Silly mericans and there useless election

GI JOES SON wrote: Rambino wrote: I cannot vote in November, ?

Stupid felony conviction.

Knew I shouldn't have shot that guy.

Joe the plumber, I saw your article on ABC.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/joe-the-plum ber.html

I got this forwarded to me, and after I snoped it, I was impressed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp - http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp

FreeEnterprise wrote: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html - I got this forwarded to me, and after I snoped it, I was impressed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp - http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp

Link wrote: In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.

While I agree that race should not be the primary basis for choosing a candidate, in the case of this guy I think he would be better off choosing on race alone.  Anybody who thinks that gay marriage is more important than the economy frightens me.

Gator Taco wrote: Benjichang wrote: I'd actually be willing to bet more forumers are conservative. The vocal ones on T&O happen to be more liberal, giving the illusion of a false majority. +1

+2

Just remember to vote... the polls are paid for by the liberal media...

Obama will raise taxes, on top of all the money the government just spent.

"Senator government" will make all of us pay. Because when you tax business only a buffoon would think they actually pay... (I know as I own a few businesses) They just raise the price of all their products to cover the increased costs of business.

When tax rates get too high. Business leaves. Look at California and NY.

No matter what Obama pays you to vote for him. He's talking about another $1,000... Will not compare to what you will pay when you spend your money.

We should never vote to Increase taxes. Ever. If you believe we should, then send the government a check today, they will figure out a way to spend it for you.

Conservative American points out facts.

Liberal American calls names...

Typical.

FreeEnterprise wrote:  the polls are paid for by the liberal media...

[citation needed]

We should never vote to Increase taxes. Ever.

That may one of the very silliest things I have seen on there, and that's saying something...

carl_the_sniper wrote: The funny thing is that almost flies here. If you were oldsoldier, there would be no doubt that you were being sincere.

"Almost"?

I'll happily argue with most trolls anyway...   :)

"Rohaly and Lim reckon that in 2009, households in the $30,000-$40,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 16.8 percent under the McCain plan and 19 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $50,000-$75,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 18.6 percent under the McCain plan and 19.9 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $100,000-$200,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 25.1 percent under the McCain plan and 26 percent under the Obama plan."

quoted from

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/dollars-and-sense - http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/dollars-a nd-sense

"Over time, says UCLA economist Lee Ohanian, the Obama plan ‘would reduce growth of wages and growth of GDP.’"

Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:  the polls are paid for by the liberal media... [citation needed]

You need a citation for that? CNN polls... MSNBC polls... Need more?

Err...   *Inigo*

In any event - here is your "liberal media":  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:  the polls are paid for by the liberal media... [citation needed] We should never vote to Increase taxes. Ever. That may one of the very silliest things I have seen on there, and that's saying something...

I seriously though you were kidding...

http://batr.org/polls.html - http://batr.org/polls.html

Most of the polling data that you see currently out there is within the margin of error. And yet if you said that Obama wasn't ahead, you would be laughed out of the room... Because the media (except fox news) states otherwise, therefore it must be true.

I guess you are for more taxes, huh?

Not me, I pay plenty. See the article I posted above.

I don't think this election will actually bring out all these "new" voters that Obama and most of the polling is banking on.

I'd bet the traditional gallup poll is more accurate in my opinion. And it is within the margin of error. 47-49

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111241/Gallup-Daily-Little-Impact-From-Debate-Far.aspx - http://www.gallup.com/poll/111241/Gallup-Daily-Little-Impact -From-Debate-Far.aspx

1. In my state (Ohio) Acorn is cheating. I witnessed them getting the homeless here in Cincinnati to "sign up" to vote. Yes, this increases the voter registrations, but not the actual "voters". As the likelyhood that they actually VOTE is very slim.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081016/D93RT3100.html - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081016/D93RT3100.html

I'd be very surprised if Mickey Mouse actually voted Nov 4th... Even if Acorn got him on the voter registration lists.

2. I'm saying that polls aren't an election. If they were, we wouldn't actually vote. When they are less than 10 points between the candidates they are too close to call. The last few Presidential elections prove this fact.

Americans need to realize that a government run by the liberals will change the country drastically. They will tax more, and increase the size of government. That is a fact.

FreeEnterprise wrote: http://batr.org/polls.html - http://batr.org/polls.html

Cute, but silly.  This whole "polls are meaningless" nonsense is mostly put forth by people who do not understand statistics and have no long-term memory.

Polls are, on the whole, astonishingly predictive.  The predictiveness of the poll obviously increases with the quality of the poll, but even the predictiveness of the poll can be predicted.

Most of the polling data that you see currently out there is within the margin of error.

Yes and no.  Many, but certainly not all, of the polls show results within the individual margins of error (I'd have to count before giving you "most", and that also depends on which polls we are discussing).

But when enough polls show the same result, then the margin of error shrinks.  I do not believe anybody has done a true poll of polls with proper stats, but larger samples obviously lead to smaller margins of error, so I don't feel too worried about concluding that the results of a poll of polls would be well beyond the margin of error.

Example:

Take a poll where the results are exactly at the margin of error.  Typical alpha level for these things is 0.05, so there is 5% chance that the result is due to sampling error.

Now add a second (independent) poll with the exact same situation - also at the margin of error.  The chance that BOTH of these polls are wrong is now roughly 5% * 5% = 0.25%.  Add another poll, and it is 0.0125%.  And so on.

Of course, most polls are not exactly at the margin of error, but several have also been far outside of the MOE.  Not to mention, of course, that there is nothing magical about the MOE - it is just a more or less arbitrary number decided upon in advance, beyond which the researchers will conclude "not random".  5% is customary, but it is a sliding and continuous scale of probability.  Just because a poll is within the MOE does not mean that the poll is worthless - just less reliable than the polls outside the MOE.

In any event - When you add up the dozens of polls out there consistently showing Obama ahead, then the chance that this is due to sampling error becomes vanishingly small - on the order of 1 in millions or more.

Of course, there could be something other than sampling error at work - in particular, one or more variables that was not controlled for.  Of course, given the consistency of polls, it would have to be a variable that ALL (or at least most) of the polls failed to control for.  The Bradley effect could be one such variable, and there are no doubt other unknown variables as well.

But to simply write off polls as useless or non-predictive is contrary both to mathematics and reason, and completely disregards the results of every election since the advent of polling.

And yet if you said that Obama wasn't ahead, you would be laughed out of the room... Because the media (except fox news) states otherwise, therefore it must be true.

Actually, Fox News also reports that Obama is ahead.  And yes, you would be laughed out of the room, because it would be contrary to all available evidence, and therefore a foolish thing to say.

I guess you are for more taxes, huh?

I am for responsible fiscal policy.  Sometimes that means more taxation, sometimes less.  An absolutist policy like "no taxes ever" is just childish and unrealistic, not to mention destructive.

Bruce Banner wrote: Err...   *Inigo* In any event - here is your "liberal media":  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Funny how congress blames Bush for everything when according to these poles:

Congressional Job Approval

President Bush Job Approval

CarbineKid wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: [quote]We should never vote to Increase taxes. Ever. That may one of the very silliest things I have seen on there, and that's saying something... Why? Whats wrong with people actually KEEPING their own hard earned money?

Because I like roads, police, schools, military, and stuff like that.  Which is paid for with TAXES. 

If "nobody had voted to raise taxes ever" we would be as advanced as the Amish.

Thus, silly.

Benjichang wrote: Btw, I love the catchphrases that politics give us- Swiftboating, Joe Plumber, Joe Sixpack, hockey mom, gotcha journalism, cone of silence, etc.

I just despise the endless use of "-gate" for every little quasi-scandal now.  Drives me nuts.

And Whale - you had econ in HS?

Huh - that would have been nice.

But then I never got around to taking econ in college either, so I guess I am not in a position to complain.

Now you are just dodging.

"Big government" is such a useless buzzword.

We are spending what - $200,000,000 each day on the war in Iraq alone, and you are complaining about the "big government" that the "libs" want to impose on you? 

Our army alone costs more than many the entire GDPs of many small countries.  If that isn't big government is, then what is?  How exactly do you plan on having a military without "big government"?

"Big government" just means "stuff I don't like".