BUSH HAS WON!!!!

POSTED BY: Anarko
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:18
VIEWED: 18326
PAGE 1 of 1

ANARKO

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:35 PM (P)

It's official, John Kerry has conceded. It's all over the news.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html

Anybody But Kerry...damn right!

LISSA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:49 PM (P)

i think i'm going to cry.

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

and then i'm crying.

~lissa, spwhore

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:52 PM (P)

Today I feel VERY SICK.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

BIGBLUEFAN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:55 PM (P)

Yeah! Four More Years!! :)

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:55 PM (P)

GW and MR.Apartheid ( Cheney ) back in the whitehouse

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:55 PM (P)

CLEANER

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:57 PM (P)

Not that I cared who won but all that money wasted, how sad.

"If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak!!!"

MANTICHORUS

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:57 PM (P)

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

--------------------------------------------------
"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.

LISSA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:59 PM (P)

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

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:02 PM (P)

Well, we'll soon have the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Niska" bumper stickers floating around.

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

-Taylor

The Uncharted Outlaw!
"I brought you some supper, but if you'd prefer a lecture, I've a few very catchy ones prepped...sin and hellfire... one has lepers."
See my Firefly Store: http://www.cafepress.com/NorCalRiviera

STILLSHINY

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:06 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Anarko:
It's official, John Kerry has conceded. It's all over the news.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html

Anybody But Kerry...damn right!

OK George, you've got your chance. Now make it work.

Check out my shop!
http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/products/gallery/browse_results.asp
?cid=238187680745956238

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn." --Joss

ASTRIANA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
Well, we'll soon have the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Niska" bumper stickers floating around.

Can I have several dozen of these? I'm sure I know several folks down here who'll need 'em.

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

What terrifies me is that he knows it - so he no longer has to play nice, 'cause either way, he's out in 4 years for good.

~Astriana~
~Mostly-Invisible Long-Winded Goddess of Inter-Board Communication and Diplomacy a/k/a El Jefe Magnifico's Mistress... of Communications and Harems~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:21 PM (P)

If I've got time this evening, I'll whip it up in Photoshop and get it on my site!

-Taylor

The Uncharted Outlaw!
"I brought you some supper, but if you'd prefer a lecture, I've a few very catchy ones prepped...sin and hellfire... one has lepers."
See my Firefly Store: http://www.cafepress.com/NorCalRiviera

ZARK1976

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BigBlueFan:
Yeah! Four More Years!! :)

GORRAMIT! Four more years!

"Could be he's harboring some resentment at us for putting his man through our engine."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:43 PM (P)

I WON'T be putting up a "I voted for Niska" sign- that's like saying "I voted for Cheney" for crissake! It's that kind of thinking... or lack of... that brought us Bush in the first place.

Make another sign- "Don't blame me, I voted for Mal". I'd put that up in a heartbeat!

HJERMSTED

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:00 PM (P)

It sucks that Bush and his chronies get to fuck with America for another four years... but (poetically) Bush gets to clean up his own mess in Iraq and must find a way to improve the economy other than by creating more McJobs.

I don't think he'll be able to do either. Bush has never had to clean up his own mess before. This is new terrain for him. Daddy can't bail him out this time.

The republicans as a whole have to shit or get off the pot now... they have everything they ever wanted.

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.

Prayer alone won't make things better around here. Nothing fails like prayer.

Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

mattro

LISSA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

ya...i'm pretty sure it's a bad thing that i'm currently terrified of the supreme court of my own country.

~lissa, spwhore

GOJIRO

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:30 PM (P)

I'll be at Moe's...

-------
Are you a Southern Ohio Browncoat? If so, join our Yahoo group for news and events: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio/

And if you're a Cincinnati Area Browncoat, join our meetup group at http://firefly.meetup.com/137/

HARDWARE

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
It sucks that Bush and his chronies get to fuck with America for another four years... but (poetically) Bush gets to clean up his own mess in Iraq and must find a way to improve the economy other than by creating more McJobs.

I don't think he'll be able to do either. Bush has never had to clean up his own mess before. This is new terrain for him. Daddy can't bail him out this time.

The republicans as a whole have to shit or get off the pot now... they have everything they ever wanted.

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.

Prayer alone won't make things better around here. Nothing fails like prayer.

Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

mattro

I can't even imagine the end zone dancing that is going to happen on the Constitution. Bush may as well wipe his ass with it now that the current batch of Republicans control congress and the white house.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

ASTRIANA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Mainly, I am weeping for the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court molestation that is about to take place.

And the sad thing is, there are FOUR Supreme Court justices talking about resigning. Bush will get to nominate their replacement...

~Astriana~
~Mostly-Invisible Long-Winded Goddess of Inter-Board Communication and Diplomacy a/k/a El Jefe Magnifico's Mistress... of Communications and Harems~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

STATIC

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:46 PM (P)

You know . . .recently, the Renaissance Festival I perform at hosted "Student Days", where during the week, we are open special hours for pre-booked field trips. The other members of the Royal Court and I were sitting in our little pavillion, answering questions for the students about our period of history and such, when somehow the subject of 'ascension to power' came up and we explained how one becomes King, or Duke, etc. etc. . .and their expressions became very distasteful. One student very pompously pointed out that in 21st Century America, they select their own rulers. We, being actors, made a big show of being shocked and amazed at the very notion. . .and then I got everyone silent with this. . .

"Wait, wait, wait. . .you mean to tell me, in YOUR time and YOUR country, the PEOPLE select their own leaders?"

Audience replies with resounding "Yes, of course!"

"Well. . .how's that been working out for you lately?"

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

ASTRIANA

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
"Wait, wait, wait. . .you mean to tell me, in YOUR time and YOUR country, the PEOPLE select their own leaders?"

Audience replies with resounding "Yes, of course!"

"Well. . .how's that been working out for you lately?"

Static, have I told you lately just how much I love you? Thanks for bringing a smile to my face today, honey. For this one, a little Harem girl dance...

Static

Astri

~Astriana~
~Mostly-Invisible Long-Winded Goddess of Inter-Board Communication and Diplomacy a/k/a El Jefe Magnifico's Mistress... of Communications and Harems~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

DAIKATH

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:55 PM (P)

Four More Wars!

EVILMASTERMIND

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:02 PM (P)

Unification Day!

"Okay I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm armed!"

DITHER

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:33 PM (P)

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

-Taylor

Or can he?

<---evil conservative grin

"That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:36 PM (P)

That's assuming we still have elections in 2008...

SHINYHAPPYKLIN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:36 PM (P)

Sigh.....now we get to sit and wait for the next terrorist attack and national debt increases in the double digits....

The "Niska/Crow" sticker is going on my car today, covering the Kerry sticker, just 'cause I don't want Bushies pointing and laughing at me....no, maybe just *next* to the Kerry sticker...it will be a distraction for their easily befuddled minds....

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

BLUESUNCORPORATEGOON

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:50 PM (P)

Quote:
What terrifies me is that he knows it - so he no longer has to play nice, 'cause either way, he's out in 4 years for good.

or is he?

Think about it...didn't the Empire in Star Wars kinda start out the same way?

i'm drawing comparison between Palpatine/Sideous and Bush

now ok,here we go...Clone Wars started when Dooku,who was in league with Palpatine/Sideous,led the Seperatist movement,which precipitated the aforementioned clone wars,now i'm not saying that Bush had connections to Saddam or Bin Laden,wouldn't surprise me,but i'm not saying that...
ok,so Palpatine is at the end of his term as Supreme Chancellor of the Republic,gets voted emergency war powers,creates this army and never gives up the power,declaring himself Emperor and the rest is history,now just think,what if Bush tries to pull the same thing,draws out the Iraq disaster and puts his term to as long as needed.we'd be in some real pretty shit then eh? Police State,Empire,New World Order,whatever you want to call it...it'd be dark times indeed...what do you guys think? am i just paranoid or has anyone else been fearing this as well?

I'll be in my bunk.-Jayne

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:54 PM (P)

I predict a Bush will run, but not this Bush.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:14 PM (P)

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.

RUXTON

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:16 PM (P)

Hjermsted:

"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."

Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results.

In other words, via the Diebold (the CEO of which publically vowed to keep Bush in the White House) voting machines, it would appear Bush stole the election.

With these easily hacked machines in place, what chance do you have for your vote to mean ANYTHING?

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:29 PM (P)

We all know hackers are Republicans.

Damn those hackers.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Hjermsted:

"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."

Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results.

In other words, via the Diebold (the CEO of which publically vowed to keep Bush in the White House) voting machines, it would appear Bush stole the election.

With these easily hacked machines in place, what chance do you have for your vote to mean ANYTHING?

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

EARLYWASLATE

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:41 PM (P)

You guys crack me up.

No matter who won/lost, we were going to hear Chicken Little calling out "the sky is falling..." from one side or the other.

We have two fairly centrist parties. Other than a couple of hot button issues, if you read between the lines, they were basically proposing the same ideas.

Move to Canada or wherever if it suits you. When things change again in four years, it'll probably be a different group of you wanting to leave.

Personally regardless of the outcome, we still live in the greatest country currently around...

-----------
"does that seem right to you?"

GEEZER

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Hjermsted:

"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."

Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results.

In other words, via the Diebold (the CEO of which publically vowed to keep Bush in the White House) voting machines, it would appear Bush stole the election.

With these easily hacked machines in place, what chance do you have for your vote to mean ANYTHING?

Well, that took longer than I'd expected.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:24 PM (P)

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

-Taylor

Or can he? <---evil conservative grin

ROFL. I actually had another teacher point that out to me today. All he needs is a reason to declare martial law just before the '08 election and hoo-boy watch out!

Anyway, today more than ever (and I know I said this in some other post in some other thread) I believe the following statement: "Yeah, I was on the losing side...still not convinced it was the wrong side."

-Taylor

The Uncharted Outlaw!
"I brought you some supper, but if you'd prefer a lecture, I've a few very catchy ones prepped...sin and hellfire... one has lepers."
See my Firefly Store: http://www.cafepress.com/NorCalRiviera

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:12 PM (P)

Gots a long wait...
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/canada.us.reut/index.htm
l

Quote:

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after U.S. President George W. Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.

Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year.

"Let me tell you -- if they're hard-working honest people, there's a process, and let them apply," Immigration Minister Judy Sgro told Reuters.

Asked whether American applicants would get special treatment, she replied: "No, they'll join the crowd like all the other people who want to come to Canada."

There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, which leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally favored the Democrats over the Republicans.

But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation.

Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that while some Americans might talk about moving to Canada rather than living with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx.

"It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one official.

Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing about a possible exodus of party members.

"I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States and continue being politically active there," he said.

Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada, a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further three years.

The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to come through.

Statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. In 1981 some 10,030 Americans gained permanent residency, compared to 5,541 in 2003.

Asked if there had been signs of increased U.S. interest, Sgro said: "Not yet, but we'll see tomorrow."

The Canadian foreign ministry said there had been no increase in hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business.

"Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services.

Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the Iraq war.

"Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit...it doesn't matter what country they're from," said an immigration ministry spokeswoman.

Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more.

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

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

SHINYHAPPYKLIN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by UnchartedOutlaw:
Anyway, today more than ever (and I know I said this in some other post in some other thread) I believe the following statement: "Yeah, I was on the losing side...still not convinced it was the wrong side."

-Taylor

THANK YOU TAYLOR!!! Today is a day to *REALLY* feel like a Browncoat, I guess!

"We gotta go to that crappy town where I'M a hero..."
Shiny stuff for Browncoats at: http://www.cafepress.com/outtotheblack

PIRATEJENNY

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:36 PM (P)

I was sick to my stomach when I found out the news
I wasn't mad or angry just really sad for our country

I guess because I knew all along that Bush would get back into office

we are in for some really sick times its scary!!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Anarko:
It's official, John Kerry has conceded. It's all over the news.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864G8201.html

Anybody But Kerry...damn right!

WE'VE DONE THE IMPOSSIBLE,AND THAT MAKES US MIGHTY!

The Democrats(with full support of the news media) thought they were gonna waltz through this election and we choked them with those words!!

Why does Dan Rather still have a job?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PIRATEJENNY

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:49 PM (P)

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:21 PM (P)

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

Don't be so sure

2008

Get ready for Cheney ( Mr Apartheid ) as president
and the little hispanic dictator George Prescott Bush as VP

The Bush dynasty will continue....

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

We have two fairly centrist parties. Other than a couple of hot button issues, if you read between the lines, they were basically proposing the same ideas.

If your idea of centrist is very right then you'd be correct. Note: Relative positions don't dictate actual positions.

Quote:
Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

Personally regardless of the outcome, we still live in the greatest country currently around...

LOL, think again. http://www.iht.com/articles/529503.html

Please note that the US went down in its ranking.

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

RUXTON

Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:37 AM (P)

For those who ignore the fact that Bush's lies murdered 100,000 people in Iraq, let alone your sons and daughters in the armed forces, I suggest a bullet in the brain will do you a lot of good.

Those of you who have an honest interest in this country might find this of interest:

On November 9, 2003, the New York Times reported: "In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. 'I AM COMMITTED TO HELPING OHIO DELIVER ITS ELECTORAL VOTES TO THE PRESIDENT NEXT YEAR,' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio. That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's 'Rangers and Pioneers,' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. But it is not the only way that Mr. O'Dell is involved in the election process. Through DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, a subsidiary in McKinney, Tex., HIS COMPANY is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen VOTING MACHINES. Judging from Federal Election Commission data, at least EIGHT MILLION people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November. ... Some people find Mr. O'Dell's pairing of interests -- as voting-machine magnate and devoted Republican fund-raiser -- troubling."

====================================================
Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Susan Truitt said today: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the case."
=========================
Dan Wallach is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston specializing in building secure and robust software systems for the Internet. Along with colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Wallach co-authored a groundbreaking study that revealed significant flaws in electronic voting systems. He appeared on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release in June entitled "Electronic Voting -- Danger for Democracy."
=========================
Senior editor of FreePress.org, an Ohio-based web site, and co-author with Fitrakis of the recent article "Twelve Ways Bush is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote," Harvey Wasserman said today: "There was a huge fight around ensuring that the electronic voting machines had paper trails and there was resistance by the secretary of state, so there is no paper trail. There were some victories to ensure a paper trial -- by 2006. There were limited numbers of voting machines in African-American districts. Some people had to wait up to eight hours, far more than in predominantly white areas."
===============================
AND:
On November 3, 2004, Reuters reported: "Voters across the United States reported problems with electronic touch-screen systems on Tuesday in what critics said could be a sign that the machines used by ONE-THIRD of the population were prone to error.... "

Doubt it? Go here:
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

And yes, the troubles were not confined to one party. But the connection between Diebold and Bush is clear.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:48 AM (P)

Hey Ruxton,

It's always good to hear from you. Now we wait for the coincidence theorists to claim that a preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Ignorance is strength, eh?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:05 AM (P)

I don't think the US has ever ranked well on that poll... Norway and Sweden has always came out on top. I wouldn't necessarily disagree either.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

We have two fairly centrist parties. Other than a couple of hot button issues, if you read between the lines, they were basically proposing the same ideas.

If your idea of centrist is very right then you'd be correct. Note: Relative positions don't dictate actual positions.

Quote:
Originally posted by EARLYWASLATE:

Personally regardless of the outcome, we still live in the greatest country currently around...

LOL, think again. http://www.iht.com/articles/529503.html

Please note that the US went down in its ranking.

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

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

RUE

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:27 AM (P)

"Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results" I was curious about that too. There was exit polling all over Florida, which I followed closely. But the exits didn't look like the final vote. I wonder if this will be followed-up with statistical analysis.

Well, things didn't go like I wanted, but at least I made a tidy bundle on bets. Among other factors, my assessment was that Bush was appealing to fear, greed, hate, and American jihad. You can never go wrong with those.

Now, I have some thoughtful honest friends who voted for Bush. They were just trying to do the right thing for the future, and, misguided as I think their vote was, I respect their intentions and effort. But I also know those who consider themselves the embodiment of righteous Christian morality who said they would vote for Bush because he was 'going to kill all those Middle Easterners'. They also think it's OK to kill them raghead children, but a single cell is precious. There are others I know who have no particular reason to support Bush except he likes to kick Arab *ss. No religious screen here, just hate.

As for Bush being held to an accounting in the next four years, don't bet on it. I won't. 9/11 happened on his watch, but do people think it was his fault? (It must have been a concern or he wouldn't have so vigorously blocked the 9/11 Commission.) But people actually think 9/11 does him credit. The economy lost jobs. The government hemorrhaged money. 'Dead or Alive' bin Laden is alive. There were no WMDs. Iraq isn't a complete loss, yet, but certainly it's unexpectedly obstructed. These things are *already* legacy.

And was there an accounting at election? Those people who agree with his basically hate-greed-fear filled message are also willing to uncritically overlook any problem he creates, any lie he tells, any death he causes. Unless there is a SEVERE, catastrophic loss, the kind that shakes people to the core and makes them look at Bush thinking 'LOSER', nothing will come home to him. Just my prediction.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
For those who ignore the fact that Bush's lies murdered 100,000 people in Iraq, let alone your sons and daughters in the armed forces, I suggest a bullet in the brain will do you a lot of good.

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

Those of you who have an honest interest in this country might find this of interest:

On November 9, 2003, the New York Times reported: "In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. 'I AM COMMITTED TO HELPING OHIO DELIVER ITS ELECTORAL VOTES TO THE PRESIDENT NEXT YEAR,' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio. That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's 'Rangers and Pioneers,' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. But it is not the only way that Mr. O'Dell is involved in the election process. Through DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, a subsidiary in McKinney, Tex., HIS COMPANY is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen VOTING MACHINES. Judging from Federal Election Commission data, at least EIGHT MILLION people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November. ... Some people find Mr. O'Dell's pairing of interests -- as voting-machine magnate and devoted Republican fund-raiser -- troubling."

Diebold is pretty old news. Not that it's not relevant. But Diebold is not the only provider of E-voting equipment. And they are all suspect. The EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) has been after them for years. The paper trail is a toss up. You need it for audit, but people don't want their name associated with a vote either.

Most everyone's concern isn't fraud on the behave from the manufacturer though. The concerns that everyone have are security problems (think E-poll booths running Windows) with these machines being hacked by 3rd party (like Al-Qaeda motivated hackers) and either causing havoc or some sort of voter fraud.

One more thing, the computer code and the equipment that Diebold and all of these other
hardware are made by people. Regular old everyday Joes and Sues like me and you. If O'Dell came up with all of this stuff, then stamped and delivered and installed and maintained each and every single one of these machines, I might buy the conspiratorial stuff. But when there's an entire company full of people churning out code and piecing together hardware. Some sort of malfeasance like this would make it into real news pretty dang quickly. These machines have been around for years, we just haven't seen them much that's all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:

====================================================
Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Susan Truitt said today: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire st

RUE

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:30 AM (P)

"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

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:42 AM (P)

No, check the final exit polls and match them with the current counts. There isn't any sort of major discrepancies like what these people are making it out. CNN, and LA Times that I checked both had exit poll figures available for you to click thru and peruse.

Have you ever considered that, in fact, people did pick the best of two evils. That it wasn't just scare mongering? I've talked to all my friends who encompass a good spread of various different ideals and parties: Republicans, Democrats, Liberitarians, Greens. No one was impressed with either George or with Kerry. My Republican friends wasn't too impressed with Bush, Democrats were too hot about Kerry. And yet with record voter turn out not since the likes of 1960's. We still widdled it down to one guy. If you look at the figures. That's what tells the tale. Bush wasn't voted in with a landslide. Neither did Kerry lost by a whole bunch. We as a people still haven't really decided which one we wanted (as a whole) because we liked neither of them. Both men are deeply deeply flawed. It stinks that we don't have better people in the deal....

But wait, we did have better people. Who about Badnarik? The question is why did the 3rd parties get so little votes? I think only Badnarik broke 1% in some states, the rest didn't even place. What happened?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Don't count on it. Word now is, all states that had e-voting had major discrepancies between exit polls and final results. In the remainder of the states, exits closely matched final results" I was curious about that too. There was exit polling all over Florida, which I followed closely. But the exits didn't look like the final vote. I wonder if this will be followed-up with statistical analysis.

Well, things didn't go like I wanted, but at least I made a tidy bundle on bets. Among other factors, my assessment was that Bush was appealing to fear, greed, hate, and American jihad. You can never go wrong with those.

Now, I have some thoughtful honest friends who voted for Bush. They were just trying to do the right thing for the future, and, misguided as I think their vote was, I respect their intentions and effort. But I also know those who consider themselves the embodiment of righteous Christian morality who said they would vote for Bush because he was 'going to kill all those Middle Easterners'. They also think it's OK to kill them raghead children, but a single cell is precious. There are others I know who have no particular reason to support Bush except he likes to kick Arab *ss. No religious screen here, just hate.

As for Bush being held to an accounting in the next four years, don't bet on it. I won't. 9/11 happened on his watch, but do people think it was his fault? (It must have been a concern or he wouldn't have so vigorously blocked the 9/11 Commission.) But people actually think 9/11 does him credit. The economy lost jobs. The government hemorrhaged money. 'Dead or Alive' bin Laden is alive. There were no WMDs. Iraq isn't a complete loss, yet, but certainly it's unexpectedly obstructed. These things are *already* legacy.

And was there an accounting at election? Those people who agree with his basically hate-greed-fear filled message are also willing to uncritically overlook any problem he creates, any lie he tells, any death he causes. Unless there is a SEVERE, catastrophic loss, the kind that shakes people to the core and makes them look at Bush thinking 'LOSER', nothing will come home to him. Just my prediction.

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

RUE

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:52 AM (P)

Just an attempt to get a quick message thru in somewhat real-time.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:57 AM (P)

(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

RUE

Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:18 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:52 AM (P)

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.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:02 AM (P)

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

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:11 AM (P)

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

NEUTRINOLAD

Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:22 AM (P)

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?

DAIKATH

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:21 AM (P)

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.

TOM

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:28 AM (P)

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 ;)

DAIKATH

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:30 AM (P)

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...)

HARDAN

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:50 AM (P)

@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.

DAIKATH

Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:25 AM (P)

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.

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:12 PM (P)

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.

DECKROID

Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:50 PM (P)

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...

HJERMSTED

Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:00 PM (P)

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

RUXTON

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:03 PM (P)

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:17 PM (P)

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"

JASONZZZ

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:41 PM (P)

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

WADDLEDOODLE

Saturday, November 6, 2004 3:08 AM (P)

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.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:03 AM (P)

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

RUE

Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:11 AM (P)

"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.

Q

Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:49 AM (P)

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

p

Q

Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:49 AM (P)

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

p

JASONZZZ

Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:11 AM (P)

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

MANTICHORUS

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:23 PM (P)

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.

ANARKO

Saturday, December 11, 2004 6:58 AM (P)

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

CONSCIENCE

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 5:47 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 7:27 PM (P)

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.

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 8:10 PM (P)

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 8:29 PM (P)

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

RUE

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:12 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:36 AM (P)

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".

ANARKO

Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:30 AM (P)

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

CONSCIENCE

Monday, December 27, 2004 9:22 PM (P)

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:51 AM (P)

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

CREVANREAVER

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:12 PM (P)

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

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:46 PM (P)

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

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:18 AM (P)

@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