http://gamingtrend.com
July 22, 2014, 03:32:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is America going down the religous path to much  (Read 7610 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2004, 04:11:06 PM »

Quote from: "SuperHiro"
3) While I find that there has been a lot of just plain bizzare cases brought on by the left-wing groups... I find it troubling that many people (I'm not using this forum, I'm drawing from all sources) are using this election as some sort of vindication against a left-wing agenda.


Particularly when it was so close. Three percent does not a landslide, or even a real mandate, make. I think people believe this was a landslide for the right based on the Senate results, which are much more about regional repositioning that began 40 years ago than about the particular issues of the day today.

Quote
The way some people are talking, you'd think we were living under the oppression of universal health care and forced to have homosexual relations with multiple partners.


God, I wish.
Logged

SuperHiro
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1199

Pants on Fire


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2004, 04:18:41 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"

I'm sorry Fireball, I didn't know that I couldn't comment without official links to back up what I've heard on the news.
I'm sorry that I think that we are *gasp* capable of fraudualant behavior (heck, it happened before, but why would it happen again).
I'm sorry that since exit polls in the past have proven near accurate, and this time they didn't (well, at least with the stations using the machines instead of paper ballots).


Actually I'm near 95% sure that the exit polls in the end were accurate.  This was beaten to death over at the OctO forums.  There's all sort of theories as to why (Kerry voters voting earlier to "make sure their votes counted", etc. etc.)

It's also important to note that exit polls are incredibly inaccurate in the beginning. I don't even know why they bother doing it.  It's like me taking an all day poll and reporting my results after 30 minutes. I'll admit though, for a few hours on November 2, I felt good.  I felt really really good.
Logged

Just Hiro will do.
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2004, 04:25:33 PM »

I don't know why they waste their time with exit polling either.  It's a waste of man time considering that the results are known in a few hours anyway.  It's like waiting hours on line for EB to open up to get Halo 2...when in a few hours, you can still get it, and avoid the lines.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2004, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"
I'm sorry Fireball, I didn't know that I couldn't comment without official links to back up what I've heard on the news.


Oh, give me a break. You're calling me names because I don't froth at the mouth over all this so-called "fraud" and then can't even show any evidence of it. Pardon me for being incredulous. If you're going to try to call me on the carpet for something, you best be able to prove your allegations have some merit.

Quote
I'm sorry that I think that we are *gasp* capable of fraudualant behavior (heck, it happened before, but why would it happen again).


No one is arguing that Americans are somehow immune to fraudulent behavior. But being capable of it and it being likely are two different things. America in general and Ohio in particular have long histories of running clean elections.

Quote
I'm sorry that since exit polls in the past have proven near accurate, and this time they didn't (well, at least with the stations using the machines instead of paper ballots).


It doesn't matter if exit polls at the county level have been "accurate" in the past. They are still not representative at that level, and therefore cannot be used as a predictor for final results. There were 2,020 people polled for the 2004 Exit Poll in the entire state of Ohio. That's about as low of a sample as you can have and still have the results be representative. County level exit polls will not have a broad enough sample, numerically or geographically within a specific county, to be scientifically useful for predicting results at that level. You may as well argue that the results are suspicious because your Aunt Mabel lives in one of the counties in question and "she doesn't know ANYONE who voted for Bush." That'd be just as scientifically predictive of a survey as the county level numbers from the exit polls.

And that's putting aside for a moment that exit polls aren't even designed to be predictive regarding who will or won't win a state, much less a county. The exit poll is a statistical tool used to measure the reasons why people vote the way they do, not to predict the final outcome.

Is it possible that the Ohio results were brought about by fraud? Sure. It's also possible that George W. Bush will tomorrow come out in favor of gay marriage. But given the evidence I've encountered, I see no reason to believe either is remotely likely.
Logged

Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2004, 04:38:41 PM »

Whose frothing at the mouth?  I already said I really didn't care.  I'm not some nut that's going to document every news reporting of possible fraud.  

As for calling you names, I simple said don't be naive (and now I'll add don't be so sensitive).  I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".  I also did not say that there was fraud of any kind.  I won't however, dismiss claims that it's possible based on lack of solid proof (if we had solid proof, there would be nothing to talk about).
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2004, 04:40:34 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"
I don't know why they waste their time with exit polling either.  It's a waste of man time considering that the results are known in a few hours anyway.


That's not what exit polls are for. Exit polls are used to examine questions regarding who voted for Bush or Kerry, why they voted for Bush or Kerry, what sort of issues made an impact in the election, what sort of candidate qualities drove voters to or from candidates, what sort of partisan trends are emerging, etc. They're not really for public consumption. They're for political scientist types like me to dig into and roll around in, to answer such questions as "how did Bush assemble his majority coalition?"

For years people in and out of the media have misused the exit polling data, trying to use it on election day to predict the looming winner. The data can be used for this purpose, but only when elections are not going to be close. Exit polling "problems" have only been an "issue" in 2000 and 2004 because since exit polling first came into wide use in the 1960s there's only been a few close elections -- 1968, 1976, 2000 and 2004 -- and it wasn't until the mid-80s that the media really made much out of these surveys.

I'm sure that the exit polls could be used to predict the winner in nearly every state in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996. Those elections weren't close on any level. So when the data was misused to this end in those cycles, no one noticed any discrepancies. But in close elections, any poll, even an exit poll, is going to have trouble "calling" states correctly. The Ohio statewide exit poll predicted a Bush win with 51% over Kerry with 49% -- so on the state level the poll was, in fact, "right." But it could have easily predicted a 50% - 50% tie, or a 52% - 48% Bush win, or even a 51% - 49% Kerry win, and still have been "right" for the purpose of the poll itself.

Within the political science world we use these polls to analyze voter trends. In the next few months, rebalanced versions of the polls will roll out amongst academics where all data will have been reweighted to match the official results of the election, giving us a generally spot-on accurate portrait of the voting day electorate, and what motivated and enthused them in this cycle. That's what exit polls are for -- after-the-fact analysis.

They're a political science tool. That they were misused in the past during easy-win elections for one side or the other and could "predict" statewide results at that time doesn't mean that such misuse will always pan out. Clearly, it doesn't.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2004, 04:46:39 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"
I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for credible evidence from the mainstream media before I throw into doubt an election in which the results were well within the predicted range of outcomes. That's not being naive, it's being incredulous.
Logged

AttAdude
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 246


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2004, 05:58:06 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Quote from: "Qbert"
I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for credible evidence from the mainstream media before I throw into doubt an election in which the results were well within the predicted range of outcomes. That's not being naive, it's being incredulous.


well man, i dont know what mainstream media you are watching/reading, but if you have not seen a single story about suspected fraud, or strange dealings with the election, then you are not listening.  We are not getting this from some blog in a dark corner of the internet.  Just last night as mater of fact the local news here in arkansas was talking about people in ohio being up in arms about miscalculations.  That was then followed by a story saying that people in florida are claiming there are more ballots than registered voters in some county whos name escapes my mind.   I mean really if these hicks here in arkansas are picking up on it, i have no idea how you can miss it.
Logged

AttA
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2004, 06:01:36 PM »

Quote from: "AttAdude"
For me i find it much more sad, that the country decided to base thier votes on abortion and gay marriage.  I mean really lets pick the 2 lest important issues avalible to us, and route our countries future based on them.


In the final calculus, it seems unlikely that gay marriage and "moral values" actually provided the inertia behind Bush's victory. First, the "moral values" option was one of those provided to respondents, it wasn't one people offered themselves, and so you have to factor out some of that as "well, this is what I think should be important, so I should check this."

Voters who truly cited "moral values" as their number one issue were mostly non-persuadables. These are people Kerry could never have reached, who were going to vote anyway and who were going to vote for Bush almost regardless of other matters. There were equal numbers in other groups who were likewise locked in for Kerry.

The battleground group of persuadables was folks for whom terrorism was the number one issue. Kerry persuaded those who viewed the war on terror and the war against Iraq as two separate entities to vote for him -- but he didn't pass the defense bar for those who for some unfathomable reason see the two as sides of the same coin. And that's where he lost the election. In the end, terrorism was the final deciding factor.

Also, while moral issues undoubtedly helped Bush turn out his base, the fact is that the GOP was, in general, better at base politics this year. In the war between two distinctly different takes on the notion of base motivation, the GOP won big.
Logged

Gryndyl
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 908



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2004, 06:48:20 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Quote from: "Qbert"
I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for credible evidence from the mainstream media before I throw into doubt an election in which the results were well within the predicted range of outcomes. That's not being naive, it's being incredulous.


I would question the use of "mainstream media" and "credible" in the same sentence. The major media gets 90% of it's news from government press releases. True investigative journalism is far too expensive nowadays for any real dirt digging anymore. Much easier to just report whatever info shows up in the fax machine.
Logged

Twitter: Slush Pile Tweets
Amazon Author Pages: Horror, Humor
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 30, 2004, 06:57:37 PM »

Gryndyl, that's nonsense. I work closely with the media, and in an abstraction work within the media. "Government press releases" are not routinely just regurgitated. You malign millions with your petty ignorance.
Logged

whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: November 30, 2004, 07:01:35 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Gryndyl, that's nonsense. I work closely with the media, and in an abstraction work within the media. "Government press releases" are not routinely just regurgitated. You malign millions with your petty ignorance.


So.. student newspapers at a southern college ranks as "working with the media"? Speaking as a former college newspaper editor, since when? biggrin
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1601


View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 30, 2004, 07:19:04 PM »

No, I work with the media as in "I regularly work with reporters of the Dallas Morning News and other publications" as part of my position within the Democratic Party.
Logged

TheOneWhoStoodUp
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2004, 07:35:19 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"

I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


  I'm sorry, this just tickles me.
Logged
SpaceLord
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 01, 2004, 01:00:32 AM »

Quote from: "TheOneWhoStoodUp"
Quote from: "Qbert"

I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


  I'm sorry, this just tickles me.


Me too. Ignoring the "naive" part, I don't believe *extraordinary* things without proof.

See Sagan's Demon-Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark

ninja
Logged

There's no place like OO, there's no place like OO. frown
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2004, 02:09:19 PM »

Quote from: "SpaceLord"
Quote from: "TheOneWhoStoodUp"
Quote from: "Qbert"

I personally find others naive if they believe something is not so, simply because they don't have "proof".


  I'm sorry, this just tickles me.


Me too. Ignoring the "naive" part, I don't believe *extraordinary* things without proof.

See Sagan's Demon-Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark

ninja


Yeah, cause voter fraud which has gone on for decades, is "extraordinary".
Logged

El Guapo
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 170


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 01, 2004, 04:23:59 PM »

ok, I can't ignore this any longer, despite my best efforts.

The headline should be, "Is America going down the religious path TOO much".

I keep seeing this headline and being "to much WHAT?".

Ok, I'm done now.
Logged
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2004, 06:26:00 PM »

If nothing fishy was going on, why would there be an investigation?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/GAOupdate112304.html
Logged

AttAdude
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 246


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 01, 2004, 08:29:08 PM »

Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Quote from: "AttAdude"
For me i find it much more sad, that the country decided to base thier votes on abortion and gay marriage.  I mean really lets pick the 2 lest important issues avalible to us, and route our countries future based on them.


In the final calculus, it seems unlikely that gay marriage and "moral values" actually provided the inertia behind Bush's victory. First, the "moral values" option was one of those provided to respondents, it wasn't one people offered themselves, and so you have to factor out some of that as "well, this is what I think should be important, so I should check this."

Voters who truly cited "moral values" as their number one issue were mostly non-persuadables. These are people Kerry could never have reached, who were going to vote anyway and who were going to vote for Bush almost regardless of other matters. There were equal numbers in other groups who were likewise locked in for Kerry.

The battleground group of persuadables was folks for whom terrorism was the number one issue. Kerry persuaded those who viewed the war on terror and the war against Iraq as two separate entities to vote for him -- but he didn't pass the defense bar for those who for some unfathomable reason see the two as sides of the same coin. And that's where he lost the election. In the end, terrorism was the final deciding factor.

Also, while moral issues undoubtedly helped Bush turn out his base, the fact is that the GOP was, in general, better at base politics this year. In the war between two distinctly different takes on the notion of base motivation, the GOP won big.


Thats what you say, but when asked time and time again, i hear cuz i dont want that damn gays screwing up marrige.  That kerry is for abortion i can vote for him.  Thats the 2 thigns that kept poping up time and time again in all polls in my area, and thats what i hear when i ask these people with bush stickers on thier car.  

Furthermore i refuse to belive the nation voted on the bases of terrorisim.  I fail to see how people can vote for a guy that has so wonderfuly fucked up the whole job, and used it as a leverage tool to fule his campaign.  I personaly think the whole damn issue was blows so far out proportion its silly, and all so that bush could use it as a campaign platform.  i just dont see it being the deciding factor.  I think the whole terror terror terror fear fear fear thing was mainly a wash.  On one hand we have bushie boy that has proved he is a incompetent fuck up and on the other we have wuss boy i burned my ribbions kerry. Both choices in that instance are fubar so i think the nation choose different reasons to vote for who they did.  No, out dated unless traditional morality and good old shadow politics (a bush special just ask his previous apponents if the swift boat thing was new) are what did it.  Terror and those that practice it are by and large a world away from the average voter, and nothing more than a handy buzz word for alot of people, and yes i realize we got blown up and for some its much more than that.
Logged

AttA
Evil_Lurking_Koala
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 15


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: December 01, 2004, 09:51:47 PM »

Quote from: "Qbert"
If nothing fishy was going on, why would there be an investigation?
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/GAOupdate112304.html


My guess would be because of all of the democratic representatives mentioned in the above article who are having difficulty accepting the election's result.  It's ironic that all of those seeking a "non-partisan" GAO investigation are all Democratic representatives.  It looks like partisan politics to me, rather than any concrete evidence of election fraud.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2004, 06:44:25 AM »

here Kirk, I forgot to check back for your response (I have only myself and World of Warcraft to blame).  Anyway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/national/01vote.html

here is an 'in a nutshell' article.  The basic thrust of the article is that, with NO exceptions, any so-called errors caused by Diebold machines were in Bush's favor.

This one is a repost of something written by Steven F. Freeman, PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.  It's over my head, but should be right up your alley.  There is also another statistical analysis done by someone at Berkeley.

There are also a great many articles on the great many fraud charges in Ohio.  But I would rather err on the side of giving not enough info rather than too much, so you can just use that as a starting point.

Let me know what you think.  Im skeptical, since this is a pretty heavy charge, but I also am somewhat angry, because I know Bush is very good at selling the big lies.
Logged
Rhinohelix
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 238


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2004, 04:28:26 PM »

The reader's digest version of my analysis:

NYtimes article, uh, so what?  How is this different than the norm?  This type of event happens in every election, and just because someone brings a case doesn't mean it has merit.

Freeman's dataset is weak.  His article, while dabbling in the "Bush must have cheated" thesis, is mainly a defense of exit polls.  His final paragraph:

Quote
Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate.


So based upon what amounts to very little real data, his implied conclusion is worth exactly the attention it has been getting: None.

Hout, the main author of the Berkley study says two things which should be noted:

Quote
Without controlling for change in voter turnout, size, median income, Hispanic population, or percent voting for Dole in 1996, we found no effect of electronic voting on change in percent voting for Bush from 2000 to 2004 in Ohio.


So according to Hout, Ohio was OK as far as electronic voting.  Only in Florida did Bush cheat via electronic means?

Here is I think the Achilles' Heel of Hout:

Quote
By setting Electronic Voting equal to zero, we created a predicted percentage change in support for Bush without the effect of electronic voting. We added the predicted percentage change in support for Bush to the percentage of votes he received in 2000. This gave us a predicted percentage of votes for Bush in 2004, which we multiplied by the number of votes in each county to get a predicted number of votes without the effect of electronic voting. We then subtracted this number from the number of votes Bush received, as estimated by the full regression model, including the Electronic Voting effect. Summing these effects for the fifteen counties with electronic voting yields the total estimated excess votes in favor of Bush associated with Electronic Voting; this figure is 130,733.


I think his assumptions here, while necessary for his statistical exercise, are flawed.  His statistical mechanics are sound but I don't think he proves his point particularly well.

Other than that, even switching 130k from Bush to Kerry, Bush still won the state by more than this margin of victory.  So he cheated and didn't need to?

Bellaciao’s article has a bunch of major factual errors.  One major example of this is the Kerry campaign ended with 15mil, not 51 mil.

Quote
Im skeptical, since this is a pretty heavy charge, but I also am somewhat angry, because I know Bush is very good at selling the big lies.


This is the source, I think, of much of the stirring of the fraud pot:  People can't accept they lost.  I don't mean this conscendingly.  I think it results from the basic premise of each worldview (a great discussion of this is Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"):  Conservatives tend to see the world as it is, and then deduce from there.  Liberals tend to imagine things as they should be and work to move the world to match their concept.  Phrased another way, Conservatives start with what is and work up; Liberals start with what they want and work down.

Given this, conservative world-view people would have accepted the results (barring any real or obvious fraud, like in the Ukraine) and moved on.  It happened with Nixon in 1960 and Ford in 1976.  Did you know that, from boston.com, "in 1976 A shift of 9,300 votes on Ohio and Hawaii would have given Ford enough electoral votes for victory, although he trailed Carter nationwide by 1.6 million popular votes."?  No recount or contested election there.

Liberal world viewers, though, can't seem to accept this.  What they want is different and they work to adjust the world to meet their vision of what should be.  These people are just using higher level tools then most to accomplish that task.

Its a shame that all this distrust is really the result of the DUI Democrat "October Surpise" in 2000  Barring that, Bush would have won Florida more convincingly and we would all be more confident and content in our Union now.

Rhino

[Edited for word choice and a left-out sentence.]
Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change.  The Devil changes you.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2004, 09:43:08 PM »

Quote from: "Rhinohelix"
Other than that, even switching 130k from Bush to Kerry, Bush still won the state by more than this margin of victory.  So he cheated and didn't need to?

But to quote from the Clinton bashers, it wasnt the act, but the lie.  So since Bush won, we should forgive people manipulating votes?  The only difference between the USA and the Ukraine, at this point, is that the people and leaders of the Ukraine apparently care about their country, and their right to vote.  Regarding the whole thing, whether Bush won or not, there are certainly cases of election fraud happening, and sadly very few people are concerned, and our media establishment is definitely not concerned.
Quote
the source, I think, of much of the stirring of the fraud pot:  People can't accept they lost.

Given the assault upon the truth by this administration, it isnt hard to believe they would stoop to manipulating the vote as well.  It isnt that I cant believe Kerry lost, its that there are irregularities, and Bush no longer has any benefit of the doubt in my mind.
Quote
Conservatives tend to see the world as it is, and then deduce from there.  Liberals tend to imagine things as they should be and work to move the world to match their concept.  Phrased another way, Conservatives start with what is and work up; Liberals start with what they want and work down.

 :roll:
Wow.
Logged
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2004, 09:47:31 PM »

That's my feelings on the whole thing.  Did Bush win?  I don't care.  However, even if only one vote was fraudulant, it makes our system a joke.
Logged

TheOneWhoStoodUp
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2004, 10:27:05 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote:
Conservatives tend to see the world as it is, and then deduce from there. Liberals tend to imagine things as they should be and work to move the world to match their concept. Phrased another way, Conservatives start with what is and work up; Liberals start with what they want and work down.

Rolling Eyes
Wow.


Being someone who doesn't consider myself either "Conservative" or "Liberal", I don't see what you find so ridiculous with this theory.  Maybe because you didn't provide any counter-argument, but I digress.
I think you might just be turned off with the language.  That Liberals "work their way down" sounds a little harsh.  But in reality, I find that theory on the GENERAL thought process (in the realm of politics) to be fairly accurate.  
After all, is it so wrong to think how things can be better, and try to achieve it?
In my experience, a "Conservative" looks at the world today and tries to improve, and keep what works.
Whereas a "Liberal" has an idea how things would be best, and tries to achieve it.
Both have their flaws, and both have their positives.

So, yes.  "Wow".  It's a succinct (if not generalizing) theory on Western political thought.


Quote from: "Qbert"
However, even if only one vote was fraudulant, it makes our system a joke.




Right, so, if one guy voted for Kerry twice, the US system is a joke?  Newsflash:  No system is perfect, and not all corruption comes from the very top.
Logged
Rhinohelix
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 238


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2004, 11:53:43 PM »

Quote
I think you might just be turned off with the language. That Liberals "work their way down" sounds a little harsh. But in reality, I find that theory on the GENERAL thought process (in the realm of politics) to be fairly accurate.


I certainly didn't mean to imply any kind of perjorative connotations to the "down" phrase.  I just used "Ideal" as the top and "real world" as the bottom, and each works in the other direction.

Quote
The only difference between the USA and the Ukraine, at this point, is that the people and leaders of the Ukraine apparently care about their country, and their right to vote.
 This is the statement that deserves the "wow" and rolleyes.  Shades of "Bush=Hilter".  Were people beaten at the polls?  Were a million votes added after polls close?

The real difference is that the we are what the Ukraine is trying to become.

Quote
So since Bush won, we should forgive people manipulating votes?
   
I was asking if that is what you thought. I don't think that there was any manipulation.  All it takes is a change in the model of the expected Bush vote in order to invalidate Hout's analysis;  Remove some of the assumptions he stipulates and the whole thing come crumbling down.

Quote
Regarding the whole thing, whether Bush won or not, there are certainly cases of election fraud happening, and sadly very few people are concerned, and our media establishment is definitely not concerned.


Because there are always isloated cases of fraud.  I don't think on balance the majority of them involve Republicans, though.

Quote
Given the assault upon the truth by this administration, it isnt hard to believe they would stoop to manipulating the vote as well.


This again is the crux of the matter:  Bush-hatred.  Bush LIED, People DIED.  :roll:

Here's to hoping that we can move on.  Where have I heard that before?

Rhino
Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change.  The Devil changes you.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2004, 03:36:35 AM »

Quote from: "Rhinohelix"
Quote
I think you might just be turned off with the language. That Liberals "work their way down" sounds a little harsh. But in reality, I find that theory on the GENERAL thought process (in the realm of politics) to be fairly accurate.


I certainly didn't mean to imply any kind of perjorative connotations to the "down" phrase.  I just used "Ideal" as the top and "real world" as the bottom, and each works in the other direction.

Im amazed someone can so clearly define the worldview of millions of people based solely upon who they voted for.  The... for lack of a better word, stupidity, of that assertation is just astounding.  Sorry if thats insulting, but thinking that you can sum up a person's entire thought process with the answer to one question just goes so far beyond being plainly ignorant and overly judgemental, that stupidity is the only word I can think of which adequately fits.

Im honestly not trying to insult anyone, but anyone agreeing with that statement really needs to sit down and think about things.  Here is a tip- there ARE no fundamental differences between how "Conservatives" or "Liberals" think about things or solve problems.  This election was won by propaganda, not ideology.  As I said, in any country which had citizens who REALLY cared, there would be riots in the streets.

Why wasnt there?  Because those who were disenfranchised already knew it was going to happen.  They already knew voting wouldnt change anything- lo and behold, they were right.  The pity is that once somebody gets away with it, people shrug and say "oh well", rather than asking "why?".  "Why" itself is also something rarely heard in today's politics, but I digress.

Quote
Quote
The only difference between the USA and the Ukraine, at this point, is that the people and leaders of the Ukraine apparently care about their country, and their right to vote.
 This is the statement that deserves the "wow" and rolleyes.  Shades of "Bush=Hilter".  Were people beaten at the polls?  Were a million votes added after polls close?

No, but hundreds of thousands of votes were thrown away or not counted.  I fail to see a difference, aside from degree of violence.  Oh wow, so we had a civilized disenfranchisment, rather than a coerced one.  How glorious for us.

Quote
The real difference is that the we are what the Ukraine is trying to become.

Good lord, I hope not.  Hopefully they aspire to be better than us.
Quote
Quote
So since Bush won, we should forgive people manipulating votes?
   
I was asking if that is what you thought. I don't think that there was any manipulation.  All it takes is a change in the model of the expected Bush vote in order to invalidate Hout's analysis;  Remove some of the assumptions he stipulates and the whole thing come crumbling down.
Oh, there was most certainly fraud taking place, there is no doubt about that.  What I was asking Kirk was if he thinks there is credible evidence that the Diebold machines had been used to utilize fraud.  The good old-fashioned kind of vote fraud isnt in dispute, whether you care to stick your head in the sand over it or not.
Quote
Quote
Regarding the whole thing, whether Bush won or not, there are certainly cases of election fraud happening, and sadly very few people are concerned, and our media establishment is definitely not concerned.


Because there are always isloated cases of fraud.  I don't think on balance the majority of them involve Republicans, though.

You have nothing to back up that assertation, nor have you actually looked into the matter.

Quote
Quote
Given the assault upon the truth by this administration, it isnt hard to believe they would stoop to manipulating the vote as well.


This again is the crux of the matter:  Bush-hatred.  Bush LIED, People DIED.  :roll:

Here's to hoping that we can move on.  Where have I heard that before?

Rhino

As I said, most people don't care to look into it.  "Bush won, get over it".  Lets all ignore whether there was actually anything inappropriate done.  It's just manipulating the basis of our democracy.  Lets not act like anything important was actually messed with.
Logged
TheOneWhoStoodUp
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2004, 04:51:48 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Im amazed someone can so clearly define the worldview of millions of people based solely upon who they voted for.  The... for lack of a better word, stupidity, of that assertation is just astounding.


Again, I think you misread.  No one said "Bush supporters" or "Kerry supporters" or "Democrat" or "Republican".  I'm curious, if you reject these definitions, how you would define what makes a "conservative" in Western though, and what makes a "Liberal".


Quote from: "unbreakable"
This election was won by propaganda, not ideology.  As I said, in any country which had citizens who REALLY cared, there would be riots in the streets.


Won by propaganda?  I fail to see how a vote for Bush is a "vote for propaganda".  As for the "riots in the streets" comment, I find that a little hyperbolic.  I don't think people "who care" would be willing to incite violence over unsubstantiated claims of minor election fraud.

That said, I do agree with you that those who are angry with events in politics do little to investigate their own claims other than complain or post flippant comments in blogs.  Mind you, the point I'm making is that this is by no means an "American" problem.  I'm basing what I'M saying off of my life here in Canada.  Look at Britain.  Look at Germany.  And so on.  

Ironic that you're using a rationalization which works into rhinohelix's proposed theory on what makes a Western Liberal.  Instead of looking at the world, you're saying that a perfect nation with pro-active citizens would act differently in this situation.

Go ahead, give me another Ukraine comparison about the Yushchenko-supporter reaction to violent coercion and conclusively proven massive fraud with the unproven, suspected minor fraud of the 2004 US Election.

Quote from: "unbreakable"
No, but hundreds of thousands of votes were thrown away or not counted.  


Rather poor approach to use (again) unsubstantiated claims to back up an extreme comparison.

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote
The real difference is that the we are what the Ukraine is trying to become.

Good lord, I hope not.  Hopefully they aspire to be better than us.


I think you'd be very surprized.  Where anti-American sentiment is in vogue with much of Europe right now, Eastern Europe and particularly Western Ukraine is more typically pro-American, and speaks highly of the US democratic system.  

Quote from: "unbreakable"
You have nothing to back up that assertation, nor have you actually looked into the matter.


How ironic of you to say that.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2004, 06:55:57 AM »

Quote from: "TheOneWhoStoodUp"

I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy.
Logged
TheOneWhoStoodUp
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2004, 07:09:52 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy.


I'm sorry you feel that way.  I, by no means, was responding simply to anger anyone.  I felt I was simply continuing a fairly civil debate.  Indeed, educating myself is half the point of entering any debate, for me.  This is why I asked your definition of a few general concepts.  

Again, I'm sorry if you feel you were being attacked.  That wasn't my intention.
Logged
Rhinohelix
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 238


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2004, 08:30:10 AM »

Quote
I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy

You know, I came to that conclusion after your last post.  Being rude doesn't enhance your position.

Newsflash:  There was no fraud.  You just lost.  Tighten the tin hat if you must; your's and other's wistful fantasies of being justly rescued from this "theft" are not evidence of any imaginary misdeeds.  Go sell "conspiracy with a dash of crazy" somewhere else.

Rhino
Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change.  The Devil changes you.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2004, 12:52:16 PM »

Quote from: "Rhinohelix"
Quote
I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy

You know, I came to that conclusion after your last post.  Being rude doesn't enhance your position.

Newsflash:  There was no fraud.  You just lost.  Tighten the tin hat if you must; your's and other's wistful fantasies of being justly rescued from this "theft" are not evidence of any imaginary misdeeds.  Go sell "conspiracy with a dash of crazy" somewhere else.

Rhino


Consider yourself to have the last word, since that is what you are after.  At any rate, I asked Kirk a specific question about a specific instance, I did not ask to hear "Newsflash:  There was no fraud.  You just lost.  Tighten the tin hat if you must; your's and other's wistful fantasies of being justly rescued from this "theft" are not evidence of any imaginary misdeeds.  Go sell "conspiracy with a dash of crazy" somewhere else."

Just because you want to keep your head in the sand while people get better and better at manipulating our votes is your problem.  The fact that you are too lazy to put "vote fraud 2004" into google and sort for what you consider to be credible information for yourself is your problem as well.  I cannot make someone care about something important which effects them.

As I said several times, that there was vote fraud is not open for debate.  There most assuredly WAS vote fraud, and people are already being indicted for it.  So, as I said, keep your head in the sand and act like everything is alright.  Your apathy is exactly why they are going to get away with it.  As one person accused of vote tampering this year was quoted as saying, last time I looked, Katherine Harris was a Senator, not a prisioner.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2004, 01:03:29 PM »

Quote from: "TheOneWhoStoodUp"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy.


I'm sorry you feel that way.  I, by no means, was responding simply to anger anyone.  I felt I was simply continuing a fairly civil debate.  Indeed, educating myself is half the point of entering any debate, for me.  This is why I asked your definition of a few general concepts.  

Again, I'm sorry if you feel you were being attacked.  That wasn't my intention.

I was kind of frustrated by the fact that I had provided many links, which describe a great many things which happened, etc, but that you had obviously not looked at any of them.  Moreover, you repeated several times the sentiment that anyone thinking there was vote fraud was imagining it.

Thus, I felt that there was no room for debate, and it was essentailly a waste of time.  If you genuinely want more information, there is always Google.  They can provide you with far more links than I already have.
Logged
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2004, 09:46:25 PM »

Quote from: "Rhinohelix"
Quote
I had a long post, but I realized that talking to someone who would rather troll than educate themself on the facts is a huge waste of time and energy

You know, I came to that conclusion after your last post.  Being rude doesn't enhance your position.

Newsflash:  There was no fraud.  You just lost.  Tighten the tin hat if you must; your's and other's wistful fantasies of being justly rescued from this "theft" are not evidence of any imaginary misdeeds.  Go sell "conspiracy with a dash of crazy" somewhere else.

Rhino


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041127/ap_on_el_ge/voting_investigation&e=1
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't.  However, you cannot say with 100% assuridity that there was no fraud.  It's funny how a game board lurker knows the answers that the feds are trying to get.
Logged

unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2004, 11:49:45 PM »

move along, nothing to see here  Tongue

The real reason there are investigations happening is because REAL concerned citizens are out there, collecting information, and not letting the issue die.  I also dis on myself here, since all I do is bitch about it in between playing World of Warcraft, but am not actually doing anything constructive regarding the matter.

But, I am at least fulfilling my civic duty of staying informed regarding the issues, and try to do a reasonably good job of separating the issues from the non-issues.  The sad thing is, most of what is reported in the mainstream media concerns non-issues.
Logged
Rhinohelix
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 238


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2004, 09:29:17 AM »

Qbert:

Quote
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. However, you cannot say with 100% assuridity that there was no fraud. It's funny how a game board lurker knows the answers that the feds are trying to get.


This investigation isn't to see if there was any systemic fraud.
From your link:

Quote
Congress' investigative agency, responding to complaints from around the country, has begun to look into the Nov. 2 vote count, including the handling of provisional ballots and malfunctions of voting machines.

The presidential results won't change, but the studies could lead to changes.


The Government Accountability Office usually begins investigations in response to specific requests from Congress, but the agency's head, Comptroller General David Walker, said the GAO acted on its own because of the many comments it received about ballot counting.


GAO officials said the investigation was not triggered by a request from several House Democrats, who wrote the agency this month seeking an investigation. The effort, led by senior Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, was not joined by any Republicans.


I am not sure "the feds" are doing anything other than responding to pressure from Democratic groups.  "Many comments" sounds like code for activism at work to me.  /shrug.

I am not and never have said that nary a single instance of intentional fraud occuring in the elections up and down the ballot where 119,000,000 plus votes were casts.  I am sure that someone, somewhere bought votes, cast more than one vote, etc.  I can say with 100% certainty that there errors made.

Expecting the kind of perfection you have already expressed is just not realistic.

I can say with 100% personal certainty and reasonable assurity that there is no X-Files, Capricorn One, Invasion of the Body Snatchers conspiracy that stole the election from John Kerry.

Will they find ways to do it better?  You bet.  There are always ways to improve the voting mechanisms in some places.  Will they find Karl Rove's lab implanting mind-control chips n Democratic Florida Election board Chairman?  No.

This "game board lurker" 's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's; I would say moreso than quite a few but I know myself and my qualifications better than you know me and I know you. slywink  You are right, however: I should have  prefaced my comments with with an opinion/IMO remark.

unbreakable:  

Since perhaps I thought I had missed something, I took your advice, simplistic as it was.  I didn't find anything in the first 50 hits that lead me to think anything more than the research I had already done, other than this:  It is truly mind boggling how far some will and and how desperate some are to avoid facing the face that George W. Bush was re-elected.

Both:

I think we can dispense with all the negativism and avoid further any personal flames via this time-tested method: we should simply agree to disagree.   It doesn't shock me that we look at the same information and draw two different conclusions; that is how we got in this boat in the first place. smile

It is the beauty of this place, CG and America, that this state of disagreement can exist.  Have a great time in WoW!

Rhino
Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change.  The Devil changes you.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #76 on: December 06, 2004, 09:06:13 AM »

Quote
unbreakable:  

Since perhaps I thought I had missed something, I took your advice, simplistic as it was.  I didn't find anything in the first 50 hits that lead me to think anything more than the research I had already done, other than this:  It is truly mind boggling how far some will and and how desperate some are to avoid facing the face that George W. Bush was re-elected.


Translation: I wish to continue keeping my head in the sand.

That somebody can look at the massive irregularities, claims of fraud, FBI investigations, indicted republicans, etc, and still continue to say their is nothing wrong happening...  I guess nothing remains to be said, since you have to be one of the Bush hardcore, who will never be convinced anyway.  There are still people out there who think Nixon was a great man, too, so it isnt like such things havent happened before.

Quote
Both:

I think we can dispense with all the negativism and avoid further any personal flames via this time-tested method: we should simply agree to disagree.   It doesn't shock me that we look at the same information and draw two different conclusions; that is how we got in this boat in the first place. smile

It is the beauty of this place, CG and America, that this state of disagreement can exist.  Have a great time in WoW!

Rhino


Too bad you didnt agree to disagree before you even posted.  

All you really did was derail a discussion, repeated the mantra that nothing wrong was happening, and added nothing (not even evidence that there was no wrongdoing, since there IS evidence of wrongdoing).  I asked Kirk a narrow and specific question, and all you brought to the table was rhetoric.  And unfortunately, my question never got answered.
Logged
TheOneWhoStoodUp
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 80


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: December 06, 2004, 04:28:25 PM »

I think the "debate" has gone as far as it will go, so I'm just going to defend myself on a few points, so you, unbreakable, can see that differing opinions don't just come from ignorant jerks that aren't really listening to what you're saying.

Quote from: "unbreakable"

I was kind of frustrated by the fact that I had provided many links, which describe a great many things which happened, etc, but that you had obviously not looked at any of them.
 
 
I read, in entirety, every link you provided.

Quote from: "unbreakable"
Moreover, you repeated several times the sentiment that anyone thinking there was vote fraud was imagining it.

  Provide me with one quote of me saying that.  Vote fraud took place.  Of course it did.  "Election fraud" has taken place in just about every major election since the ancient Greeks.  I'm in no mind to think that otherwise happened today.
  Was the voting fraud major here?  Probably not.  Was every instance of "vote fraud" instigated by the Republican Party?  Probably not.  

  The surest sign that you have a politically narrow view is having a feeling that those who disagree think the way they do out of ignorance.
Logged
Qbert
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: December 06, 2004, 04:34:07 PM »

My biggest concern isn't so much whether fraud occurred or not, but that so many people don't really care enough to complain about it.  I think the "no system is perfect" excuse is pretty lame.
Logged

unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2004, 05:52:36 PM »

Quote
 Was the voting fraud major here?  Probably not.  Was every instance of "vote fraud" instigated by the Republican Party?  Probably not.  


So you see, even you cannot say that, beyond the benefit of a doubt, an election was not fraudulently swayed.

Quote
The surest sign that you have a politically narrow view is having a feeling that those who disagree think the way they do out of ignorance.


I'm not saying its out of ignorance.  There are a great many reasons why someone would disagree with the truth, and ignorance is just one of them.

I can say, beyond a doubt, that a great injustice was done in the name of Bush.

Were his people directly responsible?  Maybe, maybe not.  But they certainly foster an atmosphere of disregard for the law, and for upholding the integrity of rule of law.  "Pushing the envelope", repealing laws you dont like, and fishing for loopholes is not what our self-proclaimed moral leaders should be about.  For somebody who trumpets his faith so loudly, I dont even see most of his results as passing the "Is this what Jesus would do?" test.  So as Ive often said, he and his lost the benefit of the doubt long ago.

Someone was made fun of because they said the process shouldnt even have one vote changed.  But how about 100,000?  Because there are AT LEAST that many in question in Ohio.  And what is being done about it?  Well, Team Bush delayed any recounts until after the election is certified, so that one, it will be too late to correct any mistake, and two, it buys them enough time to do a lot of ass covering.  Sadly, nobody on Team Bush is concerned about the truth, they only care about winning.  And of course our government doesnt care about the truth, or about justice, they only care about maintaining control and acting like mistakes are never made.

Anyway, Im done ranting.  If you guys dont care about your country, thats fine.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 105 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.044s, 4q)