Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

In article ,
Blair P. Houghton wrote:

A Muzi wrote:

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him. That alone was good for
several basis points - just enough, actually.

People who considered intelligence an important issue
voted 85:15 for Kerry.

If you think that the intelligence issue worked in Bush's
favor, you ignored all the other issues.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...t&articleId=83
43

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?

If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to
your local Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf
latte. You haven't a clue what the world is like.

Why did you delete all the context of the question?!?

Bill "you haven't a clue what proper quoting is like" S.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What difference does that make?

If you DON'T know what difference it makes then please go down to
your local Starbucks and tell Bush jokes over your non-fat decaf
latte. You haven't a clue what the world is like.

Why did you delete all the context of the question?!?

Bill "you haven't a clue what proper quoting is like" S.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
| JP wrote:
|
| Mark Hickey wrote in message
. ..
|
| David Kerber wrote:
|
|
| In article ,
| says...
|
|
| Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:
|
| Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
| the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
| probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
| the value predicted by the sample?
|
| I believe it's about 1%.
|
| That's right.
|
|
| I don't think so.
|
|
| There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
| state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
| nothing but the fallibility of polls.
|
|
| You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
| polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
| actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
| are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
| are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
| to nearly the uncertainty. Two pre-election polls can correctly
| measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
| predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
| populations. The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
| pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
| not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
| degree.
|
| "Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
| ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
| analysis, I'm sure it works.
|
| Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
| than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
| as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.
|
| I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
| answers to that.
|
| --
| Tom Sherman
|


"...I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
answers to that...."
Tom Sherman

Tom's right.

On this one, I have to go along with the
'corporate-America-stole-the-election', black helicopter theorists' version
of events. After all, if they did not have prior knowledge of the results,
How could Mars Candy have had all those 'w' candies ready for market
immediately after the election?
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/w.html

It was the red ones that gave it away.
ED3

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
| JP wrote:
|
| Mark Hickey wrote in message
. ..
|
| David Kerber wrote:
|
|
| In article ,
| says...
|
|
| Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:
|
| Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
| the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
| probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
| the value predicted by the sample?
|
| I believe it's about 1%.
|
| That's right.
|
|
| I don't think so.
|
|
| There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
| state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
| nothing but the fallibility of polls.
|
|
| You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
| polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
| actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
| are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
| are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
| to nearly the uncertainty. Two pre-election polls can correctly
| measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
| predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
| populations. The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
| pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
| not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
| degree.
|
| "Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
| ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
| analysis, I'm sure it works.
|
| Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
| than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
| as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.
|
| I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
| answers to that.
|
| --
| Tom Sherman
|


"...I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
answers to that...."
Tom Sherman

Tom's right.

On this one, I have to go along with the
'corporate-America-stole-the-election', black helicopter theorists' version
of events. After all, if they did not have prior knowledge of the results,
How could Mars Candy have had all those 'w' candies ready for market
immediately after the election?
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/w.html

It was the red ones that gave it away.
ED3

In article ,
says...
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Chalo wrote:
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Are you really so rich in friends that you can
throw us away like this?

I see it this way: can I afford to count racists, queer-baiters, and
supporters of violence against the weak among my friends? No, I
can't. And I don't have to-- among the scores of people I have
considered my friends here in Seattle, there are maybe (just maybe)
three who might be so lacking in common decency that they voted for
Bush.

I've stayed out of this until now, but come on; this is nuts. I voted
for Bush, but not because I thought he was going to a good president,
but rather only because I thought he was going to be better than Kerry.
In fact, it was not so much a decision of not "who's going to be
better", but rather "who's going to be less bad". I would have much
preferred to have a more palatable choice, but there wasn't one this
time around.

Also, the pejorative terms you are throwing around up above have no
basis in fact. W has never said or done anything to give the impression
that he is a racist or a "queer-baiter". Being against gay marriage
does not mean you hate gays, and having Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice
among his top advisors would tell me that he is most definitely NOT
racist.

From what I've read, there were a lot of people who felt the same way,
on both sides of the vote.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article ,
says...
(Carl Fogel) wrote:

Chalo wrote:
I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Are you really so rich in friends that you can
throw us away like this?

I see it this way: can I afford to count racists, queer-baiters, and
supporters of violence against the weak among my friends? No, I
can't. And I don't have to-- among the scores of people I have
considered my friends here in Seattle, there are maybe (just maybe)
three who might be so lacking in common decency that they voted for
Bush.

I've stayed out of this until now, but come on; this is nuts. I voted
for Bush, but not because I thought he was going to a good president,
but rather only because I thought he was going to be better than Kerry.
In fact, it was not so much a decision of not "who's going to be
better", but rather "who's going to be less bad". I would have much
preferred to have a more palatable choice, but there wasn't one this
time around.

Also, the pejorative terms you are throwing around up above have no
basis in fact. W has never said or done anything to give the impression
that he is a racist or a "queer-baiter". Being against gay marriage
does not mean you hate gays, and having Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice
among his top advisors would tell me that he is most definitely NOT
racist.

From what I've read, there were a lot of people who felt the same way,
on both sides of the vote.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Any intelligent yanks are unfortunately a minority in the states and
what with their propaganda machine at full tilt its clear that their
gun ho attitude is not gonna change anytime soon. If you think about
it why should they not be gun ho? they can kick anyones arse in the
world 10 times over, this kind of power unfortunately breeds greed,
ignorance and stupidity, all words which conincidently sum up Mr Bush.
The fact that the vote was swung by religion is extremely ironic as
the Bush administration was more than likely responsible for 9/11 as
well as killing 7 of its own citizens with anthrax, aren't religous
people supposed to be kind and loving? Its clear that religion is used
by the powerful to clear their conscience and Bush and Blair must have
it down to a fine art by now; however the fact that Bush is
intelligent enough to understand the meaning of conscience is still in
doubt. Has anyone watched the program The Power Of Nightmares? if any
of u yanks who support Bush and have an above average IQ, which is
pretty doubtful, then check it out and you might learn something. You
will find it on suprnova.org to download.

Any intelligent yanks are unfortunately a minority in the states and
what with their propaganda machine at full tilt its clear that their
gun ho attitude is not gonna change anytime soon. If you think about
it why should they not be gun ho? they can kick anyones arse in the
world 10 times over, this kind of power unfortunately breeds greed,
ignorance and stupidity, all words which conincidently sum up Mr Bush.
The fact that the vote was swung by religion is extremely ironic as
the Bush administration was more than likely responsible for 9/11 as
well as killing 7 of its own citizens with anthrax, aren't religous
people supposed to be kind and loving? Its clear that religion is used
by the powerful to clear their conscience and Bush and Blair must have
it down to a fine art by now; however the fact that Bush is
intelligent enough to understand the meaning of conscience is still in
doubt. Has anyone watched the program The Power Of Nightmares? if any
of u yanks who support Bush and have an above average IQ, which is
pretty doubtful, then check it out and you might learn something. You
will find it on suprnova.org to download.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

People who considered intelligence an important issue
voted 85:15 for Kerry.

Yet Bush scored higher on his SAT than Kerry.

Heh... looks like 85% got it wrong.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame