Religions > Atheism > OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 04:57:56 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301685.html
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 3, 2005; 5:29 PM
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans question
the integrity of President Bush amid growing concerns about the overall
direction of the country that have left Bush with record negative
ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, according
to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
On virtually every key measure of presidential character and
performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less popular
with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president, while 60 percent now disapprove of his performance
in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in
Post-ABC polls.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
04 Nov 2005 04:41:22 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
04 Nov 2005 06:12:43 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew F. Heil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
05 Nov 2005 07:20:34 AM |
|
|
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get
him here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he
causes Republicans.
Well, when you have to settle for someone (Keyes) because you couldn't
talk Mike Ditka into running, you know you're in trouble ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
09 Nov 2005 10:58:49 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 05:20:34 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote:
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get
him here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he
causes Republicans.
Well, when you have to settle for someone (Keyes) because you couldn't
talk Mike Ditka into running, you know you're in trouble ...
You gotta remember how they got there in the first place. The primary
winner, Ryan, was forced to withdraw after it came out that he tried
to get his wife to have sex with him in front of strangers at a sex
club. Personally I can understand this since he was married to Seven
of Nine from Star Trek fame. He defended himself by saying it wasn't
illegal, it didn't violate his marriage vows and it didn't violate the
Ten Commandments. Somehow this failed to placate his
ultra-conservative base.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
07 Nov 2005 01:21:17 PM |
|
|
In article <c6unm1lj01brj5edki8ccnba9rc53dghrc@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
*
Keyes is an interesting guy -- he certainly outshines the current
crop of criminals.
But before you jump on the Keyes bandwagon, you'd better get up to
date on his thinking:
On School Prayer
"If they tell us that we cannot pray in the classroom, we should
pray. If they tell us that we cannot pray in the hallways, we should
pray. If they tell us that we cannot pray at the graduation
ceremonies, we should pray. Because what they are doing
fundamentally violates probably the most important of our God-given
rights, which is the right to appeal for aid to our Almighty God.
When the tyrants who seek to oppress you tell you that you cannot
even appeal to God for His aid, you know that they have in mind a
tyranny without limit. We are allowing ourselves to be put in a
situation in which that which actually provides the foundation for
the most reliable courage against tyranny is interfered with, and in
which our children and others are given the feeling that there is
some place in American life--indeed, a growing number of
places--where they must feel fearful and hesitant to call upon and
to speak the name of God. And in my opinion the proper recourse
against this is not to wait upon the courts, legal procedures and so
forth, but simply to do what we unequivocally have the God-given
right to do--to pray WHEREVER and WHENEVER we feel that it is
necessary for us to pray."
On Abortion
"I think, given what the courts have done, we have to have a human
life amendment, yes. [The courts] have violated the very terms of
the Constitution itself. They act as if the unborn are not mentioned
in the Constitution, and again, they lie. In the preamble to the
Constitution, regarded as an important and preeminent statement of
the goals and purposes and principles of the whole form of
government we have, the Constitution [says] that our aim is to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our
posterity are those not yet born."
earle
*
All the above from:
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/issues.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
07 Nov 2005 06:29:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:21:17 -0800, in talk.origins , Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> in
<earle.jones-4167D7.11211707112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <c6unm1lj01brj5edki8ccnba9rc53dghrc@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
*
Keyes is an interesting guy -- he certainly outshines the current
crop of criminals.
But before you jump on the Keyes bandwagon, you'd better get up to
date on his thinking:
What did you think I was going to do on that bandwagon?
[snip]
*
All the above from:
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/issues.htm
From that site,
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_09_01reporters.htm
[begin excerpt]
Q: Is Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist?
ALAN KEYES, ILLINOIS U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: The question that was
asked of me was my position on gay marriage. I think the challenge is
not the challenge of homosexuality, but the challenge of maintaining a
proper understanding of marriage.
The heart of marriage is the commitment to procreation and
childrearing. If we accept the idea that it is possible for two people
who are [unintelligible] cannot procreate to marry, then we have
removed procreation from the essential meaning of marriage.
That, of course, would destroy the underlying moral culture that is
required to sustain the family. In order to understand that, you then
have to look at the nature of the homosexual relationship. And it's
just objectively the case that, in a homosexual relationship, there is
nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment, and
satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means
that it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that
seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of
pleasure.
The word "pleasure" in Greek is "hedone." And we get the word
"hedonism" from that word. So, if you say that homosexuality is
predicated on selfish hedonism, you mean, of course, that it is the
pursuit of pleasure through the use of the organs intended for
procreation in order to satisfy selfish and self-centered purposes.
That, by the way, is an objective fact.
[end excerpt]
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
07 Nov 2005 08:53:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
08 Nov 2005 06:57:28 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndn04oc.qhp.mightymartianca@nobody.here>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
*
That question, "Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose
was not to conceive a child?" got me thinking.
Lessee -- my vasectomy was in about 1973 -- that's 32 years ago, or
about 1500 weeks ago, or about 10,000 days (nights!) ago.
Yes -- I believe I have had sex when the purpose was not to
conceive. A few thousand times would be my rough guess.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
09 Nov 2005 12:00:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:57:28 -0800,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <slrndn04oc.qhp.mightymartianca@nobody.here>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
*
That question, "Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose
was not to conceive a child?" got me thinking.
Lessee -- my vasectomy was in about 1973 -- that's 32 years ago, or
about 1500 weeks ago, or about 10,000 days (nights!) ago.
Yes -- I believe I have had sex when the purpose was not to
conceive. A few thousand times would be my rough guess.
Ah, but your sexual congress was a reasonable facsimile of procreation.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
08 Nov 2005 07:33:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:57:28 -0800, in alt.atheism , Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> in
<earle.jones-478911.16572808112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <slrndn04oc.qhp.mightymartianca@nobody.here>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
*
That question, "Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose
was not to conceive a child?" got me thinking.
Lessee -- my vasectomy was in about 1973 -- that's 32 years ago, or
about 1500 weeks ago, or about 10,000 days (nights!) ago.
Yes -- I believe I have had sex when the purpose was not to
conceive. A few thousand times would be my rough guess.
Selfish hedonist!
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
09 Nov 2005 11:02:53 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 02:53:00 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
All right! Tranny sex is a go. Thank you Christers.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
07 Nov 2005 11:00:41 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 02:53:00 GMT, in talk.origins , AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in
<slrndn04oc.qhp.mightymartianca@nobody.here> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Their capacity for accepting and even promoting dishonesty and
hypocrisy can't be under estimated.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
Isn't that the Infertile Couples Act of '02?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
07 Nov 2005 11:25:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:00:41 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 02:53:00 GMT, in talk.origins , AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in
<slrndn04oc.qhp.mightymartianca@nobody.here> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:29:47 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
I want to interview Keyes and ask a few questions:
Q) Given your position on homosexual marriage, if two heterosexuals
marry, one of whom is known to be infertile, are they selfish
hedonists?
Q) If heterosexuals, in the course of their marriage, engage in one of
the sexual acts that cannot lead to conception, and I am willing to be
more explicit, are they selfish hedonists?
and, if I had the chance,
Q) Have you ever engaged in a sex act when the purpose was not to
conceive a child?
The answer that I've ultimately torn out of anti-gay marriage types is that
a facsimile of a reproductively-capable union is just fine.
Their capacity for accepting and even promoting dishonesty and
hypocrisy can't be under estimated.
Perhaps if we suggest that one member of the same-sex couple dress like a
man and the other like a woman, then that ought to be sufficient. Maybe one
member of a lesbian couple can stuff a sock in their pants and one member of
a male couple can wear a padded bra, to keep up that facsimile of
reproducers.
Well, that is everyone but John Thomas Grisham, who doesn't even think that
infertile couples should be allowed to marry.
Isn't that the Infertile Couples Act of '02?
<chuckle>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
04 Nov 2005 06:32:57 PM |
|
|
In article <c6unm1lj01brj5edki8ccnba9rc53dghrc@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
Well, MD has Steele this time around, so I suppose we're
safe. After his performance in IL, maybe FL will take him?
iirc there are even some Republicans in the state who are not
happy with Harris.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
04 Nov 2005 10:45:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:32:57 -0000, in alt.atheism ,
(Robert Grumbine) in <11mnvdpc5jsv6a4@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
In article <c6unm1lj01brj5edki8ccnba9rc53dghrc@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
Well, MD has Steele this time around, so I suppose we're
safe. After his performance in IL, maybe FL will take him?
iirc there are even some Republicans in the state who are not
happy with Harris.
He may have his pick of states. NY is already importing someone (yet
again) from Mass. What can you do when the rising star of the party is
a DA from a middling county who's husband spent time in jail after a
felony conviction.
Part of the way you know that Rudy is not running in '08 is that he is
not doing anything to help anyone now. You build your organization
years in advance by helping others.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
09 Nov 2005 10:52:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:12:43 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 14:41:22 -0800, in talk.origins , "Andrew F. Heil"
<andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> in
<1131144082.146941.84870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
As manifested in the recruitment of GOP candidates to challenge Senate
seats currently held by Democrats. So far, that has been an utter
disaster for Republicans.
I just want Alan Keyes to run again somewhere. Maybe they can get him
here in NYC. I would work for him just for the embarrassment he causes
Republicans.
Hey, hey, hey. He belongs to Illinois now and we're not done with
him. He promised to stay and help rebuild the GOP in Illinois after
he lost the Senate seat by 40 points.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
04 Nov 2005 08:01:39 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
Much more interesting than opinion polls are the ones where people are
asked about some very basic facts. I wonder how many of the 39% have
seen a graph of the budget deficit over the last 20 years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
09 Nov 2005 11:08:52 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans was
at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin of
error so theoretically the true value could be negative. This is
after the GOP has been courting the black vote.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
10 Nov 2005 06:50:26 AM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:jal5n15pm2ttai5vgm9l3p7jvao9nn0dla@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans was
at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin of
error so theoretically the true value could be negative.
Someone else pointed out that it was a sample size of 89 people.
This is
after the GOP has been courting the black vote.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
The difference between stupidity and genius
is that genius has its limits. -Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 10:40:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:50:26 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:jal5n15pm2ttai5vgm9l3p7jvao9nn0dla@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans was
at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin of
error so theoretically the true value could be negative.
Someone else pointed out that it was a sample size of 89 people.
A sample size of 30 is high enough to get good results, if the survey
is conducted ideally. More important questions are: Was the sampling
completely random? What was the rate of non-response (and if it was
significant, why did those people not respond)? Was the question
phrased in a non-biased way? Problems in any of those areas can
invalidate the results of a survey even if it sampled a million
people.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 10:59:55 AM |
|
|
Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in
news:f2i9n19hea0ctj8ij33e4b9i0otj0l26a5@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:50:26 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:jal5n15pm2ttai5vgm9l3p7jvao9nn0dla@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com>
wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans
was at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin
of error so theoretically the true value could be negative.
Someone else pointed out that it was a sample size of 89 people.
A sample size of 30 is high enough to get good results, if the survey
is conducted ideally.
Most political surveys use sample sizes around 1000-1500 and claim error
margins of +/- 3%.
More important questions are: Was the sampling
completely random? What was the rate of non-response (and if it was
significant, why did those people not respond)? Was the question
phrased in a non-biased way? Problems in any of those areas can
invalidate the results of a survey even if it sampled a million
people.
Those are very good questions too.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
10 Nov 2005 12:50:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:50:26 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns970A4FE2B8B8Dfstone69@213.155.197.138>
wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:jal5n15pm2ttai5vgm9l3p7jvao9nn0dla@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans was
at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin of
error so theoretically the true value could be negative.
Someone else pointed out that it was a sample size of 89 people.
What is the appropriate sample size to produce an acceptable margin of
error? I don't know, so I have no idea if 89 is larger or small.
This is
after the GOP has been courting the black vote.
We might, however, consider the elections on Tuesday as somewhat of an
indication of current Republican popularity. The big Republican victor
was Mike Bloomberg. It is unlikely that this ex-Democrat is an
meaningful model for future Republican victories. Arnie lost his
battles partially because of his own positions*, but the margin was
larger than anyone expected. The NJ and VA Democrat victories were
also larger than any of the polls had been suggesting.
Now let me think. If we have a bunch of polls and they show X. Then
the actual work shows X+, does that suggest that the polls are over or
under-reporting Republican support?
* Remember, I predicted that Arnie would crash and burn. It did take a
year longer than I expected. I had under estimated how foolishly the
Dems in CA would react, they treated him seriously. Now they have
learned. Arnie is and has nothing, he has the lowest approval rating
around, lower that Davis before the recall. And he has no place to go.
The only question now is what excuse he will use to not run for
re-election.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
10 Nov 2005 02:35:51 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:8757n1phndllere6vsg50ggsh3bl2vh078@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:50:26 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns970A4FE2B8B8Dfstone69@213.155.197.138>
wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:jal5n15pm2ttai5vgm9l3p7jvao9nn0dla@4ax.com:
On 4 Nov 2005 06:01:39 -0800, "thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com>
wrote:
maff wrote:
Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president,
Shouldn't there be a decimal point in there? How is there not a
decimal point? (Joke stolen from
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.rates.gif )
After Katrina, a poll showed his approval among African Americans
was at 3%. Someone pointed out that this was less than the margin
of error so theoretically the true value could be negative.
Someone else pointed out that it was a sample size of 89 people.
What is the appropriate sample size to produce an acceptable margin of
error? I don't know, so I have no idea if 89 is larger or small.
I think you'll find that most current polling takes a sample of around
1000 to 1500 to get a +/-3% margin of error.
This is
after the GOP has been courting the black vote.
We might, however, consider the elections on Tuesday as somewhat of an
indication of current Republican popularity. The big Republican victor
was Mike Bloomberg. It is unlikely that this ex-Democrat is an
meaningful model for future Republican victories. Arnie lost his
battles partially because of his own positions*, but the margin was
larger than anyone expected. The NJ and VA Democrat victories were
also larger than any of the polls had been suggesting.
NJ and VA simply replaced a Democrat with another Democrat. Their
margins of victory were comparable to those in 2001. Bloomberg gained
like 9 points over his previous margin.
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Now let me think. If we have a bunch of polls and they show X. Then
the actual work shows X+, does that suggest that the polls are over or
under-reporting Republican support?
* Remember, I predicted that Arnie would crash and burn. It did take a
year longer than I expected. I had under estimated how foolishly the
Dems in CA would react, they treated him seriously. Now they have
learned. Arnie is and has nothing, he has the lowest approval rating
around, lower that Davis before the recall. And he has no place to go.
The only question now is what excuse he will use to not run for
re-election.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
The difference between stupidity and genius
is that genius has its limits. -Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg G." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 09:01:02 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Only because it was running unopposed.
--
Greg G.
If only lies left semen stains. --Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 08:49:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Only more so.
Chris
snip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 10:42:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:35:51 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
NJ and VA simply replaced a Democrat with another Democrat. Their
margins of victory were comparable to those in 2001. Bloomberg gained
like 9 points over his previous margin.
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Well, I don't know whether to agree with you or not, but I'd be pretty leery
about reading *too* much into these elections. Particularly in California,
Arnie's tanking because of his own failings, and I don't think you can read
anything of that back on to the Republicans as a whole. At least it will
put an end to this silly amendment talk to he could run for president.
The only reason I think the Republicans have a problem nationally right now
is because of how they're acting. They're behaving like a party that feels
vulnerable. I'm not a big one on polls, but I think there's a very obvious
trend, and whether I think the polls are accurate to any degree, it sure
seems like a lot of Republicans do.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 11:04:39 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndn9iga.dbs.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:35:51 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
NJ and VA simply replaced a Democrat with another Democrat. Their
margins of victory were comparable to those in 2001. Bloomberg gained
like 9 points over his previous margin.
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Well, I don't know whether to agree with you or not, but I'd be pretty
leery about reading *too* much into these elections. Particularly in
California, Arnie's tanking because of his own failings, and I don't
think you can read anything of that back on to the Republicans as a
whole. At least it will put an end to this silly amendment talk to he
could run for president.
The only reason I think the Republicans have a problem nationally
right now is because of how they're acting. They're behaving like a
party that feels vulnerable. I'm not a big one on polls, but I think
there's a very obvious trend, and whether I think the polls are
accurate to any degree, it sure seems like a lot of Republicans do.
Conservative commentators are *steamed* about the way the House
Republican leadership has backed down on ANWR and spending cuts. Between
that and the "bridge to nowhere", the Reps are looking like they're
scared of their own shadows.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 09:15:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndn9iga.dbs.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:35:51 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
NJ and VA simply replaced a Democrat with another Democrat. Their
margins of victory were comparable to those in 2001. Bloomberg gained
like 9 points over his previous margin.
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Well, I don't know whether to agree with you or not, but I'd be pretty
leery about reading *too* much into these elections. Particularly in
California, Arnie's tanking because of his own failings, and I don't
think you can read anything of that back on to the Republicans as a
whole. At least it will put an end to this silly amendment talk to he
could run for president.
The only reason I think the Republicans have a problem nationally
right now is because of how they're acting. They're behaving like a
party that feels vulnerable. I'm not a big one on polls, but I think
there's a very obvious trend, and whether I think the polls are
accurate to any degree, it sure seems like a lot of Republicans do.
Conservative commentators are *steamed* about the way the House
Republican leadership has backed down on ANWR and spending cuts. Between
that and the "bridge to nowhere", the Reps are looking like they're
scared of their own shadows.
Well commentators aside (they're about as useful as most polls), the public
mood is not as friendly as it was even a couple of years ago. The only
thing the Republicans have going for them right now is the weakness of the
Democrats, who at the moment largely remind me of a confused guy walking
around Central Park asking "Have you seen my dog? Has anybody seen my dog?
No, I can't describe my dog, but I know I've got one... or is it a cat?"
I think events have conspired to do the Republicans a lot of damage.
Moderates are now saying tax cuts at this moment are simply not wise. The
party is showing divisions, and this is where skillful political management
is supposed to come into play, but the President doesn't seem to be doing
his party any favors. But as long as the Democrats can't even really figure
out what they're supposed to be standing for, the Republicans only have to
worry about some erosion of support, and not a collapse. I think some
commentator's opinion that somehow the Republican machine has hit a wall is
simply not called for. There's a lot of time between now and the elections,
and it could go well or badly for either party.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
11 Nov 2005 10:40:34 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndn9iga.dbs.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:35:51 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
NJ and VA simply replaced a Democrat with another Democrat. Their
margins of victory were comparable to those in 2001. Bloomberg gained
like 9 points over his previous margin.
The real victor last Tuesday was the status quo.
Well, I don't know whether to agree with you or not, but I'd be pretty
leery about reading *too* much into these elections. Particularly in
California, Arnie's tanking because of his own failings, and I don't
think you can read anything of that back on to the Republicans as a
whole. At least it will put an end to this silly amendment talk to he
could run for president.
The only reason I think the Republicans have a problem nationally
right now is because of how they're acting. They're behaving like a
party that feels vulnerable. I'm not a big one on polls, but I think
there's a very obvious trend, and whether I think the polls are
accurate to any degree, it sure seems like a lot of Republicans do.
Conservative commentators are *steamed* about the way the House
Republican leadership has backed down on ANWR and spending cuts. Between
that and the "bridge to nowhere", the Reps are looking like they're
scared of their own shadows.
Well commentators aside (they're about as useful as most polls), the public
mood is not as friendly as it was even a couple of years ago. The only
I have to disagree. The repubs created all those commentators and
turned them loose on the Democrats. Now the dogs are biting the hand
that fed them, and I think the vulnerable Repubs are running scared.
thing the Republicans have going for them right now is the weakness of the
Democrats, who at the moment largely remind me of a confused guy walking
around Central Park asking "Have you seen my dog? Has anybody seen my dog?
No, I can't describe my dog, but I know I've got one... or is it a cat?"
Again, I disagree. Never underestimate the power of the smear machine.
I think events have conspired to do the Republicans a lot of damage.
Events? I would not put it that way. I would say that the Republicans
did it to themselves this time around. Compare the competence of
earlier Republican administrations with this one. Of course there were
a few highlights of incompetence in earlier administrations: James Watt
springs to mind. But there was never this total concentration of
screwballs.
Moderates are now saying tax cuts at this moment are simply not wise. The
party is showing divisions, and this is where skillful political management
is supposed to come into play, but the President doesn't seem to be doing
his party any favors.
For example, the bit about torture. "We don't torture. But you have to
let us torture if we want to."
But as long as the Democrats can't even really figure
out what they're supposed to be standing for, the Republicans only have to
worry about some erosion of support, and not a collapse. I think some
commentator's opinion that somehow the Republican machine has hit a wall is
simply not called for. There's a lot of time between now and the elections,
and it could go well or badly for either party.
There isn't so much time that people will resist being reminded of
Khatrina. And Iraq ain't going anywhere- in any sense of the word.
Chris
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll |
12 Nov 2005 06:03:20 AM |
|
|
"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1131770434.548115.161950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
For example, the bit about torture. "We don't torture. But you have to
let us torture if we want to."
No, more like "We don't torture. Not ever. But we don't define turning the
air conditioning off as torture either."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
