Results 91 to 100 of 148
Thread: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
-
11-03-12, 06:47 PM #91
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
But see, this is where you inject your beliefs as canon. You say that every poll is going for Obama, yet when I link you one that says Romney is leading, you immediately discredit it because you don't like the result. Your "evidence" is based off a flawed view of... well, damn near everything.
I don't fault you for it. There are millions of people like you. But I also know that this iron clad evidentiary support you hold on to so dearly is filled with the same partisan thinking and rose colored glasses as you claim Lazarus looks through. You don't KNOW Romney will be a worse President. That's pure conjecture based on YOUR metric for what good, or successful is based on your on beliefs. Not everyone holds your beliefs, and as a result, your "evidence" is barely more than manipulated numbers created to support a weak thesis in the first place.
You are sticking to your beliefs no matter what any evidence shows. You have shown time and again that you are incapable of seeing someone else's point of view. If I were to show you that when prayer was taken out of schools, in-school violence jumped 320% since. Yet, you would look at that and blame swamp gas refracting off Venus because it fits your belief system better than a supernatural one.
-
-
11-03-12, 07:11 PM #93
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
Wrong, again. What you just said is you'd be willing to cherry-pick results to prove your point, and that's dishonest. I never take one poll as the gospel, which is why you never see me sourcing one poll here. I take them all into account, which allows you to take the aggregate and find any outliers either way. So if you find, say, one poll that shows Romney leading in Ohio, I'll show you 20 more that say the opposite. That means one is obviously an outlier and still won't change the aggregate much. Same as if you tried to show me a poll of Obama +8 or something in Ohio.
So you are again misrepresenting what I'd do in that circumstance.
Read my post, please. I clearly said it was my belief that Obama would be a far better President and that Mitt would be a disaster. That's how I feel and that's what I believe based on what I think they will accomplish, and that's not what I'm faulting Laz for. What I am faulting him for is totally ignoring the mountains of evidence that counters his claim that Obama is the favorite in the election to make some claim that there is a Romney landslide incoming. I can obviously see why he'd want that, just that the evidence doesn't support that. If the situation was reversed, I wouldn't be delusionally predicting an impending Obama landslide.
I just wish you'd read posts more careful and not read what you want to read in them and misrepresent my positions, deliberately or not. I don't know why you are incapable of that, you seem to do this often.
-
11-03-12, 07:18 PM #94
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
I think you'd be better served to find a better list of pioneers, but I get what you are saying. They had evidence on their side, though. They went out, found supporting facts to refute other claims. They used SCIENCE, which is what I am using here. They did not just want to believe something was true, and that was the end of it. They researched and studied and tested their ideas. Ignoring the polling data is like being the Church back in the day who opposed any new theories as witchcraft or whatever.
-
11-03-12, 07:22 PM #95
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
It's not that I'm incapable of anything... I just don't trust you. You can link me anything you want. But because it comes from you, my first instinct is to wonder what left-wing, liberal website you got "this" off this time.
Every acidic retort you write, every hyperolic comment, every insult you hurl toward me, or Laz, or DG, or anyone else who disagrees with you erodes your credibility to the point where nothing you say is really worth hearing. You are so far to the left that "moderate" looks like a hundred miles away. I'm sorry, but that's kind of the name you've made for yourself here. I'm sure others would disagree, but then again, one could make the argument they're right behind you.
Don't get me wrong, your posts are entertaining. But you give aspirin a headache.-Lazarus- liked this post
-
11-03-12, 07:29 PM #96
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
Evidence is a product of what happens in the past. A forensic pathologist looks for "evidence" of a crime which has already taken place. Archaeologists look for "evidence" of a culture from ages ago. Polls are "evidence" of who a group of individuals chose to be their President.
Who flew before the Wright Brothers? Who landed on the moon before Neil Armstrong? Who proved the world wasn't flat?
And all of those I just mentioned, put their lives on the line because of gut instinct.
-
-
11-03-12, 07:38 PM #98
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
I have NEVER told anyone to take my word on anything. I have always been happy to provide my source for ANY statistic or number I cite, all it takes is to ask. Most of the time I do already, and if I don't, I can get it when requested. So please, ask me to cite my sources whenever you want. I intentionally steer away from using left-wing sites as sources, which is more that can be said for you or Laz with right-wing ones and DG with no sources at all, because I know the connotation they can carry and try to make the debate about the information at hand and not the source. But remember, I don't trust you, either, because I don't see you as an rational independent, so the street goes both ways.
You three do the exact same things and pretending otherwise is silly. You're the right-wing posse here and are known to hurl the insults, too. It's politics and it's something that can really get under people's skin and lead to heated discussions.
...I don't know what you are getting at? I've never pretended to be a moderate and I am the first one to say I'm very liberal and a leftist and the political scale. I embrace that, I don't run from it, so why are you apologizing?
-
11-03-12, 07:42 PM #99Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't imply that it goes against the evidence. By the time that Armstrong landed on the moon, the evidence that this was possible was overwhelming. The same goes for the wright brothers. We're not sure how the Greeks figured out that the world was spherical, but it was almost certainly due to the evidence provided by lunar eclipses, the horizon or various traits of perspective.
-
11-03-12, 07:44 PM #100
Re: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?
Gliders and hot-air balloons were around long before which proved heavier-than-air flight was possible. This was based on research.
Space flight wasn't anything new at this point, neither was spacewalking. All that stuff had been tested and verified before Armstrong landed. He didn't take that flight on faith or gut instinct that it would work, he trusted science.
People knew the world wasn't flat long before Magellen.
No, they researched, studied, and trusted the science that came before them. The believed the evidence that said everything would go as planned. They didn't just say, "aw fuck it, lets strap on this rocket and hope for the best!"
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks