REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

BUSH HAS WON!!!!

POSTED BY: ANARKO
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 00:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13427
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:57 PM

JASONZZZ


(buzzer) wrong! 100% confidence interval represents the exact population. It can happen when your samples *are* the population.

Gimme a break, you had to go to a webpage and you don't understand it even after you read it.

95% confidence interval is what is used regularly for normal everyday meaningless polls like "Do you listen to Avril or Brittany more?". Critical studies like this one published should have used at least a 98% confidence interval. But too bad, their procedures wouldn't have allowed them that. Their interval would have been 600-2000000 with 98% CI, instead of that pretty damn ludicrous and unbelievable 8000-194000.

See how this works? To narrow the possible interval, your confidence goes down with the same figure. So if you narrow the interval to say 10000-150000, then your confidence level goes down to 80%. 50000-130000, prolly around 65%. By the time you get down to specifying the exact median. It's something like 0.02% confidence that it would be that 100000 figure.

Yeah, I agree. It's pretty useless as far as numbers go. You can take that report to anyone with rudimentary understanding of statistics (even a poorly taught first year stat class would clearly explain this concept. Well, at least you shouldn't have been let pass the class without understand this)

Not only were the study, the procedure used in the study *and* the report itself flawed. But the analysis and the media report are highly flawed and misleading, bordering on criminal.


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"For those not versed in statistics, that means that the researchers were 95% confident (not even 100%)"
I suspect you don't know statistics either. A 100% confidence interval is an invalid figure. You should not have brought it up.

http://techniques.geog.ox.ac.uk/mod_2/glossary/confint.html





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:18 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It depends on your measure - counting or continuous.
PS We've had the debate before, I believe, and this is where it got stuck last time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Many exit polls did not match the final vote:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=670
7692

"'We have an exit poll crisis,'said pollster John Zogby, whose own Election Day predictions that Kerry would take Ohio and Florida proved wrong. He said he had used the exit poll data to confirm conclusions he had based on his own polling."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/elect
ion2004/10092541.htm?1c

"But the polling consortium used by the networks and The Associated Press came under scrutiny Wednesday for exit polls that showed President Bush trailing Sen. John Kerry in battleground states throughout Election Day."

Also, after voting closes, exit polls are adjusted to the vote tally.
"After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23580-2004Nov3.html
That may be the reason for the congruence between the final CNN exit poll and the final vote in Florida, while real-time exit polls indicated a different outcome.
Which still leaves the question open - was the exit polling flawed, or was it the vote count? I haven't come down on either side, I would find a statistical study enlightening. I'm going to keep my eyes open to see if one comes out.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:02 PM

JASONZZZ



no! there is only a difference in that if you are actually sampling!

If your samples *are* your population, you are no longer sampling. You can still calculate mean, and deviations, and the normal statistics. But when your samples *are* your population, there is no confidence level. It is 100% by definition and all means of it.



Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
It depends on your measure - counting or continuous.
PS We've had the debate before, I believe, and this is where it got stuck last time.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:11 PM

JASONZZZ


Err... there isn't any exit poll disparity... The only problem is with people (sigh) getting early data and stupidly reporting on them as real figures without understanding the reasoning of their inaccuracies.

read the article excerpts that points it out here:

Quote:



To compound the problem further, a server at Edison/Mitofsky malfunctioned shortly before 11 p.m. The glitch prevented access to any exit poll results until technicians got a backup system operational at 1:33 a.m. yesterday.

The crash occurred barely minutes before the consortium was to update its exit polling with the results of later interviewing that found Bush with a one-point lead. Instead, journalists were left relying on preliminary exit poll results released at 8:15 p.m., which still showed Kerry ahead by three percentage points.

It was only after the polls had closed in most states and the vote count was well underway in the East that it became clear that Bush was in a stronger position in several key battlegrounds, including Ohio, than early exit polls suggested.

Some problems are inevitable. A total of 12,047 randomly selected voters were interviewed Tuesday as they left their polling places, and those results were fed into computers. The accumulated results were reported several times over the course of Election Day.

Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use. Those estimates are untrustworthy because people who vote earlier in the day tend to be different from those who vote in the middle of the day or the evening. For instance, the early national sample Tuesday that was 59 percent female probably reflected that more women vote in the day than the evening.

That is why the early leaks anger Lenski. "The basic issue here is the leaking of this information without any sophisticated understanding or analysis, in a way that makes it look inaccurate," he said.




Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Many exit polls did not match the final vote:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=670
7692

"'We have an exit poll crisis,'said pollster John Zogby, whose own Election Day predictions that Kerry would take Ohio and Florida proved wrong. He said he had used the exit poll data to confirm conclusions he had based on his own polling."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/elect
ion2004/10092541.htm?1c

"But the polling consortium used by the networks and The Associated Press came under scrutiny Wednesday for exit polls that showed President Bush trailing Sen. John Kerry in battleground states throughout Election Day."

Also, after voting closes, exit polls are adjusted to the vote tally.
"After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23580-2004Nov3.html
That may be the reason for the congruence between the final CNN exit poll and the final vote in Florida, while real-time exit polls indicated a different outcome.
Which still leaves the question open - was the exit polling flawed, or was it the vote count? I haven't come down on either side, I would find a statistical study enlightening. I'm going to keep my eyes open to see if one comes out.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:22 PM

NEUTRINOLAD


Quote:

If things don't improve in the U.S. now that the repubs hold all the cards, their party will be exposed for the corporate/christian right tools they are and 2006 / 2008 will not be pretty for them.

Yer new to this whole politics hugamuga, ain't ya?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:21 PM

DAIKATH


Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:

Originally posted by lissa:
i think i'm going to cry.

i changed my mind. i'm moving to canada.

and then i'm crying.

~lissa, spwhore


Need a roomate?

Don't get so crazy, it's not the end of the wor... oh wait. Never mind.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:28 PM

TOM


Quote:

Originally posted by lissa:
i think i'm going to cry.

i changed my mind. i'm moving to canada.

and then i'm crying.

~lissa, spwhore




You wanna carpool? Gas prices are way to high to go alone ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:30 PM

DAIKATH


Oh yeah one more thing, those who think Bush did good. In my country (The Netherlands) governments have stepped down themselfes for far less horrible things then Bush.

And my country ranks higher on that website then the US. (nanananananaaa! sorry...)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:50 PM

HARDAN


@Daikath

No wonder are the netherlands such a good country to live in, when the consumation of marihuana is legal.

But I think switzerland will soon be the second country in europe where it will be legalized.

Anyway. I think we'll see us in four years when it's:
Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Hillary Clinton

And to all americans: Only 1538 days left....

-----------------------------
Yes there are Fireflyfans all over the world. Even in little switzerland.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:25 AM

DAIKATH


Heh, a few years ago I remember Switserland having criticism on the dutch government about pot, so that is why .

Its not technically legal btw, everyone just agreed not to follow the law unless you break the law on other fronts they will enforce it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:12 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Hillary vs. Guiliani in 2008

Any predictions?

I have to say I'm not overly surprised. The Dems continue to lose ground because their policies are out of step with the people. They had a bad candidate who couldn't relay his message and was literally unbelievable. Dick Gephardt or Lieberman would have both had a better chance at winning. If you want to reach the low or midlle class people, you don't declare that Hollywood is the heartbeat of America. I voted for Badnarik, but ultimately I could've written in Lisa Simpson and my vote would have been worth the same. In NY, the city controls the outcome..and conservatives are outnumbered 5 to 1.

Strangely enough I've heard people claim that the "Defining of marriage" initiatives on the ballots brought the evangelicals to the polls. I guess my questions are..Do they not have the right to vote? Where were the voters who opposed those initiatives?

I have to say I was surprised that Bush won so overwhelmingly in the popular vote. That says something about our citizen's faith in the democratic party. Maybe next time they will run on something other then a hate for the incumbent.

I personally will continue to write letters to my congressmen and senators ( Chuck Schumer being the exception the prick! ). Our president will still need to be held accountable for his actions. It's up to us to make sure he is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:50 AM

DECKROID


Ok, so, let me see if I got this right...

Bush won.

Kerry lost.

Gay-Marriage turned down.

More Repubs in the house and senate.

Hmm... seems to me that the voting public got their say and even though we had record percentage turnouts (I think I read that the % of voter turnout was only higher in 1936) the voting public went for less liberal ways.

Now, before anyone starts to get their dander up...

I voted for Bush. I am FOR gay marriages. I think there should be NO vote for a school levy. We should give schools money EVERY 5 years. So what if property tax (that's home and land tax for those that live in apts) goes up .05%? Who cares that someone wants to marry someone of the same sex? It will NOT lead to man-donkey marriages or whatever they were trying to say.

And as for why I voted for Bush ---> Many reasons, least of which is that I feel safer with Bush than Kerry. Also, tossing your medals on the steps of Congress and THEN returning yrs later and professing the validity of those medals... trite. Very trite.

Now, as to the voter machines and missing ballots and all that rubbish...

Get over it.

I just knew that some die-hard Kerry voters would be pulling this. So, last time (2000) it was a stolen election. This time its voter fraud. I wonder what those folks would have said if Bush had been a landslide victory...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:00 AM

HJERMSTED


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:

Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
...*sigh* Well, look at it this way...Bush can't be reelected in 2008! :)




But there is always Jeb Bush and the rest of the Bush's



W's greatest mistakes are ahead of him. He'll screw up Jeb's presidential aspirations.

I predict we'll have another Clinton in the White House before we have another Bush.

mattro

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:03 AM

RUXTON


JASONZZZ:
You said,
"Come on, the study that came out last month is full of statistical problems. Did you actually look at the statistics or are you just regurgitating what was in the news? I thought you actually do your own analysis. The confidence interval for the 100k figure was from 8000 - 194000. I could have polled a bunch of monkeys and gotten a tighter confidence interval. For those not versed in statistics, that means that the researchers were 95% confident (not even 100%) that the real interval lies some where in between 8000 and 194000. You simply cannot average it out between the two figures. The odds are all even that it could be anywhere in there, it's not more likely right in the middle with 100k. Good grief."

GOTCHA, you worthless turd.

You've just admitted that no matter the numbers, you think it's just fine that all these people died, and will continue to die, based on the lies of the Bush administration.

You'd rather fumble numbers than admit the Bush administration lied, and killed people. Let's not forget the administration also tortured people to try to find non-existent WMDs. Those of us who are aware of the massive problems with this administration are not going to go away, nor are we going to try to make amends with "the other side." We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
...We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.



Ah...due process in Uber-Liberal America. When do you open the concentration camps, Ruxton? I understand that Target has a special on brown shirts.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:41 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
JASONZZZ:
You said,
"Come on, the study that came out last month is full of statistical problems. Did you actually look at the statistics or are you just regurgitating what was in the news? I thought you actually do your own analysis. The confidence interval for the 100k figure was from 8000 - 194000. I could have polled a bunch of monkeys and gotten a tighter confidence interval. For those not versed in statistics, that means that the researchers were 95% confident (not even 100%) that the real interval lies some where in between 8000 and 194000. You simply cannot average it out between the two figures. The odds are all even that it could be anywhere in there, it's not more likely right in the middle with 100k. Good grief."

GOTCHA, you worthless turd.



So, again. You can't understand the math and facts behind it. Or you did and realized the problem of supporting a flimsy and fraud ridden study. Either way, there isn't a plank to stand in on this one and you resorted to just call me names and throw in completely random things that I have in fact stated earlier that is is completely not my position.

Good grief.

It's ok to admit that a study is wrong based on flawed methodology and completely wrong (if not just plain biased) interpretation.

I never claimed that the number should be one way or another. My only claim is the study is not correct (at best) and the conclusion should be inconclusive (i.e. "We really don't know what the number is since the range is so large and all over the damn place")

Now, it might be since you are arguing so vehemently (that you have to stuff words into my mouth) you somehow believe that you don't need facts in order to argue your point. That it's ok to toss in a flawed study or two and then for no reason at all switch the topic into some random rhetoric. Look, if you feel better about it, I could just step out for about 15 minutes; while you argue boths sides of it. You seem to be able to somehow either deduce my arguments (albeit wrongly) or have already formulated the entire stream of arguments already. Must be nice for you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:

You've just admitted that no matter the numbers, you think it's just fine that all these people died, and will continue to die, based on the lies of the Bush administration.

You'd rather fumble numbers than admit the Bush administration lied, and killed people. Let's not forget the administration also tortured people to try to find non-existent WMDs. Those of us who are aware of the massive problems with this administration are not going to go away, nor are we going to try to make amends with "the other side." We care about our country. You obviously don't, which makes you and your ilk traitors. A hangman's noose is too good for you.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 5:08 PM

WADDLEDOODLE


I'm pretty sure you folks have a bus station near campus, no matter what school your in at the moment. So write the parents for the money to get a one way to ticket to Canada. I'm SURE they'll love to have you. If not, maybe the UN will help you out? They sure as hell haven't helped ANYONE else!

Bu............Bye!

Jeb Bush in 2008!

George P Bush in 2016!

Edited to add: The above bus ticket is directed to the tin-foil hat wearing KoolAide drinkers who are whiney sore losers. The sensible conservative folks couldn't leave because they work and pay taxes that end up supporting the other lot.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 6:03 PM

JASONZZZ



How about a
a Bush/Bush ticket for 2008?

Jeb for Prez and GW as the veep.

wOOt


Quote:

Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
I'm pretty sure you folks have a bus station near campus, no matter what school your in at the moment. So write the parents for the money to get a one way to ticket to Canada. I'm SURE they'll love to have you. If not, maybe the UN will help you out? They sure as hell haven't helped ANYONE else!

Bu............Bye!

Jeb Bush in 2008!

George P Bush in 2016!

Edited to add: The above bus ticket is directed to the tin-foil hat wearing KoolAide drinkers who are whiney sore losers. The sensible conservative folks couldn't leave because they work and pay taxes that end up supporting the other lot.







Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 6:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"If your samples *are* your population, you are no longer sampling. You can still calculate mean, and deviations, and the normal statistics. But when your samples *are* your population, there is no confidence level. It is 100% by definition and all means of it."
If you are taking measurements of a continuous property, even if you measure the entire population, you still have error bars (due to error of the measurement) - hence you must state your measurement (for example an arithmetic mean) AND your error and AND confidence that your measure is somewhere within the error.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 6:49 PM

Q


as fortold in b.c. these are the last days. the antichrist is leading the world and the whore of babylon did burn.

p

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 6:49 PM

Q


as fortold in b.c. these are the last days. the antichrist is leading the world and the whore of babylon did burn.

p

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2004 7:11 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"If your samples *are* your population, you are no longer sampling. You can still calculate mean, and deviations, and the normal statistics. But when your samples *are* your population, there is no confidence level. It is 100% by definition and all means of it."
If you are taking measurements of a continuous property, even if you measure the entire population, you still have error bars (due to error of the measurement) - hence you must state your measurement (for example an arithmetic mean) AND your error and AND confidence that your measure is somewhere within the error.



Yes, you are right. But those errors belong in the Gauge RxR domain, not the sampling domain. Errors in measurement methods and tools can are usually fairly systemetic and can, most often, be easily controlled or accounted for.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 4:23 AM

MANTICHORUS


Quote:

Originally posted by lissa:
Quote:

Originally posted by Mantichorus:
"There's an old cat saying, which has particular relevance here; it goes something like this: 'We are all gonna die!'" -Cat, Red Dwarf.




i sort of love you right now. can the cat please be prez? at least then we'd all be dressed well in our graves.

~lissa, spwhore



Well, I've got a new one now, lissa...
"My God. He's like a trained ape... well, you know the rest."

--------------------------------------------------
"To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation." -Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, Aphorisms.
--------------------------------------------------
"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact." -George Eliot, Impressions of Theophrastus Such.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 10, 2004 8:58 PM

ANARKO


BUSH WON !!! KERRY SUCKS !!! 4 more years baby !!!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 7:47 AM

CONSCIENCE


President Bush is a little to liberal for my taste, but hopefully in his second term with more Republicans in the Senate we'll finally get the Human Life Amendment passed. Although probably after 2006, when the GOP gets 61 members in the Senate.

This what that needed amendment will say:

Section 1: The right to life is a paramount and most fundamental right of a person.

Section 2: With respect to the right to life guaranteed to persons by the Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution, the word "person" applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development including fertilization.

Section 3: No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as long as such law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each.

Section 4: Congress and the several States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sounds nice in theory, in practice it doesn't apply. A fertilized egg FIRST develops into a proto-placenta, nothing human about it there. Then along the way any number of problems can cause the development to run amok, creating nothing more than a blob of more-or-less undifferentiated cells. Just 'cause a cell has the right DNA and the POTENTIAL to become a human does not mean it will always do so. The fact that somewhere between 20 and 30% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort indicate that development OFTEN goes awry seriusly enough to terminate even within the protected envirnment of the womb.

And then there is the other end of the human life spectrum- the brain-dead, for example, appear to have nothing left of the spark that makes people aware, much less human. Would you not allow organ transplants, even to save other lives?

And what about the death penalty? What about drug companies that knowingly sell drugs with no real benefit, but very real risks?

In your mind there is a clear, bright line between human and non-human, between "deprive" and non-deprivation. Real life generally does not present us with such sharp demarcations but with a spectrum of situations and decisions.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:10 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:
President Bush is a little to liberal for my taste, but hopefully in his second term with more Republicans in the Senate we'll finally get the Human Life Amendment passed. Although probably after 2006, when the GOP gets 61 members in the Senate.

This what that needed amendment will say:

Section 1: The right to life is a paramount and most fundamental right of a person.

Section 2: With respect to the right to life guaranteed to persons by the Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution, the word "person" applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development including fertilization.

Section 3: No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as long as such law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each.

Section 4: Congress and the several States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Ya lost me on the fertilization part on Article 2. Does that mean Big Brother gets to watch to make sure I don't use a condom or have some sort of "accident"? Big Brother can't catch a few unsavory folks throughout the world how would they police that? Also..where does that put the whole "Right to Privacy/Who wants to be a porn star?" fantasy?

I'm all for women's rights when it comes to their bodies. I am against abortion being used as a form of birth control, but ultimately..if a woman doesn't want to have the child it's her choice. The last thing we need is one more "unwanted" child brought into this world and shuffled off to the department of social services.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:29 AM

SIGMANUNKI


And what about Section 3? Who's to say what "resonable effort" means?

To me, this will make the doc reluctant to make a decision that will save one resulting in a higher mortality rate. After all, docs get sued far too often as it is.

I'm certain that there are far more problems than this with this amendment, but I don't have the time right now to rip it apart.

Lastly, I almost say that this post was a joke by the way Conscience said GW was too liberal. Who the hell would call GW liberal? The man's a right-wing war-monger.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM,

I think the problem is that the tendency is to put hopes into a fertilized egg. But people can't separate their feelings for 'what might be' with what actually is. So they relate to a lump of cells as if it were a real, individual presence, instead of that fact that it might only become one, some day.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think it's more complicated than that. People idealize the unborn tremendously. They hang a lot of hopes and dreams on what "might be". Once the child is born, it offers a more limited range for idealization because it is more of a concrete problem: another messy, noisy mouth to feed. In a way, real children are less cherished than ideal children. They don't deserve welfare. They are candidates for being collateral damage. They are part of the population problem. They have a color, sex, religion and ethnicity and are certainly on somebody's "out" list. What if they become criminals? What if they are born with some serious defect and never become productive? It's much, much easier to cherish the unborn, because they don't present any "problems".

Even for a cynic like me, it's easy to understand why people often fall into the trap of feeling that "Human life begins at conception and ends at birth".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 23, 2004 12:30 AM

ANARKO


Check out this great article by Peggy Noonan:

Quote:

So Much to Savor

A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor.

Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.

George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)

It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!

The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.

The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.

George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.

The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.

As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.

To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.

Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.

And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."

"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.

Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.

Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.

Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 27, 2004 11:22 AM

CONSCIENCE


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Lastly, I almost say that this post was a joke by the way Conscience said GW was too liberal. Who the hell would call GW liberal? The man's a right-wing war-monger.



You might have an argument with accusing him of being a war-monger, however President Bush is far from right-wing.

Here is some of the proof:

*Bush supports "civil unions" for homosexuals.

*Bush supports extending the Clinton Gun Ban.

*Bush supports expanding the size and scope of the federal government. Bush has actually outspent both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

*Bush supports NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA just like the John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats do.

*Bush has no intentions of making abortion- on-demand illegal.

And while we are on the subject of abortion, President G.W. Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for International Family Planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican-led administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in U.S. history. That is not to mention the millions of dollars that Bush has approved for America's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

Recently, many "pro-lifers" heaped voluminous praise upon Mr. Bush when he decided to withhold a miniscule (by comparison) $34 million in federal funds from UNFPA (a UN abortion agency in China). What these ignorant (or deluded) "pro-lifers" failed to notice was that Bush redirected that $34 million to USAID Child Survival Health Program Fund. This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."

In other words, all President Bush did was play the old shell game by taking $34 million from one pro-abortion agency and giving it to another pro-abortion agency. As American Life League President Judy Brown said, "These 'contraceptive commodities' are nothing but abortion-inducing chemicals that kill the very children that the fund claims to help."

*Bush supported the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for upholding his oath of office to acknowledge God by resisting an unlawful order by federal judge Myron Thompson to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.

*Bush is a strong supporters of the United Nations.

In fact, when President G.W. Bush addressed the UN in 2003, he said the reason he ordered U.S. troops to invade Iraq was for the purpose of supporting "the peace and credibility of the United Nations."

*Bush supports granting illegal aliens amnesty.

*Bush supports a "one China" policy.

*Bush supports "outsourcing" American jobs overseas like a socialist liberal would.

The list could go on almost without end. Anyone who thinks George Walker Bush is a conservative is out of their mind.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 27, 2004 10:51 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Holy crap I don't know where to begin!

Since you have not posted any links to verify this information, I'll assume that it's true and go from there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports "civil unions" for homosexuals.



And is working toward changing the constitution to make it illegal for homosexuls to marry.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports extending the Clinton Gun Ban.



Then why did the sun set on that one?

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports expanding the size and scope of the federal government. Bush has actually outspent both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.



To increase it "big brotherness" to "improve" security. Spending money isn't a good thing if you don't spend it right nor even close to right place(s).

Tell me, what exactly has the department of homeland security done besides making colour codings for threat levels? Pretty much nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA just like the John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats do.



But ignores there rulings if it doesn't go in his favour. Basically, he has the mind of, "The law is just and beautiful as long as it's in my favour."

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush has no intentions of making abortion- on-demand illegal.



Yes, he does. He's said so in a number of speeches. Rights of the unborn, blah blah blah.


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supported the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for upholding his oath of office to acknowledge God by resisting an unlawful order by federal judge Myron Thompson to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.



Perhaps you aren't familiar with the phrase, seperation of church and state.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush is a strong supporters of the United Nations.



You haven't been watching the news for the past few years have you? You can't say, before Iraq, "I won't listen to you," bomb the out of a nation for no reason, come back when you fail in every consivable way afterwards to the UN and say, "you guys are viable, please help" and call that a strong supporter of the UN. If your memory was capable of remembering past a few seconds ago, you'd realize this. Or perhaps it's selective memory?

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

In fact, when President G.W. Bush addressed the UN in 2003, he said the reason he ordered U.S. troops to invade Iraq was for the purpose of supporting "the peace and credibility of the United Nations."



Is that the excuse he was using that week?

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports granting illegal aliens amnesty.



link

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports a "one China" policy.



This is only one way of dealing with this issue. Others are just as viable.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

*Bush supports "outsourcing" American jobs overseas like a socialist liberal would.



link

Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:

The list could go on almost without end. Anyone who thinks George Walker Bush is a conservative is out of their mind.



I really think that you can't say this. Perhaps you should look at more that a few isolated events and look to the whole picture before you make such statements.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:12 AM

CREVANREAVER


Conscience is right about President Bush not being a conservative. Don't get me wrong, the president's not a liberal either. He is a Communitarian.

http://www.janda.org/b20/News%20articles/GW%2C%20the%20Communitarian.h
tm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:46 PM

SERGEANTX


That's an interesting classification. It actually falls into line with something I read the other day about the whole neo-con movement. The gist of the article, which was from a pro-Bush, pro neo-con group was an outline of the various forms of modern conservatism.


They distinguished three kinds of conservatism that have been prominent in the last few decades:

Traditional conservatism was the kind most familiar to pre-Bush republicans. It centered on the traditional family values issues, a moderate distrust of big government and a disdain for social engineering (on the domestic side) and nation building (on foreign policy).

Libertarian conservatism centered it's attention squarely on the evils of 'big government' and on the rights of the individual. In international relations they verged on isolationist. Reagan gained power through a mix of the traditional and libertarian styles of conservatism. Newt Gingrich led a relatively libertarian conservative reform movement in the early nineties.

Neo-Conservatism embraces an aggressive promotion of American ideals in foreign policy and sees government as a way to strengthen beneficial moral values in society. They are basically Wilsonians without the troublesome multilateral approach. Overall the despcriptions from the book looked very much like the definition of "Communitarianism" that you linked to.

From my point of view, the Neo-Cons, or Communitarians, represent the worst of both of the old ideologies embraced by liberals and conservatives. They take the big-government, interventionist, convictions of the liberals and match them with the self-righteous, nationalistic , bases of the traditional conservatives. The result is a particularly invasive creation.

I sincerely hope we wake up from this nightmare soon.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:18 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@CrevanReaver:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism
"
To this end they generally support social safety programs, free public education, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution and gun violence.
"

Doesn't sound like GW to me, given that he's done nothing to make Univeristy free or even cheaper and the horrible things that he's done to the US's enviornmental laws.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL