Perhaps you’re right – I’m thinking the success or non-success of Iraqi elections will be a big tipping point in either direction, at least in the short term. Again, all I was doing was correcting a factual error.
You’re mischaracterising my post. Where did I say that “the majority of people polled opposed the president”? Cite or retract, as per the rules, please.
As for “dark hints”, perhaps you missed my reply to John Mace:
To be absolutely clear: I wasn’t suggesting stolen elections at all when I originally replied to Evil One. That wouldn’t be ironic, now would it? Still, I believe a retraction is in order…
I saw it. I just don’t believe you.
Oh, the Iraqi elections will be a success, Manny, there is no doubt about that. If an outbreak of ergot poisoning makes 80 of the population beleive that they are Bugs Bunny, and they cast the ballots in favor of renowned statesman M. Mouse, the elections will be a success. The Bushiviks have been busily lowering expectations to limbo-bar level. Low turnout? Not a problem, hell, America has a low voter turnout, and elections here work out just fine! Some provinces too riled up to participate? Well, no one said it was going to be perfect! Just going to be an election, with ballots and stuff, just like the grown-ups! No oversight? Well, it going to be a little sloppy…
Wholesale horseshit, and some eager buyers, as herein demonstrated. Would that loyalty such as yours were not squandered on such unworthy men.
Yeah, and the press will just echo that upbeat analysis about the elections just like I read every day in my newspaper how ***great ***things are going in Iraq. So, no one will have any access to what the real situtation is like.
Was that a factual error, as you have claimed? I said nothing about the current or general approval ratings for Bush, which is what you used as “evidence” of my alleged factual error. I still want a retraction of your post that claims a correction of factual error.
What you believe is irrelevant compared to what I posted - isn’t this what I was told when I didn’t believe a poster’s stated intent?
You admitted that you thought I was sincere when I said I didn’t believe it. Perhaps you are sincere now as well, but that should also be irrelevant - the rules apply to what you know - and you now admit you read my reply to John Mace. You knew my stated intent, and in good faith, should have acted on that, rather than your own belief.
But perhaps this rule applies for some, and not for others…
The sequence of events was:
annaplurabelle quoted the above, and replied:
Taken in that context, I have to say that my first reading was that annaplurabelle was claiming a lack of majority support for the president. Standing alone, her quote doesn’t necessarily invite that conclusion; in the context of refuting a comment that people of elucidator’s persuasion (opponents of the President) are in the minority, it’s certainly what I’d walk away with as a first impression.
I know I’m not likely to be seen as a neutral party, given these players, but there it is.
How in the wide, wide world of sports can “Polls taken since the election say otherwise. Ironically, they more or less match the exit polls that pointed to a loss for Bush” mean anything other than that you are asserting that current polls would point to a loss for Bush? Acutally, don’t answer that – see below.
Happily for me, a quick check of my give-a-shit-o-meter shows that I don’t care what you want.
Darlin’, the “report this post” button it the little exclamation point at the top right of each post. You made a false assertion, which I have corrected. If you feel that comprises a rule violation of some sort I suspect you’ll find that you are once again in error, but now at least you know the correct procedure.
What was the false assertion, manny? Please be specific.
Are you saying the exit polls did not point to a Bush loss?
Are you saying there is no difference between the exit polls taken on election day and “polls taken since the election”?
Did you not also say:
Here you admit there is no relationship between one poll and another.
But don’t sweat it, Big Boy. I don’t report regular posters. I don’t expect a gracious reply. This is between you and your conscience. Good luck with that…
Hope you don’t mind if I post some facts as well:
Now, what about that retraction anna is due?
Thanks in advance.
PS-Say, Sam, since I’ve just discovored yet another talent of yours in this thread – how many is that? Truly, I’ve lost track – would it be correct for me to say I’m being rather sarcastic at the moment?
Facts?? Perhaps that poll was as “accurate” as the previously mentioned exit polls.
Would it be wrong to suppose that the destruction of Fallujah, which took so long to prepare that it had to happen just *after * the election, changed at least a few minds?
Your reasoning is flawed. The story is Bush’s preferential treatment. The documents were a means to make the claim stick…however, regardless of their authenticity, people have said that the claims have validity. See, the right wing noise machine focuses all the attention on possible bogus documents. “Fake! Fake! Fake!” It deflects the facts that were meat of the story–his preferential treatment. When other’s in the story (the secretary) basically said such a situation existed, why weren’t the righties asking for her head? Because it’s easier to focus on an inanimate object rather than somebody who can define the facts. Rather’s frustration was in dealing with this noise machine.
On a personal level, when the people who validated the preferential treatment was addressed, the typical Bush supporter did nothing but bellow about the documents. They refused to address the “eyewitnesses.”
And in the news today, the CBS review, headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (an appointee of Bush’s father) and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, was not able to state conclusively whether the documents were forgeries or not. The report also found no evidence that political bias was a factor in the network’s journalism.
Of course, I’m sure the righties are up in arms all over the internet. They are probably already making claims that Thornburgh is involved in a lefty conspiracy.
So what are we to do if we can no longer take polls as accurate? It’s a big country, after all. Any other way to get a grip on what’s really going on beyond our own enclaves?
I mean, without making funny hats out of tinfoil, however fashionable…
Or manhattan’s for that matter. Point being, contrary to his objections, anna’s original comment stands up to scrutiny when looking at most polls for the month of December – hell, even Faux had him under the 50% threshold at the time. And although he’s climbed up a bit in the latest releases, why shouldn’t we apply your same standard of “accuracy” to the ones that have him up?
Thus by that very standard, I am also able to claim, as manhattan did, that “all I was doing was correcting a factual error.”
So, what about that retraction that’s due…
Missing from above post:Link to assorted polls
Is there anyone who doesn’t think that a Senator’s son is going to get some sort of preferential treatment? That’s not a story. A story, as these docuements claimed to show, would be **specific **actions taken by **specific **people. Problem is, the specific person in the memos, Walter Staudt, said he never applied any pressure to Killian to give Bush preferential treatment.
That’s the problem. The “proof” offered up was bogus.