|
The only one? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
Am I the only one here that thinks the democrats are exploiting minorities just to gain a victory. In my opinion neither obama or hilary are fit to lead this country. The only reason I think people pay attention to them is becuase they are "different" and in a way they would represent some form of change in this country. However, I think it's the wrong kind of change when we start judging a leader based on their outward appearance rather than their character and abilities "or lack thereof". If anything I would vote for the guy who came up with the idea of running these two at least he knows what he is doing, becuase it sure is working. Until one of them shows some merit, rather than just being different, I will vote for McCain. |
Anyone who wants to stay in Iraq for 50-100 years is clearly an imperialist in my opinion. I'm a registered Republican, but will never vote for McCain. The Republican Party attracted me because of their limited regulation economic policies, but their foreign policy, and too little regulation has turned me invariably to the left. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
'
Since when was ignorace an excuse. |
The irony is too much.
| quote: | | I also never said that women are going to vote for hilary just becuase shes a woman, I'm saying a majority of the people voting for hilary are doing so becuase she is a woman. |
That rationale honestly entails males voting more for Hillary because she is simply a female instead of females voting for Hillary because she is a female. Can you demonstrate this in any way? Please support your answer with any verifiable links.
| quote: | | These polls are very biased, 53 out of 100 can say that we are threat to peace but 9947 out of 10000 might say we aren't. Polls are something to keep people occupied with numbers at best. |
Can you demonstrate how the majority of polls taken together are somehow "biased" in any way? Please support your answer with verifiable links, especially in regards to the Bush's approval rating. If you are suggesting his approval is higher than what these combined polls strongly suggest, please support your assertion.
| quote: | | Also the people polled are influenced by the same type of media that we are, until you go there yourself or talk to people that have spent a deal of time there using the media a source will not sway me. |
Ahh yes, that darn librul media routine again. You sure you want to go this route here?
This wouldn't happen to be the very same lapdog media that's did next to nothing to challenge Bush on invading Iraq from WMDs again, would it? That darn Judy Miller from that darn librul NYTimes newspaper really did you warmongers a favor, didn't she?
But speaking about people that have been there, how about 15,000 strong from VoteVets?:
http://www.votevets.org/index_html
Surely those darn librul media bastards didn't get to them too, did they?!?!?! Gosh, and I thought it was the Conservatives who created the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Huh.
| quote: | | I don't care if it is heavily republican or heavily democratic network your getting your information from they are both tainted. |
Then demonstrate where unbiased news comes from other than your anecdotal sources, please.
| quote: | | The reason we never went after Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya was becuase there wasn't a reason. |
Millions of people being killed in a humanitarian crisis is not a good enough reason?
| quote: | | The middle east poses a threat on our national security by fighting over there we keep them over there instead of come back over here to blow more stuff up. |
Great, so why did we take our eye off the ball by leaving the hunt for bin Laden to corrupt Afghan warlords in Tora Bora to go after a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 again? And we're still there because the 95% insurgency that's killed our troops, i.e. the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militia has plans on attacking us on our own soil?
Gosh, I'm sorry, can you demonstrate that somehow with supporting evidence how the insurgency from these two groups in a civil war would come here again?
| quote: | | Can't override a guilty verdict on an impeachment, so if the president is over-rides the congress or constitutional authority that needs to be stopped one way or another it can be stopped. |
This really isn't terribly coherent. Can you restate? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
These polls are very biased, 53 out of 100 can say that we are threat to peace but 9947 out of 10000 might say we aren't. |
The worst understanding of statistics that I have ever ever witnessed. |
|
|
| DJ UD |
| quote: | | This really isn't terribly coherent. Can you restate? |
If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other. |
|
|
| DJ UD |
| quote: | | The worst understanding of statistics that I have ever ever witnessed. |
Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling. |
statistics is based on the proposition that a sample of the population fairly represents the whole. The sampling error (or error for margin) takes into consideration that the entire population wasn't sampled.
you really need to get into a classroom!! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling. |
of course, but your argument (9947 out of 10000) is completely and utterly incorrect. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other. |
Thanks, I see what you're saying now. This is most certainly true, however one can argue that the impeachment card should not necessarily be one played as merely a check and balance. This really is a card of last resort, and it only should be used if the president is unwilling or has not complied with the law.
But no doubt, you are right that Congress does have this power. And given the absolute lack of spine in these Democrats controlling Congress to even try to keep Bush's powers in check (ex: signing statements), not to mention House Speaker Pelosi stating right out back in November that "impeachment is off the table," that's certainly not happening in the rest of Bush's term. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ UD
If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other. |
the president actually has to break some law in order to be impeached. Given the broad executive privilege, it becomes very difficult to actually prove a crime occurred. Congress can NOT impeach the president because he vetoes bills or has "too much" power. that's fundamentally incorrect. |
|
|
| DJ UD |
| quote: | | the president actually has to break some law in order to be impeached. Given the broad executive privilege, it becomes very difficult to actually prove a crime occurred. Congress can NOT impeach the president because he vetoes bills or has "too much" power. that's fundamentally incorrect. |
First off I'm not saying simply having too much power is a reason to impeach someone. I'm saying that if the president takes his power too far or beyond reason then that might be a case for treason. Considering bill clinton was impeached for having an affair, and having an affair is not a crime. |
|
|
| DJ UD |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
statistics is based on the proposition that a sample of the population fairly represents the whole. The sampling error (or error for margin) takes into consideration that the entire population wasn't sampled.
you really need to get into a classroom!! |
I know what the "margin of error" is, but that isn't that accurate either. The margin of error can still be well off the suggested number given. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Can you demonstrate how the majority of polls taken together are somehow "biased" in any way? |
Ah come on Opus! Don't confuse the poor chap with words like "majority"! |
|
|
|
|
