BUSH HAS WON!!!!
POSTED BY: Anarko
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:18
VIEWED: 18245
PAGE 7 of 9
Heh, a few years ago I remember Switserland having criticism on the dutch government about pot, so that is why 
.
Its not technically legal btw, everyone just agreed not to follow the law unless you break the law on other fronts they will enforce it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hillary vs. Guiliani in 2008
Any predictions?
I have to say I'm not overly surprised. The Dems continue to lose ground because their policies are out of step with the people. They had a bad candidate who couldn't relay his message and was literally unbelievable. Dick Gephardt or Lieberman would have both had a better chance at winning. If you want to reach the low or midlle class people, you don't declare that Hollywood is the heartbeat of America. I voted for Badnarik, but ultimately I could've written in Lisa Simpson and my vote would have been worth the same. In NY, the city controls the outcome..and conservatives are outnumbered 5 to 1.
Strangely enough I've heard people claim that the "Defining of marriage" initiatives on the ballots brought the evangelicals to the polls. I guess my questions are..Do they not have the right to vote? Where were the voters who opposed those initiatives?
I have to say I was surprised that Bush won so overwhelmingly in the popular vote. That says something about our citizen's faith in the democratic party. Maybe next time they will run on something other then a hate for the incumbent.
I personally will continue to write letters to my congressmen and senators ( Chuck Schumer being the exception the 
prick! ). Our president will still need to be held accountable for his actions. It's up to us to make sure he is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, so, let me see if I got this right...
Bush won.
Kerry lost.
Gay-Marriage turned down.
More Repubs in the house and senate.
Hmm... seems to me that the voting public got their say and even though we had record percentage turnouts (I think I read that the % of voter turnout was only higher in 1936) the voting public went for less liberal ways.
Now, before anyone starts to get their dander up...
I voted for Bush. I am FOR gay marriages. I think there should be NO vote for a school levy. We should give schools money EVERY 5 years. So what if property tax (that's home and land tax for those that live in apts) goes up .05%? Who cares that someone wants to marry someone of the same sex? It will NOT lead to man-donkey marriages or whatever they were trying to say.
And as for why I voted for Bush ---> Many reasons, least of which is that I feel safer with Bush than Kerry. Also, tossing your medals on the steps of Congress and THEN returning yrs later and professing the validity of those medals... trite. Very trite.
Now, as to the voter machines and missing ballots and all that rubbish...
Get over it.
I just knew that some die-hard Kerry voters would be pulling this. So, last time (2000) it was a stolen election. This time its voter fraud. I wonder what those folks would have said if Bush had been a landslide victory...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:Quote:
Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
...*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)
But there is always Jeb Bush and the rest of the Bush's
W's greatest mistakes are ahead of him. He'll screw up Jeb's presidential aspirations.
I predict we'll have another Clinton in the White House before we have another Bush.
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JASONZZZ:
You said,
"Come on, the study that came out last month is full of statistical problems. Did you actually look at the statistics or are you just regurgitating what was in the news? I thought you actually do your own analysis. The confidence interval for the 100k figure was from 8000 - 194000. I could have polled a bunch of monkeys and gotten a tighter confidence interval. For those not versed in statistics, that means that the researchers were 95% confident (not even 100%) that the real interval lies some where in between 8000 and 194000. You simply cannot average it out between the two figures. The odds are all even that it could be anywhere in there, it's not more likely right in the middle with 100k. Good grief."
GOTCHA, you worthless turd.
You've just admitted that no matter the numbers, you think it's just fine that all these people died, and will continue to die, based on the lies of the Bush administration.
You'd rather fumble numbers than admit the Bush administration lied, and killed people. Let's not forget the administration also tortured people to try to find non-existent WMDs. Those of us who are aware of the massive problems with this administration are not going to go away, nor are we going to try to make amends with "the other side." We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
...We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.
Ah...due process in Uber-Liberal America. When do you open the concentration camps, Ruxton? I understand that Target has a special on brown shirts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
JASONZZZ:
You said,
"Come on, the study that came out last month is full of statistical problems. Did you actually look at the statistics or are you just regurgitating what was in the news? I thought you actually do your own analysis. The confidence interval for the 100k figure was from 8000 - 194000. I could have polled a bunch of monkeys and gotten a tighter confidence interval. For those not versed in statistics, that means that the researchers were 95% confident (not even 100%) that the real interval lies some where in between 8000 and 194000. You simply cannot average it out between the two figures. The odds are all even that it could be anywhere in there, it's not more likely right in the middle with 100k. Good grief."
GOTCHA, you worthless turd.
So, again. You can't understand the math and facts behind it. Or you did and realized the problem of supporting a flimsy and fraud ridden study. Either way, there isn't a plank to stand in on this one and you resorted to just call me names and throw in completely random things that I have in fact stated earlier that is is completely not my position.
Good grief.
It's ok to admit that a study is wrong based on flawed methodology and completely wrong (if not just plain biased) interpretation.
I never claimed that the number should be one way or another. My only claim is the study is not correct (at best) and the conclusion should be inconclusive (i.e. "We really don't know what the number is since the range is so large and all over the damn place")
Now, it might be since you are arguing so vehemently (that you have to stuff words into my mouth) you somehow believe that you don't need facts in order to argue your point. That it's ok to toss in a flawed study or two and then for no reason at all switch the topic into some random rhetoric. Look, if you feel better about it, I could just step out for about 15 minutes; while you argue boths sides of it. You seem to be able to somehow either deduce my arguments (albeit wrongly) or have already formulated the entire stream of arguments already. Must be nice for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
You've just admitted that no matter the numbers, you think it's just fine that all these people died, and will continue to die, based on the lies of the Bush administration.
You'd rather fumble numbers than admit the Bush administration lied, and killed people. Let's not forget the administration also tortured people to try to find non-existent WMDs. Those of us who are aware of the massive problems with this administration are not going to go away, nor are we going to try to make amends with "the other side." We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm pretty sure you folks have a bus station near campus, no matter what school your in at the moment. So write the parents for the money to get a one way to ticket to Canada. I'm SURE they'll love to have you. If not, maybe the UN will help you out? They sure as hell haven't helped ANYONE else! 
Bu............Bye!
Jeb Bush in 2008!
George P Bush in 2016!
Edited to add: The above bus ticket is directed to the tin-foil hat wearing KoolAide drinkers who are whiney sore losers. The sensible conservative folks couldn't leave because they work and pay taxes that end up supporting the other lot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about a
a Bush/Bush ticket for 2008?
Jeb for Prez and GW as the veep.
wOOt
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
I'm pretty sure you folks have a bus station near campus, no matter what school your in at the moment. So write the parents for the money to get a one way to ticket to Canada. I'm SURE they'll love to have you. If not, maybe the UN will help you out? They sure as hell haven't helped ANYONE else!
Bu............Bye!
Jeb Bush in 2008!
George P Bush in 2016!
Edited to add: The above bus ticket is directed to the tin-foil hat wearing KoolAide drinkers who are whiney sore losers. The sensible conservative folks couldn't leave because they work and pay taxes that end up supporting the other lot.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If your samples *are* your population, you are no longer sampling. You can still calculate mean, and deviations, and the normal statistics. But when your samples *are* your population, there is no confidence level. It is 100% by definition and all means of it."
If you are taking measurements of a continuous property, even if you measure the entire population, you still have error bars (due to error of the measurement) - hence you must state your measurement (for example an arithmetic mean) AND your error and AND confidence that your measure is somewhere within the error.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME