West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on November 18, 2004, 03:44:57 PM
-
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/
A new report to be published by UC Berkley suggets the 2004 vote may have been hacked. This study was conducted by a member of the National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with doctoral students at UC Berkley. You can DL the full report at the link below, or just read the summary.
Full Report:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf
Summary:
Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.
Bush in Florida.
Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases
in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,
number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.
-
Man just face it and go ahead. You're getting paranoid with this shit! Do you spend your whole day fiding polls and articles against Bush? Face it: 4 more years! PLEASE!!!! ::)
-
No actually I read the news for a few minutes everyday. I use RSS feeds and an RSS reader to browse through a range of newspapers everyday, and happen to come across most of my information that way. Occasionally I post stuff I see here on dubcc.
This analysis was performed by doctorate students at the University of California at Berkley. It was led by a member for the National Academcy of Sciences. Don't whine because it offends you, if it bothers you to read this then don't read it.
I can't imagine how anyone offended by information to the point where they whine, and complain that it even exists, and continually yell at the information providers to stop pointing out its existence, considers themselves credible.
The fact is, a review of the posts on dubcc show. Bush Supporters repeatedly whine, and character attack, and tell me to stop posting things that criticize the US President. Then you all want to be taken seriously? Look, if you want to post something that shows why Bush is great so be it go ahead, I'm not going to cry about it and tell you to stop posting, but because you hve nothing to say, this is what you write. If you want to bury your head in the sand, then do so, but don't bitch about the fact that this information exists, the fact that it bothers you to see it posted on a lil tiny forum at dubcc only further proves that Bush was elected by the least informed half of the US population.
-
How can you call me a Bush supporter when i'm Italian? lol.
Man you are just boring with all your topics against Bush! That's it.
Anyway, i'll give you a chance.
I went to the site you quoted, reading their whole shit.
And?
They noticed Bush won in Florida in places where people voted Gore in 2000.
And they said that: "THE STATE-WIDE IMPACT OF THESE DISPARITIES DUE TO ELECTRONIC VOTING AMOUNT TO 130,000 VOTES IF WE ASSUME A "GHOST VOTE MECHANISM" AND 260,000 VOTES IF WE ASSUME THAT A VOTE MISATTRIBUITED TO ONE CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED FOR THE OTHER.
So? Is it interesting? "More Analysis Suggests 04 Vote May Have Been Hacked"? Where the fuck did you read it?
When you report those articles, please read them before you say those bullshit. Thanx.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive. However, the point I intended to make was simply this. One would assume, that if e-voting machines across the board always favor Bush and never favor Kerry, something a little sketchy happened. Now, maybe that doesn't strike you as odd, but it does me.
Again the difference between me and the majority of the Bush lvoers is that I honestly don't trust anyone report, or analysis overwhelmingly, but you all tend to. I base my decision not to support Bush on the fact that an overwhelming amount of analysis discredits his presidency and makes it seem as if he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
When I orginally wrote this post I didn't write. Hey antonio, fuck you man, read this shit. Instead you come in my post, and throw character attacks left and right. Don't expect me to address you reasonably if you don't intend to act reasonably.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive.
Man that's the only shit i dislike about you. Not the articles you quote. But the comment you sometimes add by yourself. Like Afghanistan not producing opium with Talibans and Bush being the one to blame, or like this analys that "suggests 04 vote may have been hacked". I mean if you post this article in full it's ok, if i wanna read it i will. But when you add those comments, be sure of what you write, or you get paranoid and i dont trust you no more. You know what i mean? I'm not defending Bush. Actually i replied only to 2 of your topics about him, the last 2. The reasons?
1- Cause i've read that document by Costas before you.
2- Cause i've read the word "hacked", and i knew it wasnt possible for an University to prove it, when thousands of lawyers didnt.
That's it. Continue to make all the topics you want, but please.. be careful when you comment things and blame people. Cool?
However, the point I intended to make was simply this. One would assume, that if e-voting machines across the board always favor Bush and never favor Kerry, something a little sketchy happened. Now, maybe that doesn't strike you as odd, but it does me.
Again the difference between me and the majority of the Bush lvoers is that I honestly don't trust anyone report, or analysis overwhelmingly, but you all tend to. I base my decision not to support Bush on the fact that an overwhelming amount of analysis discredits his presidency and makes it seem as if he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
When I orginally wrote this post I didn't write. Hey antonio, fuck you man, read this shit. Instead you come in my post, and throw character attacks left and right. Don't expect me to address you reasonably if you don't intend to act reasonably.
I will. But get ridd of that "have been hacked" thing in the title. It ruins all the reasonable things you can write after it.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
89% of Italians was and still is AGAINST the war.
I'm in the 89%. Just to let you know.
-
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/
A new report to be published by UC Berkley suggets the 2004 vote may have been hacked. This study was conducted by a member of the National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with doctoral students at UC Berkley. You can DL the full report at the link below, or just read the summary.
Full Report:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf
Summary:
Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.
Bush in Florida.
Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases
in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,
number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.
Yeah... Berkeley is a source i would trust for unbiased data.
-
Man just face it and go ahead. You're getting paranoid with this shit! Do you spend your whole day fiding polls and articles against Bush? Face it: 4 more years! PLEASE!!!! ::)
Yes he/she does.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive. However, the point I intended to make was simply this. One would assume, that if e-voting machines across the board always favor Bush and never favor Kerry, something a little sketchy happened. Now, maybe that doesn't strike you as odd, but it does me.
Again the difference between me and the majority of the Bush lvoers is that I honestly don't trust anyone report, or analysis overwhelmingly, but you all tend to. I base my decision not to support Bush on the fact that an overwhelming amount of analysis discredits his presidency and makes it seem as if he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
When I orginally wrote this post I didn't write. Hey antonio, fuck you man, read this shit. Instead you come in my post, and throw character attacks left and right. Don't expect me to address you reasonably if you don't intend to act reasonably.
You dont have to be a Bush supporter to call Bullshit.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
Yeah... Thats what I think of when I think of Italy. "What a bunch of non-Bush haters"... I mean because thats what Italians are known for.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive.
Man that's the only shit i dislike about you. Not the articles you quote. But the comment you sometimes add by yourself. Like Afghanistan not producing opium with Talibans and Bush being the one to blame, or like this analys that "suggests 04 vote may have been hacked". I mean if you post this article in full it's ok, if i wanna read it i will. But when you add those comments, be sure of what you write, or you get paranoid and i dont trust you no more. You know what i mean? I'm not defending Bush. Actually i replied only to 2 of your topics about him, the last 2. The reasons?
1- Cause i've read that document by Costas before you.
2- Cause i've read the word "hacked", and i knew it wasnt possible for an University to prove it, when thousands of lawyers didnt.
That's it. Continue to make all the topics you want, but please.. be careful when you comment things and blame people. Cool?
However, the point I intended to make was simply this. One would assume, that if e-voting machines across the board always favor Bush and never favor Kerry, something a little sketchy happened. Now, maybe that doesn't strike you as odd, but it does me.
Again the difference between me and the majority of the Bush lvoers is that I honestly don't trust anyone report, or analysis overwhelmingly, but you all tend to. I base my decision not to support Bush on the fact that an overwhelming amount of analysis discredits his presidency and makes it seem as if he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
When I orginally wrote this post I didn't write. Hey antonio, fuck you man, read this shit. Instead you come in my post, and throw character attacks left and right. Don't expect me to address you reasonably if you don't intend to act reasonably.
I will. But get ridd of that "have been hacked" thing in the title. It ruins all the reasonable things you can write after it.
Most people are fairly pragmatic and reasonable but there is that small % who prefer delusion to reality.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
Yeah... Thats what I think of when I think of Italy. "What a bunch of non-Bush haters"... I mean because thats what Italians are known for.
But that's wrong! I mean look at Spanish. They fought the war!! (we didnt). So Aznar was even more Stan than Berlusconi. All of a sudden Zapatero won. And now all of a sudden Spain is against the war? I think you can say it with no problems: 85% of the population of Europe was and still IS against the war in Iraq. What the leaders do doesnt always reflect the opinion of the common people. I think the majority of the population of Spain didnt want to make a war. Still they did it. And i think i can say the same about English. Talking about Italians, 89% of the population didnt want us to send them Carabinieri's to help Iraqi (cause it was too dangerous, in fact they bombed our HQ and killed 30 men). Still we went there. It's wrong to judge a nation by their leader. But i understand that's the vision Italians give to the world.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
Yeah... Thats what I think of when I think of Italy. "What a bunch of non-Bush haters"... I mean because thats what Italians are known for.
But that's wrong! I mean look at Spanish. They fought the war!! (we didnt). So Aznar was even more Stan than Berlusconi. All of a sudden Zapatero won. And now all of a sudden Spain is against the war? I think you can say it with no problems: 85% of the population of Europe was and still IS against the war in Iraq. What the leaders do doesnt always reflect the opinion of the common people. I think the majority of the population of Spain didnt want to make a war. Still they did it. And i think i can say the same about English. Talking about Italians, 89% of the population didnt want us to send them Carabinieri's to help Iraqi (cause it was too dangerous, in fact they bombed our HQ and killed 30 men). Still we went there. It's wrong to judge a nation by their leader. But i understand that's the vision Italians give to the world.
....Ma era sarcastico! I was not being serious. I know that c'mon dude. I guess I need to make myself more clear next time.
-
being Italian doesnt imply you can't be a Bush supporter. In fact, Italians are known for being the least Bush-Hating nation in Europe, with their leader licking Bush's nuts and being a total Stan.
Yeah... Thats what I think of when I think of Italy. "What a bunch of non-Bush haters"... I mean because thats what Italians are known for.
But that's wrong! I mean look at Spanish. They fought the war!! (we didnt). So Aznar was even more Stan than Berlusconi. All of a sudden Zapatero won. And now all of a sudden Spain is against the war? I think you can say it with no problems: 85% of the population of Europe was and still IS against the war in Iraq. What the leaders do doesnt always reflect the opinion of the common people. I think the majority of the population of Spain didnt want to make a war. Still they did it. And i think i can say the same about English. Talking about Italians, 89% of the population didnt want us to send them Carabinieri's to help Iraqi (cause it was too dangerous, in fact they bombed our HQ and killed 30 men). Still we went there. It's wrong to judge a nation by their leader. But i understand that's the vision Italians give to the world.
....Ma era sarcastico! I was not being serious. I know that c'mon dude. I guess I need to make myself more clear next time.
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
-
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/
A new report to be published by UC Berkley suggets the 2004 vote may have been hacked. This study was conducted by a member of the National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with doctoral students at UC Berkley. You can DL the full report at the link below, or just read the summary.
Full Report:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf
Summary:
Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.
Bush in Florida.
Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases
in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,
number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.
Yeah... Berkeley is a source i would trust for unbiased data.
Is there a source critical of Bush that you would trust for unbiased analysis? I see a whole lot of critics, and not much defense. Again, you don't have to trust this article, there are plenty of others. No they aren't all correct, but are they really all wrong? I mean there comes a point where you also have to admit an obvious bias, and either consider all information equally, or just say fuck it, i only listen to things that agree with my own current opinions.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive.
Man that's the only shit i dislike about you. Not the articles you quote. But the comment you sometimes add by yourself. Like Afghanistan not producing opium with Talibans and Bush being the one to blame, or like this analys that "suggests 04 vote may have been hacked". I mean if you post this article in full it's ok, if i wanna read it i will. But when you add those comments, be sure of what you write, or you get paranoid and i dont trust you no more. You know what i mean? I'm not defending Bush. Actually i replied only to 2 of your topics about him, the last 2. The reasons?
1- Cause i've read that document by Costas before you.
2- Cause i've read the word "hacked", and i knew it wasnt possible for an University to prove it, when thousands of lawyers didnt.
That's it. Continue to make all the topics you want, but please.. be careful when you comment things and blame people. Cool?
Ok agreed, and understood.
-
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
I haven't posted in this thread. This is my 1st post, so what the fuck are you claiming to be replying to?
-
Yeah, I agree Bush hacked all the computers and stole the election. Now; nextime, lemme give you some strategy so this doesn't happen again. Get thousands and thousands and thousands of people to help watch the voting machines, and focus all your attention on that. Think about it. All you have to do is make sure the voting machines don't get hacked again; so lets pass laws, lets get law enforcement or whatever we need involved, hell the National Guard could help, lets get them all involved in the voting process, we could just raise taxes and make it happen... lets get them all involved, and lets make sure not 1 fucking vote goes wrong.
Hell, then you're guaranteed to win. We know a republican isn't going to win fairly and squarely... don't change your message, or your method of campaigning, or your agenda, all of that is fine, I'm sure, and most of America probalby agrees with it. That's not why you lost the election, you lost the election because of CHEATING!!!! So just make sure it's fair and square next time, and there shouldn't be any problems (snicker snicker).
-
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
I haven't posted in this thread. This is my 1st post, so what the fuck are you claiming to be replying to?
LMAO
what a sorry excuse for not getting sarcasm, at least look if Jamal has posted before you make something like that up.. LOL
-
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
I haven't posted in this thread. This is my 1st post, so what the fuck are you claiming to be replying to?
ROFL!! Man soon i'll start having nightmares about you! ;D
Sorry, it was 7even.
-
you're not a bush supporter? then why do you come in my threads defending Bush like he is your cousin? you get almost as pissed as engelwood does. seriously, if you dislike threads about Bush, don't read them. literally they take up 1/20th of ur computer screen, you don't have to click and read my threads, i dont read threads that dont' interest me. i suggest you stop doing the same. Now as far as this article goes I read the summary, not the full report because it takes less time to read the summary than to read 8 pages of statistics. According to the summary:
"The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush."
Ok, now I will admit that my use of the word 'hacked' may have been excessive.
Man that's the only shit i dislike about you. Not the articles you quote. But the comment you sometimes add by yourself. Like Afghanistan not producing opium with Talibans and Bush being the one to blame, or like this analys that "suggests 04 vote may have been hacked". I mean if you post this article in full it's ok, if i wanna read it i will. But when you add those comments, be sure of what you write, or you get paranoid and i dont trust you no more. You know what i mean? I'm not defending Bush. Actually i replied only to 2 of your topics about him, the last 2. The reasons?
1- Cause i've read that document by Costas before you.
2- Cause i've read the word "hacked", and i knew it wasnt possible for an University to prove it, when thousands of lawyers didnt.
That's it. Continue to make all the topics you want, but please.. be careful when you comment things and blame people. Cool?
Ok agreed, and understood.
:)
-
ROFL!! Man soon i'll start having nightmares about you! ;D
That seems to be the fate of those who attempt to TOT-Battle me 8)
-
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
I haven't posted in this thread. This is my 1st post, so what the fuck are you claiming to be replying to?
ROFL!! Man soon i'll start having nightmares about you! ;D
Sorry, it was 7even.
In that case, lol, yes the spanish dudes were hardcore against the war and their former leader didnt give a shit.
Still, Berlusconi is known for 3 things:
- being an asshole
- being curupt
- being a bush-stan
fits if you ask me.
-
Yeah, i was replying more to Jamal than to you. ;)
I haven't posted in this thread. This is my 1st post, so what the fuck are you claiming to be replying to?
ROFL!! Man soon i'll start having nightmares about you! ;D
Sorry, it was 7even.
In that case, lol, yes the spanish dudes were hardcore against the war and their former leader didnt give a shit.
Still, Berlusconi is known for 3 things:
- being an asshole
- being curupt
- being a bush-stan
fits if you ask me.
He is. But italians aint like him, just like Spanish werent like Aznar. If we have elections tomorrow, the left wing wins, and Italy retires their troops from Iraq, loosing all the relationships with Bush and America.
-
^^^that's prolly what people who still believed in mankind thought too right before the US Elections a few weeks ago. The result was Bush got more votes than any other President ever before.
But ok maybe Italians are cool when it comes to politics I don't know, you can judge better than me for sure, it's just that maybe you're lying to yourself? LoL, no, it's aight.
-
Honestly, when I was in italy, everyone I met was pro Bush. Altho most everyone I met was fairly wealthy so who knows. But personally I dont see Berlusconi being voted out anytime soon.
-
Naaa! Italians are not pro-Bush. They are pro-Italians (we got soldiers there, medics, Red Cross, enjeneers, etc).
But they are all against the war.
Shit, we've had the biggest parades in Europe done by pacifistic movements..
We have the Pope, lol!
Italy cant be pro-war.
Berlusconi's mistake was that he didnt understand it.
-
Is it true that Berlusconi was one a cruise ship singer? someone told me he was before.
-
call me crazy, but isn't "130,000 to 260,000" a large gap for a "statistical study"???
-
Is it true that Berlusconi was one a cruise ship singer? someone told me he was before.
Yeah, he still writes songs. He doesnt sing them, he has someone singing them. He writes. Love songs, using the dialect of Naples.
-
call me crazy, but isn't "130,000 to 260,000" a large gap for a "statistical study"???
That's not even the point. The point is that them two number are based on two big "IF"...
IF.... then it's 130,000
IF.... then it's 260,000
IF NOT... then it's ok.
LOL.
-
This "analysis" really isn't worth squat. I'm not surprised that Ant posted it.
These researchers (sociology students, not math students) used statistical models from the 2000, 1996 election, and didn't have NEARLY enough variables. As far as I could tell, they just left out the get-out-to-vote campaigns, issues that drew voters to the polls, age, religion, changes in voter registration population density, unemployment rate, etc...This paper hasn't even been published to journal yet. Therefore, it hasn't had any peer research/review. I could come out with a paper stating that I have conclusive proof that voter irregularities are caused by space aliens, but if I don't publicly release my methods and results, and have them reviewed, my paper isn't worth squat.
If one were to believe that this was a respectable study, one would have to believe that the 2000 election results were perfect. Ant and his wackjob supporters will tell you time and time again how Bush cheated in 2000.
You'd think this paper would look at Ohio, since it's the state with the most voter irregularities and the state that counted the "most" this election, but I'm willing to bet that the models they used didn't match up to the findings THEY were looking for. It's easy to see this paper was published to push forward an agenda. It's thinly disguised in simplified statistical models. It’s clear this is biased because these people held a press conference BEFORE the peer review. Usually that’s done AFTER the results of your research are substantiated.
I guess the new shit would be for us just not to vote at all because these statistical models can predict perfectly who we will vote for! What this paper really shows, is that you can't really predict the outcome of elections using ordinary-least-squares regression model (OLS) with and without robust standard errors.
I’ll let one of Kerry’s veteran camping advisors do the talking for me:
''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.
''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed/
In closing, Ant, you really think using statistical algorithm to predict an intelligent chaotic system will produce better results than the actual votes? Keep trying you fucking clown, it’s time for you to crawl back into your little cave. Here’s some free advice: go get some help. You’re living in the past and pulling at strings that aren’t there. You aren’t living a healthy life. Faggot.
-
do adding explicatives to your posts make you feel better? ah yes. how intelligent it must be to be a republican american.
-
do adding explicatives to your posts make you feel better? ah yes. how intelligent it must be to be a republican american.
Fuck off. You're a bitch made faggot.
-
This "analysis" really isn't worth squat. I'm not surprised that Ant posted it.
These researchers (sociology students, not math students) used statistical models from the 2000, 1996 election, and didn't have NEARLY enough variables. As far as I could tell, they just left out the get-out-to-vote campaigns, issues that drew voters to the polls, age, religion, changes in voter registration population density, unemployment rate, etc...This paper hasn't even been published to journal yet. Therefore, it hasn't had any peer research/review. I could come out with a paper stating that I have conclusive proof that voter irregularities are caused by space aliens, but if I don't publicly release my methods and results, and have them reviewed, my paper isn't worth squat.
If one were to believe that this was a respectable study, one would have to believe that the 2000 election results were perfect. Ant and his wackjob supporters will tell you time and time again how Bush cheated in 2000.
You'd think this paper would look at Ohio, since it's the state with the most voter irregularities and the state that counted the "most" this election, but I'm willing to bet that the models they used didn't match up to the findings THEY were looking for. It's easy to see this paper was published to push forward an agenda. It's thinly disguised in simplified statistical models. It’s clear this is biased because these people held a press conference BEFORE the peer review. Usually that’s done AFTER the results of your research are substantiated.
I guess the new thing would be for us just not to vote at all because these statistical models can predict perfectly who we will vote for! What this paper really shows, is that you can't really predict the outcome of elections using ordinary-least-squares regression model (OLS) with and without robust standard errors.
I’ll let one of Kerry’s veteran camping advisors do the talking for me:
''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.
''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/10/internet_buzz_on_vote_fraud_is_dismissed/
In closing, Ant, you really think using statistical algorithm to predict an intelligent chaotic system will produce better results than the actual votes? Keep trying!!
Happy now?
-
lol did i hurt your feelings?
-
i've said more than once. i only post analysis its up to you to decide if its not credible... and apparently everything that criticizes a republican is not credible.
-
i've said more than once. i only post analysis its up to you to decide if its not credible... and apparently everything that criticizes a republican is not credible.
How does this tripe you posted up criticize republicans? It presents poorly manipulated data to push a partisan agenda thats put out by SOCIOLOGY students. If anything, it makes the democratic side look bad.
Try refuting the points in my post; not changing the subject, acting shocked, and posting your pseudo-intellectual "comebacks"
-
lol did i hurt your feelings?
Yes. Stupid people make me angry.
-
lol unfortunately in your world all the smart people are stupid. u seem to hate nobel laureates, former government officials, and even moderate republicans.
-
Try refuting the points in my post; not changing the subject, acting shocked, and posting your pseudo-intellectual "comebacks"
You can't do it can you...
-
yes this is simply refuted. I never said I fully agree with the findings in this report. I just said here is more analysis. I'm not a statistician and neither are you. I've said before, I don't believe everything I post is 100% factually correct. I believe that I have posted some arguments that are very strong, and some that are less so. My point has never been that one report proves Bush is bad for america. My point has been that an overwhelming amount of evidence, and analysis suggests his policies are bad for our country. I've gone through these things before. And actually I said a long time ago. I expect bush supporters to duck the stronger arguments and attack the weaker ones and then declare victory.
I really don't know how reliable this report is that is why I called it 'analysis' not 'fact'. but it is conducted by a member of the NAS, inconjunction with one of our more respected universities. But either way, I'd say nobel laureates, prominent republicans, and barrage of well regarded economists, and so on offer stronger arguments than this. The fact is, you have never considered anything i've posted credible because you are so blindly in support of Bush.
My stronger arguments exist in past posts, you ducked those because you can't say anything. I'm not going to be right all of the time, but it certainly beats your record of being right only rarely, but almost always i'm sure in your own opinion. It's clear you the most bigotted, arrogant, and far right member of this board, you might be able to give Trauma a good run for his money, but given your record, why bother having a discussion with you. you had your chances to argue with me like a respectable human being, instead you choose to argue like a republicans: run from the facts, spout rhetoric, yell louder to prove your points, and so on.
-
yes this is simply refuted. I never said I fully agree with the findings in this report. I just said here is more analysis. I'm not a statistician and neither are you. I've said before, I don't believe everything I post is 100% factually correct. I believe that I have posted some arguments that are very strong, and some that are less so. My point has never been that one report proves Bush is bad for america. My point has been that an overwhelming amount of evidence, and analysis suggests his policies are bad for our country. I've gone through these things before. And actually I said a long time ago. I expect bush supporters to duck the stronger arguments and attack the weaker ones and then declare victory.
I really don't know how reliable this report is that is why I called it 'analysis' not 'fact'. but it is conducted by a member of the NAS, inconjunction with one of our more respected universities. But either way, I'd say nobel laureates, prominent republicans, and barrage of well regarded economists, and so on offer stronger arguments than this. The fact is, you have never considered anything i've posted credible because you are so blindly in support of Bush.
My stronger arguments exist in past posts, you ducked those because you can't say anything. I'm not going to be right all of the time, but it certainly beats your record of being right only rarely, but almost always i'm sure in your own opinion. It's clear you the most bigotted, arrogant, and far right member of this board, you might be able to give Trauma a good run for his money, but given your record, why bother having a discussion with you. you had your chances to argue with me like a respectable human being, instead you choose to argue like a republicans: run from the facts, spout rhetoric, yell louder to prove your points, and so on.
LOL!
How does your opinion that Bush is bad for America have ANYTHING to do with the broke ass report you posted?
How do "Nobel laureates, prominent republicans, and barrage of well regarded economists" have ANYTHING to do with the broke ass report you posted?
Hold up a second ant... I'm gonna go post a bunch of shit I don't agree with. SURREEEEEEEE....
It's funny how you label me a bigot, arrogant, member of this board when we've had LIMITED interaction over the INTERNET!
Tell me how you got to know me so well and how you found out that I'm a bigot!? Isn't your party the one of acceptance and understanding? If so, why are you so quick to label others? It just boggles my mind the hoops you jump through.
How do you know I'm not a statistician?
By the way: You should have said: It's clear you ARE the most bigoted, arrogant etc...the most bigoted, arrogant etc...
-
Anyways, It's 6:00pm here and 9:00pm in New York where you reside.
I've got plans for this friday, guess you do too: TV dinners, Dubcc, and Internet Porno.
-
http://movies.internetvetsfortruth.org/voting/votergatethemovie_256kb.mov
-
:spam2: