Author Topic: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)  (Read 318 times)

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: More Analysis Suggests 04 Vote May Have Been Hacked
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2004, 09:29:58 AM »

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.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2004, 09:35:21 AM »
^^^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.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2004, 09:42:14 AM »
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.
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2004, 10:08:07 AM »
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.
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2004, 12:41:54 PM »
Is it true that Berlusconi was one a cruise ship singer? someone told me he was before.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2004, 12:58:34 PM »
call me crazy, but isn't "130,000 to 260,000" a large gap for a "statistical study"???
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2004, 03:54:33 PM »
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.
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2004, 03:55:54 PM »
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.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2004, 05:15:31 PM »
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. Itís clear this is biased because these people held a press conference BEFORE the peer review. Usually thatís 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.

Iíll let one of Kerryís 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, itís time for you to crawl back into your little cave. Hereís some free advice: go get some help. Youíre living in the past and pulling at strings that arenít there. You arenít living a healthy life. Faggot.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 05:19:22 PM by Woodrow »
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2004, 06:11:47 PM »
do adding explicatives to your posts make you feel better? ah yes. how intelligent it must be to be a republican american.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2004, 06:13:23 PM »
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.

 
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2004, 06:15:31 PM »
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. Itís clear this is biased because these people held a press conference BEFORE the peer review. Usually thatís 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.

Iíll let one of Kerryís 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?
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2004, 06:17:27 PM »
lol did i hurt your feelings?
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2004, 06:18:24 PM »
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.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2004, 06:23:41 PM »
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"
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2004, 06:26:51 PM »
lol did i hurt your feelings?
Yes. Stupid people make me angry.
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2004, 06:30:05 PM »
lol unfortunately in your world all the smart people are stupid.  u seem to hate nobel laureates, former government officials, and even moderate republicans.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2004, 06:31:37 PM »
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...
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2004, 06:39:49 PM »
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.
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2004, 06:48:14 PM »
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...


 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: More Analysis on the 2004 Vote :)
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2004, 06:55:12 PM »
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.
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
 

Ras Kass' Toothpick

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
  • Karma: 19
Re: becuz you love it. more analysis on the 04 vote
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2004, 04:47:12 PM »
 :spam2:
Herb Quote Of The Year[/u]

CalebOhio: I think i can speak for many others when i say my favorite rap artists are white but i still want black artists to be dope. they are chosing not to be. that wouldn't be a likely believe held in a white supremacist group. I want Nas to deliver evertime but he doesn't every time Sage does. so Sage gets my $15 regardless or his status. fuck your status perception and labels you use.