|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2006 03:37:23 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Bush̢۪s approval rating is about 35% last I heard
19-31% is "nearly half" according to RFK.
That must mean that according to RFK, more then nearly half of the country approves of Bush! |
That's 19-43% |
Correct, my bad.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 03:52:09 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Given the fact that many people were waiting on lines to vote for four, five, six, sometimes seven hours, on a weekday when, presumably, they had other commitments to attend to, like a job, or picking up their kids at school, etc., to say they were forced (as in compelled due to circumstances beyond their control) to leave the polling place is not, in my opinion, a mischaracterization of the facts. |
No surprise there. But at the very LEAST, I would consider it to be a gross mis-characterization to cite a source for one's statements that do not even INFER the result one is stating as fact. For example, even if SOME were compelled to leave, as you say, because of other commitments, the cited article offers no breakdown as to whether the respondents left after 2 minutes, or 12 hours. Given that, how is one to INFER that they were "forced" to leave, either because of commitments or for other, less compelling, reasons. Still, it appears to be all the same to Kennedy - and to you. |
On this one thing you are correct; it IS all the same to me. Your argument goes something like this: I say, "There's a puddle of gasoline two feet wide on my kitchen floor (and a man standing next to me with a lit match ready to light my house ablaze)." You say, "Two feet wide? Prove it! What evidence do you have it's two feet wide? I say it's only 1.5 feet wide!" Well, it really doesn't matter to me whether the puddle is 1.5 feet wide or 2 feet wide, because I know the puddle is wide enough to burn down my house. Furthermore, I see the man with the lit match, so I know it's just a matter of seconds before the house will be burning, and I'd like to try to save the house. But you don't want me to notice the man with the match about to burn my house down, so you make some academic argument about the size of the puddle.
So you're right, Ron, it really doesn't interest me what the meaning of the word "forced" is, because you refuse to look at the mountain of evidence that's right in front of you that fraud was committed in the Ohio election, which is what we really should be talking about, but you'll do anything to avoid talking about that. Now we're off talking about every other crime committed by Bush, but soon I'm sure you'll get the conversation around to abortion or gay marriage or religion, since that's all you really care about anyway. So keep right on with your academic arguments; they're not fooling anybody. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 06:37:32 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Given the fact that many people were waiting on lines to vote for four, five, six, sometimes seven hours, on a weekday when, presumably, they had other commitments to attend to, like a job, or picking up their kids at school, etc., to say they were forced (as in compelled due to circumstances beyond their control) to leave the polling place is not, in my opinion, a mischaracterization of the facts. |
No surprise there. But at the very LEAST, I would consider it to be a gross mis-characterization to cite a source for one's statements that do not even INFER the result one is stating as fact. For example, even if SOME were compelled to leave, as you say, because of other commitments, the cited article offers no breakdown as to whether the respondents left after 2 minutes, or 12 hours. Given that, how is one to INFER that they were "forced" to leave, either because of commitments or for other, less compelling, reasons. Still, it appears to be all the same to Kennedy - and to you. |
On this one thing you are correct; it IS all the same to me. Your argument goes something like this: I say, "There's a puddle of gasoline two feet wide on my kitchen floor (and a man standing next to me with a lit match ready to light my house ablaze)." You say, "Two feet wide? Prove it! What evidence do you have it's two feet wide? I say it's only 1.5 feet wide!" Well, it really doesn't matter to me whether the puddle is 1.5 feet wide or 2 feet wide, because I know the puddle is wide enough to burn down my house. Furthermore, I see the man with the lit match, so I know it's just a matter of seconds before the house will be burning, and I'd like to try to save the house. But you don't want me to notice the man with the match about to burn my house down, so you make some academic argument about the size of the puddle.
So you're right, Ron, it really doesn't interest me what the meaning of the word "forced" is, because you refuse to look at the mountain of evidence that's right in front of you that fraud was committed in the Ohio election, which is what we really should be talking about, but you'll do anything to avoid talking about that. Now we're off talking about every other crime committed by Bush, but soon I'm sure you'll get the conversation around to abortion or gay marriage or religion, since that's all you really care about anyway. So keep right on with your academic arguments; they're not fooling anybody. |
Judith,
With all due respect, if there was a puddle of gasoline on your floor and a man with a lit match ready to light it, and all you could do was call me to tell me that you had a puddle of gas two feet wide on your floor, and did NOTHING about the the man with the match, then forgive me - you deserve to have your house burned down.
If it were ME, first I would attempt to extinguish the match, one way or another, then I would attempt to deal with the man ( perhaps he was only going to light a cigar and was unaware of the gasoline - and needed to be made aware of the situation ). If both preventative measures failed and the gasoline WAS set ablaze, then I would concentrate all of my available resources on putting out that fire. Only when my house was safe, would I take the time to inform others about the estimated size of the original puddle of gasoline.
Naturally, if I took the actions I described, and the Democrats had their way, I would likely be arrested for a) destroying personal property ( for destroying the private property of someone else ( the match )) b) assault, with possible battery, for physically restraining the man from throwing the lit match into the gasoline, c) interfering with the rights of a person to trespass ( The Democrats seem to want to forgive the 12 million people who have already illegal trespassed onto private property in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, so I assume they would defend the right of a single man to trespass onto my property )...well, you get the idea.
If I saw a problem with voting rights in MY district, I wouldn't just be writing about it. I'd be working with legal counsel to DO something about it. I would, of course, also be writing to newspapers, etc. but, I assure you, I wouldn't be publishing fabrications that would completely discredit my position if they were exposed.
There were problems in Ohio. Severe problems. Some were probably intentional - but those that were, were not ALL initiated by, nor controlled by, Republicans. If there really was fraud in Ohio, then RFK should have been able to prove it credibly without resorting to gross mis-characterizations of the available data. By grossly mis-characterizing the data, he has completely undermined his message.
Let's be honest, Judith. If 19% of the Ohio absentees never received a ballot, that's a travesty. If another 24% got their ballots late, that's also a travesty. Why not just go with those numbers? They seem quite bad enough to me. That's nearly 1 out of 5 voters who never got a ballot, and yes, nearly half, who either did not get a ballot or got one so late that there votes may not have arrived in time to be counted. Why discredit your message by fraudulently inflating the number to say that "nearly half" WERE too late, when that determination was not verified?
In 2000, there were problems in Florida. The election here was "nearly" stolen, when the major Television Networks declared Bush the "winner" before the polls closed in the Panhandle, "forcing" many Republicans in the panhandle to leave the polling places ( why vote, when your candidate has been declared the winner? ). And their non-votes didn't have dimpled chads to count, when the results were disputed - so in the recount that followed, their intentions were not represented.
Instead of whining on and on, we Floridians pushed for, and got, a federal ban on networks proclaiming "winners" countrywide before the polls close.
What are the Ohio Democrats doing to insure that they don't have a repeat of their problems in the next elections? |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 10:43:36 PM · #29 |
Ron, you can always be counted on for a pedantic response. You apparently didn't understand the analogy or don't know what an analogy is. The point of the analogy was that you are pedantic to the Nth degree and can never seem to focus on the important or relevant meaning and truth in a given set of circumstances.
But don't worry, I won't ask for your help if my house is burning down; I know that I would receive only a pompous lecture in return.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 07:46:11 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, you can always be counted on for a pedantic response. You apparently didn't understand the analogy or don't know what an analogy is. The point of the analogy was that you are pedantic to the Nth degree and can never seem to focus on the important or relevant meaning and truth in a given set of circumstances.
But don't worry, I won't ask for your help if my house is burning down; I know that I would receive only a pompous lecture in return. |
Why is it that y'all, including RFK, seem unable, or unwilling, to just state your case or provide the facts without twisting it, distorting it, or wrapping it in innuendo and/or propaganda? Don't you trust people to come to the right conclusions based on the plain, unvarnished truth? For example, wouldn't it have been far easier, and less ambiguous to just come right out and say that you think that I am being pedantic, rather than constuct a poor analogy to imply that, if that was its purpose?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:41:14 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:41:14 AM EDT.
|
