Ohforshit’ssake…I’ll repeat myself, which seems to be necessary in this thread
You fucking cheerleader
You’ve mis-identified me! Once, long ago, I enjoyed an evening with a fucking cheerleader, but I’m not one myself. 
Even if 2000 was ‘stolen’ why couldn’t he have run in 2004?
Well, you could question whether or not he’d get the nomination again, but otherwise I agree with your question.
I propose a new rule, similar to Godwin’s Law, called the Law of the Y2K Election.
The longer a Bush is teh suxx0rz thread goes on, the probability of someone mentioning the “stolen” presidential election of 2000 approaches infinity.
No, you’re just full of shit. Lefties never played any competitive sports. If they did, they’d be good Americans(?). That’s what you’re saying, and it’s bullshit. It’s stupid. We ain’t gonna wait until 2008. I have MY sights set on 2006. For the first time in my life, I am gonna vote straight ticket Democrat with the following proviso. If the Democrat is one who supported Bush (Republican Lite), I am gonna vote Independent. Or Green Or Libertarian. Or Bullmoose if they ever come back.
What I’m saying is precisely this: “My guess is that the lefties on this board never played competitive sports. When you’re on a sports team, you learn to lose, dislike it, but move on with your life.”
Since y’all are such a bunch of whining, crybaby, sore losers I guess that you never played competitive sports. If you did, you failed to benefit from one of the lessons you should have learned from being on a sports team.
Now, it will be Christmas Eve here in about an hour and 20 minutes, so to hell with this.
Merry Christmas, Season’s Greetings, Happy Holidays, Peace on earth, good will toward men; whatever floats yer boat.
No
I hit it on the head.
The best you’ve done is fuck a cheerleeder.
I’m curious about this. How long was GWB’s televised address, and how many of similar addresses from various presidents (both Dem and Rep) has the average American participant to this thread been subjected to in their lifetimes to date? How many minutes, really have you had to give over to this stuff?
And how many thousands of sitcom hours have you seen?
Please don’t take my above words as overly snippy (I know they look it), but I’m genuinely curious here at what seems to be one of those rare enormous cultural chasms between the US and countries like Australia. Is it an American “freedom” thing? “It’s my goddam right to watch whatever I want without the President interrupting it because that smacks of totalitarianism?” There is a similar wide rift of thought when Americans find out my country has compulsory voting, for example. Americans find that offensive. Australians think, “Meh, ten minutes every other year. Big deal.”
Genuinely curious here.
No. If it had been any politician other than Bush there’d have been no mention of this. The Brotherhood of Bush Bashers is not capable of letting any action by Bush pass without complaint.
No part of any show was missed, and I understand the message lasted about ten minutes.
Other than at times of great catastrophe, these unscheduled addresses to the nation are not frequent.
99.99% of the American pubic is not at all concerned about this brief interruption of TV scheduling. The other .01% gripe about it on the Straight Dope message board.
The first 99.99 won’t waste their time to respond to you.
Okay,
Um…
When I was in junior high, the President interrupted my favorite TV show.
The next day at school we had to do skits (planned in advance). My group had decided to be Greek gods. We were standing around talking before our skit started and it turned out that it wasn’t just my favorite TV show.
We were all so mad at the President that then and there we changed our skit. We grabbed one of our friends out of the class and had him be the President giving a speech.
Then I as Athena, Goddess of War, assassinated him with my spear.
Don’t interrupt my TV shows. That’s what the news hour is for.
I don’t particularly care about the interruption, but I suspect that a good proportion of Americans would be more troubled by the interruption than by the fact that it contained only complete bullshit. A ten minute infomercial would have been more accurate and would have been subject to more regulations regarding truth-content.
I would prefer to see more compulsory Presidential speeches on television. Say 30 minutes every week - to include an open question portion, with regular people being given the opportunity to ask questions that the President is required to answer. The press is supposed to do this for us, but continue to lack the cajones to get answers from him in any meaningful way.
I expect that kind of reaction from an 8th grader, not from grown adults.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas, WeirdDave.
I first got into this thread because you compared exit polling to the Bible Code, saying they had equal merit, and that exit polling had no scientific value. I have called you on that, supplying plenty of PhD’s who contend exit polls have scientific merit.
You keep making it into an argument that there was fraud in the 2004 election. STOP IT. PLEASE.
Exit polls have scientific merit. I have brought cites. You dismiss them as ‘biased,’ although they are signed onto by members of academia.
It’s time for you to bring cites that exit polls have no validity. That’s it. I don’t want to hear any other arguments, or accusations that I’m loony and accusing anybody of fraud. Provide evidence for your assertion that exit polls are not scientifically valid.
Here’s one more cite. Knock these people down - either with cites, or just hope that we take your word over theirs.
Here’s the Washington Post story on exit polls, which seems to be slightly more nuanced than the hysterical ‘The election was stolen!’ camp is willing to admit…
And of course, there are those in the more excitable wing of the Republican party that accuse Democrats of rigging the exit polls to get out the vote and suppress the Republican vote. This theory has the benefit of the one that says Bush rigged the election - there is no evidence either for or against it, so it can be the bogeyman in the room.
Bup,
I had a fine Xmas, I hope you did as well. I see Sam has linked a brilliant article (from a liberal paper no less) that exactly highlights many of the things that I have been saying here, but I would like to point out one other thing as well. The link you provided in your last post is simply a report by one group of “experts” (and one with a partisan leaning as well, I believe we covered this already) disagreeing with the conclusions of another group of “experts” over the 2004 exit polls. If the fact that two groups of learned people can take the same data, and each can reach different conclusions about the way to interpret that data doesn’t conclusively demonstrate that exit polls are more art than science, then I don’t know what will. I also don’t understand your sudden desire to distance yourself from election fraud angle unless it’s a simple need to get away from a point your are losing badly on. If your contention is not that the difference between the exit polls and the results indicates voter fraud, then what exactly is your point?
Dave, you think anything left of the Washington Times is liberal…
The fact that everything is left of the Washington Times doesn’t meant that the Post isn’t a liberal paper. Personally, I read neither, but at least in DC you can usually figure out what the truth is by averaging the two papers. 
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
I propose a new rule, similar to Godwin’s Law, called the Law of the Y2K Election.
QUOTE]
I propose a similar law called Dimwit’s law. Every time someone mentions Godwin’s law they are a Dimwit.