do about Ashlee Simpson (erm heh.. )? The editors would have done well to include a picture of a nice pair of jubblies somewhere on that page

First time in 80 years too.. damn.

There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, in federal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—by cutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery not only of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism.

lovely

-----
"I want my lamp back. I'm gonna need it to get out of this slimy mudhole."

And in a update to our earlier gossipy story of the day, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-People-Ashlee-Simpson.html

Acid Reflux Disease...in your teens...uh huh...

Hey, man -- she saw Wayne Newton's doctor!

That's no fuckin' around...


-----
"I want my lamp back. I'm gonna need it to get out of this slimy mudhole."

Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates

Maybe, but that's not what this study showed.

~Steve

They think their candidate represents their views, but he does not. And yet they'll still vote for him... isn't that wrong?

Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates, depending on the issues important to you...


*************
* Warhawk *
*************

How can we both be in the marriage and I'm miserable and you're content?

Luck?

That whole site is a riot...

ROFL!

http://citizenb.com/ - Shameless website plug.
Some men get the world. Others get ex-hookers and a trip to Arizona.

The amount of adultery that must be going on according to that site is incredible. And the most scandalous posts are from women!

My favorite so far: "597583936 - I had sex with my Spanish teacher at school. i think i may be pregnant."


Edit: And in a update to our earlier gossipy story of the day, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-People-Ashlee-Simpson.html

Acid Reflux Disease...in your teens...uh huh...

I don't think it should be legal to have kids perform for money, it almost always ends up badly.
This comment was edited on Oct 25, 22:57.

I feel like your objections are based more on how you think people will react to the report than the report itself, which is not unworthy of consideration, but it's still a different point.

Yes that is part of my objection, but mostly what both sides are doing to continue this trend. Neither side is making a honest attempt to reach out and communicate different views and opinions with each other, possibly learning something new about the other or them selves.

“I am right and you are wrong. No you are wrong and I am right.”
That never works until someone picks up a 2x4 and either uses it or threatens to use it.
I am afraid that is what it is going to come to, and I do not want that.


It would just take a couple “major” people/groups to start moving away from that to start a change, and with such great data like this, that everybody could understand, why not do that!

And like I said, lots of boring math work and I can’t break from that with gaming until the new fan comes in, and that link was a prime example for me to talk about that.


_____
Enahs
That’s a deep kiss too, like the Europeans. You know the French they have to unhinge their jaw to show love.

http://grouphug.us/

655705006

I miss penis.

Anyone have one I can borrow for a couple of hours?

That whole site is a riot...

http://www.placeboworld.co.uk

That was more of a blanket statement, yes, each side is individually wrong and right at times, unfortunately, both are telling their respective sides they are always right and the other side is always wrong, because it is easier, and people believe it.

I see what you're saying of course, but to be fair, it's not as if the study only showed what percentage of Bush supporters believed in disproven ideas, which it might have it were just trying to make them look bad. It also showed how many Kerry supporters were mistaken, which was sometimes a significant amount, though never a majority or nearly as large as the Bush number.

I feel like your objections are based more on how you think people will react to the report than the report itself, which is not unworthy of consideration, but it's still a different point.

Perhaps more disturbing than the WMD/Iraq/war misperceptions, however, is the percentage of Bush supporters who are wrong about his policies. They think their candidate represents their views, but he does not. And yet they'll still vote for him... isn't that wrong?

~Steve

The Truth:

Well worth a read for anyone that hasn't.
Prepare to lose a few hours of your life to that site

No shit!



Sixis:

I really wish they wouldn't call this "unlocking files for Half-Life 2"...sadists

No shit again! You just KNOW there's people that sit around at Valve and watch the message boards everytime they kick an update out. I bet you money they're laughing their asses off...

"Hey guys?" <snicker snicker>
"Yeah?"
"I've got another update to the Source engine to publish on Steam!"
"AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" , etc...



http://www.placeboworld.co.uk