Why don’t you have the guts to just say what you mean, instead of saying things about having never played competitive sports or having pink toesies? How is it that competitive sports is the only place to learn about dealing with adversity? It’s not? Then what was your real point in bringing up competitive sports? Don’t be a simpering pussy - say what you mean.
Well, then, for someone so sick of Republicans, you sure have an odd interpretation of Bush’s “going out of his way” to accept responsibility. Color me unimpressed with your “critical” evaluation of the Republicans or thoughts about what the Democrats need to do about it. I’m quite glad you like Hillary or Joe Biden (why not Joe Lieberman anymore?), but the DLC Democrats are on their way out the door, and they can take their pablum-like appeals to the right with them.
Of course he didn’t… he pissed off the whole “Family Guy” demographic. Sheer political suicide.
It took you 14,000 posts to get to this point? Sheesh. I’ve felt the same way for quite some time now. 
I think everyone from both sides of the aisle can come together in non-partisan cooperation to denounce this rediculous statement. 
In that speech in particular, he took responsibility for the war twice. Look, my point wasn’t to show what a great guy Bush is. In fact, my point was that he *wouldn’t have accepted responsibility if everything is going to hell in Iraq like most people on this board believe. The fact that he was explicitly taking responsibility in a nationwide speech seemed to me evidence that the administration believes the Iraq war is going to turn out well.
Oh, you mean I don’t have the Hentor seal of approval of my thought process? Whatever will I do?
I should have mentioned Lieberman first. I like the guy. He’s stood for what he believes in, even when the war was highly unpopular both with the public and within his own party. Say what you like about the war, but Joe Lieberman has integrity.
I sure hope not, because if the Deaniac wing of the party takes over, the Republicans will stay in power for the next decade. And one thing you can learn from Canada is that it’s never very good for a Democracy when there is no opposition. But the one thing you can count on from the Democrats is to shoot themselves in the foot every time Bush gives them some ammo. You should stop doing that.
I’m sure this advice (the Democrats will lose power if they don’t do [behavior X that aligns with the Republican party] would be more meaningful if there was at least one circumstance in which you didn’t say it. Since you always say it, one begins to suspect that there is no real evaluative process going on behind it.
Actually, I would suggest that during the entire past year, the Democrats have been kicking Bush’s ass at every turn. Remember Social Security reform and the impending crisis that meant that privatization was the only way to go? Thanks again for your well-reasoned advice. I guess you’d say we shouldn’t say anything unpleasant about the whole domestic spying thing either. Boy, would we be shooting ourselves in the foot!
Let’s hope Bush gets another bump up in the polls, so that you’ll be sure to come back and visit us again. Oh, I mean to say, it’s us mean Democrats who have been keeping you away, not the shame and the embarrassment that is the Republican party.
Interesting interpretation there. Cite?
The increasing extent to which Bush loyalists have had to torture their arguments and/or venture into the world of imagination when participating in GD has indeed been notable, as has the number who have apparently been able to face reality and have stopped trying. There are always going to be some holdouts, though - I can picture a platoon of them on a Pacific island, like abandoned Japanese soldiers, still chanting “Bush didn’t lie us into a war! Saddam had WMD’s! Bush’s budget deficits are good! Those detainees *needed * torturing! 9/11 changed everything! Banzai!”
Here’s what people mean when they say that Bush is a fucking liar.
From the White House, via Atrios:
Sorry - to clarify, this speech was delivered on April 20, 2004. It was entitled “Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security” -
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York
I have. Lots of it. I have a bachelor’s in math and economics (you take stats classes in both), and a master’s in Operations Research.
Do you want to refute anything specific I said, like that exit polls are used to verify that elections are ‘clean’ abroad, or that no exit poll has ever been off like the ones were after the last election, or that before the last election, people from both sides agreed they were valid, or do you just want to keep dismissing it all generally and vaguely?
There is no way to get a statistically representative sample of the voting population as a whole from an exit poll.
A river in Egypt, Dave.
As a further point of fact, the exit poll numbers that you are claiming are so wildly off the certified results only show a 4% difference in the results, interestingly enough Bob’s link that trumpets them makes no mention of the error margin for the poll, but a 4% margin of error for something as unscientific as an exit poll doesn’t seem unreasonable to me; even when you are able to make sure that your sample accurately reflects the demographic breakdown of the population as a whole you usually have a 3% margin of error or so. As a stats guy, you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating the lies, damn lies and statistics stereotype. In short, based upon your last post, you should know better.
Blow me out of the water with facts or proof, Elvis. Oh, right, you don’t have any. If denial is a river in Egypt, where is delusion located?
Read an elementary statistics text first, Dave. Maybe somebody can help you with the big words.
So now you’re accusing me of deliberately misleading. Bite me.
I already said exactly what I mean, Hentor. I said y’all are acting like a bunch of whining, griping, sore losers.
You members of the BoBB (Brotherhood of Bush Bashers[sup]TM[/sup]) are acting like people that have never played on competitive sports teams and learned to deal with a loss.
Right now, you should be “practicing” to get better. In this case, you should be working to develop a candidate that’s electable instead of wasting all this time and energy with crybaby shit about how the other guy cheated when you have no evidence that there was any cheating in ’00 or ’04.
Is that clear enough for you, or does it step on your widdle, pink, crybaby toesies again?
Well I wasn’t until I checked out those “cites” that you just linked.
The first one is a blog, and therefore worthless.
The second looked interesting, until I actually started to read it. I offer the following qualifying excerpts:
"Author’s note: Given the timeliness of the subject matter, I have released this paper despite not having the opportunity to use normal academic safeguards. "
" To hold it (the report) to an academic standard of rigor, however, requires extensive peer review; this work has barely begun to be challenged by and improved from this peer review process. I will revise the paper as legitimate objections are raised, as more data becomes available, and as I learn more" (My note-no revisions appear to have been made since the November 2004 original publishing date)
" exit polls have not been academically studied"
Furthermore, his conclusion is as follows:
“My purpose in this paper has not been to allege election theft, let alone explain it. <snip> 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”
The bulk of the paper is simply about how statistically unlikely several different outcomes of the election were, but makes no accusation that there was vote fraud or even claims to prove that there was, so we’re back to where I started All you’ve provided so far is speculation. I actually agree with the conclusion of the report in case you’re interested-investigate. Investigate long and investigate hard. However, here we are more than a year down the road from the election and so far, one thing as managed to escape the butterfly nets of the ardent conspiracy theorists…PROOF. Got any?
The third cite needs a new web designer, but 20 minutes on their website turned up no evidence that they weren’t a partisan cite. Non-profit, yes, nowhere did I see any claims that it’s non-partisan. Nowhere did I see any proof offered there either, just the same type of hair brained speculation and nonsense as surrounds this issue like a cloud from the Democratic side.
So, based upon what you offer as “cites”. I am now prepared to state that you are being deliberately misleading on this subject.