Bush Inauguration Protests PHOTOS

[Woodrow]

and woodrow when did i say only the ignorant voted for bush? i said out of my friends. lacking comprehension skills? i guess i will have the last laugh when in 50 years we view bush as one of the worst presidents in history.

So drug dealing fast food workers are smart now?

I guess I missed the whole point of your post then. Why were you compaing the voting trends of those in college vs fast food drug dealers? Just for fun?

[Ðøšïå]

actually i was stating that i thought it was funny how the ppl i know going to college voted kerry vs the ppl going really nowhere voted bush out of my friends. i kno many successfull people who voted for bush. come to think of it most of the ppl i kno that voted bush that are older served in the military at some time in their lives. argueing over bush and kerry honestly gets nowhere because you will not change my opinion and i will not change your opinion. apparently we view things much diff. like the war in iraq and how bush spends his funds. what i ask myself daily is why do so many ppl suppoty the president and this war yet the majority of them dont join the military and fight the war themselves?

[King Tech Quadafi]

I dont give a fuck if every Harvard graduate voted for Bush. At the end of the day, everybody who voted Bush was ignorant. Straight up. Unless you are a business man who profits from Bushes policies, unless u gettin cash for your vote, youre ignorant.

[Ant]

Damn thats CRAZY!

So because that is what you saw, that is the way it is in the country?

Sorry to break it to you, but the statistics don't lie:

People who didn't graduate from high school voted for John Kerry more than Bush. 49% Bush   50%Kerry
High School Grads voted for Bush by a margin of 5 precentage points. 52% Bush    47% Kerry
Individuals who have completed some college voted for Bush by a margin of 8 percentage points. 54% Bush   46% Kerry
College Grads voted for Bush by a margin of 6 percentage points. 52% Bush   46% Kerry

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Ant's continual portrayal of bush supporters to be ignorant redneck bigots just doesn't stick when you look at the statistics. If anything, more "statistically ignorant" people (those who didn't graduate from high school) voted for Kerry!

Keep putting your head in the sand. Keep telling yourself that only the ignorant voted for Bush. You're wrong.

well you are ignorant and you voted for Bush....

those numbers are based on exit pollls, and if you remember correctly, the exit polls predicted a different president.  woodrow logic at its best, numbers are fake unless they support my view, then of course fake numbers can be real. 

and i never called every bush voter stupid so thats just made up nonsense.  in fact, i said the opposite in a recent post.  you argue just like your president... keep making up lies and distortions, and try to get the other guy to defend things that aren't even true.

[Suffice]

i understand that the protestors were mainly doing this to let other countries know that not everyone likes Bush here, but i still find it kind of pointless to protest this time around. Bush won the popular vote, unfortunately. It's time people realized this fact and calmed their asses down. I hate Bush, but i think protesting now is kinda lame

[Sikotic™]

This is my 2 cents on why Bush is still president:

We're in the middle of a war. Most people do not want administrations to change hands during times like these, and they would rather give Bush a chance to repair it, rather than risk Kerry prolonging the war or just pulling all of the troops out ASAP.

I am going to put some faith in the people of this country and hope and pray they did not vote Bush in again because "he's a God fearing Christian man". Not that there's anything wrong with that, thats one of the few traits I like about Dubya, but that is no reason to be reelected.

So all-in-all, most people were not happy the way the past 4 years have went, but so much is going on at the moment over seas, that they dont wanna fuck the situation up more.

Those aren't my views, I wish the bastard was kicked out and I made sure I put my vote in to show that. However, now that the elections over, my emotions have died down, and I came to the realization that there is nothing I can do to change the election outcome, I can see why Bush was reelected.

[Woodrow]

those numbers are based on exit pollls, and if you remember correctly, the exit polls predicted a different president.  woodrow logic at its best, numbers are fake unless they support my view, then of course fake numbers can be real. 

and i never called every bush voter stupid so thats just made up nonsense.  in fact, i said the opposite in a recent post.  you argue just like your president... keep making up lies and distortions, and try to get the other guy to defend things that aren't even true.

Do some reading. It's funny that you have the gall to label me ignorant, but it's BLATANTLY obvious from you post you don't even have the foggiest how something simple like exit polls work.

[Ant]

those numbers are based on exit pollls, and if you remember correctly, the exit polls predicted a different president.  woodrow logic at its best, numbers are fake unless they support my view, then of course fake numbers can be real. 

and i never called every bush voter stupid so thats just made up nonsense.  in fact, i said the opposite in a recent post.  you argue just like your president... keep making up lies and distortions, and try to get the other guy to defend things that aren't even true.

Do some reading. It's funny that you have the gall to label me ignorant, but it's BLATANTLY obvious from you post you don't even have the foggiest how something simple like exit polls work.

Arrogance is akin to ignorance.  Calling exit polling simple, and expecting me to be basically omniscient is an obvious display of both your arrogance and your ignorance. 

First of all I don't think you have a clue as to the complexity involved in properly conducting a scientific poll, yet you call it a "simple" feat.  But by all means go ahead and prove me wrong by explaining the proper procedure for accurate scientific polling.  There are two facts here which you apparently are ignorant of:

1) Exit polling, polling in general, and survey construction are not "simple" procedures.  All major networks pay big money to have specialized firms conduct scientific polls which tend to turn out correct, but on occasion do not.  To call polling "simple" and to attempt to equate an in-depth understanding of polling, which you yourself do not possess, with actual intelligence is an absurd demonstration of your own foolishness.

2) Exit poll data, which I've posted on this board more than a few times, initially predicted John Kerry to be the winner of the 2004 elections (Zogby after reviewing the exit polls called the election in a landslide for Kerry, and Political Futures Markets also sold Bush shares en masse after reviewing the exit polls; exit polls also predicted Al Gore the winner of the 2000 election, remember all the major networks except Fox called FL for Gore).  Now, personally, I don't believe John Kerry won the election, but the rules of logic would require you to believe that John Kerry was the true winner of the election if you are going to assume that your exit polls were entirely accurate.  It should seem logically obvious that if exit polls are accurate, and they predicted John Kerry to win the election, then John Kerry must have won the election.   But if exit polls are inaccurate, as I have argued, then it is logically concievable for George Bush to have won the election, which if you read the newspaper you realize he has.


And it doesn't take a lot to label you ignorant.  You quote Rush Limbaugh, and run away whenever a nobel laureate says anything bad about Bush.  You think you're a conservative, but you support massive deficits, and nation building.  And most clearly, you attempt to replace intelligence with some pathetic form of online aggression in just about every post you write, as if, the nastier your post is the more credibility it will garner.  I should have added insecure to the list, but I didn't bother at the time.  But consider it added.  Of course part of your insecurity problem is understandable, your a republican, who is trying desperatly to justify his support for the worst republican president in american history.  You would be much better off relearning your core conservative principles, and hoping for change in your party, rather than blindly supporting a president who is obviously not conservative and definitely not good for your party's long term legitimacy.

[Woodrow]

I'll say it again.

Do some reading.

Your essay length post had a lot of big words, but you said close to nothing.

If you knew anything about exit polls, you'd realize that:

1.) Initial exit polls are nearly always going to be less accurate. You're going to get better results that more accurately represent the election when you have a larger source of data. Polling 15,000 people is going to represent the outcome more accurately than an initial exit poll of 1,000. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but jading by your posts, I thought I'd put it in writing.

2.) Zogby had been around for all of 3 presidential elections. He did superb on the 1996, Great job on 2000, and botched the 3rd.

3.) You state that specialized firms conduct exit polls. Good job! Too bad you didn't know its standard practice to revise exit polls to better reflect election results.

[Ant]

I'll say it again.

Do some reading.

Your essay length post had a lot of big words, but you said close to nothing.

If you knew anything about exit polls, you'd realize that:

1.) Initial exit polls are nearly always going to be less accurate. You're going to get better results that more accurately represent the election when you have a larger source of data. Polling 15,000 people is going to represent the outcome more accurately than an initial exit poll of 1,000. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but jading by your posts, I thought I'd put it in writing.

2.) Zogby had been around for all of 3 presidential elections. He did superb on the 1996, Great job on 2000, and botched the 3rd.

3.) You state that specialized firms conduct exit polls. Good job! Too bad you didn't know its standard practice to revise exit polls to better reflect election results.

So polls are revised after the election if they are erroneous.  Well interestingly enough, the exit polls in 2004 must have been erroneous since they predicted J.K. the winner, yet you are not giving me revised polling data.  Thats not even taking into account the manner in which this survey was presented or conducted which can produce biases and stastical errors.  The CNN site doesn't even state if this is a scientific poll, or go into depth at all about where these results came from.  Also, since your the expert, what is the methodology for reducing exit polls, and also i'm curious, what university did you recieve your stastics degree from?   

FYI... my post seemed to say close to nothing, because you have a hard time understanding basic concepts like: conservatives historically oppose nation-building, and supposedly are fiscally responsible, and economically prudent.   You also still have a hard time understanding the fact that your numbers are most likely based on exit polls that predicted JK to win the election (altho CNN doesn't specifically state where these numbers came from, so all we do know is they came pre-election since they imply that on their site).  The problem with you and most modern republicans is, you have built in defense mechanisms that allow you to skip over anything that tends to refute your own delluded worldview, thats how you manage to remain loyal supporters of the worst republican president in american history even as a majority of the population begins to get it.  In fact, bush supporters are only one percentage point away from being in the minority in america, and well your obviously already a tiny minority in regards to world opinion. 

[Woodrow]

 

[Ant]

You obviously have a hard time understanding simple concepts, but I should know this by now, let me simplify for you since too  many words often confuse you.

Woodrow: Look at these numbers that prove Bush voters are smart

Ant:  Look at your innacurate numbers based on exit-polls that predicted JK the winner of the presidential election

Woodrow:  Yes, but exit polls are "nearly always going to be less accurate" of course they are revised post election to better reflect reality.

Ant:  Yes, but the data you gave a) doesn't have a source and b) is pre-final count and has not been revised.  There are also issues with survey construction which haven't been addressed.

Woodrow: 

Ant:  So exit polls that are "nearly always going to be less accurate" are a reliable source of information?

Woodrow (hypothetical answer): well no, unless of course they agree with a republican point of view.

[Woodrow]

You obviously have a hard time understanding simple concepts, but I should know this by now, let me simplify for you since too  many words often confuse you.

Woodrow: Look at these numbers that prove Bush voters are smart

Ant:  Look at your innacurate numbers based on exit-polls that predicted JK the winner of the presidential election

Woodrow:  Yes, but exit polls are "nearly always going to be less accurate" of course they are revised post election to better reflect reality.

Ant:  Yes, but the data you gave a) doesn't have a source and b) is pre-final count and has not been revised.  There are also issues with survey construction which haven't been addressed.

Woodrow: 

Ant:  So exit polls that are "nearly always going to be less accurate" are a reliable source of information?

Woodrow (hypothetical answer): well no, unless of course they agree with a republican point of view.

Holy shit. You're more ignorant than I thought.

If they revise the data to more accuratley represent the election, then how is this data erronious? The poll numbers I posted are within a half percentage point of the actual results.

[Ant]

You obviously have a hard time understanding simple concepts, but I should know this by now, let me simplify for you since too  many words often confuse you.

Woodrow: Look at these numbers that prove Bush voters are smart

Ant:  Look at your innacurate numbers based on exit-polls that predicted JK the winner of the presidential election

Woodrow:  Yes, but exit polls are "nearly always going to be less accurate" of course they are revised post election to better reflect reality.

Ant:  Yes, but the data you gave a) doesn't have a source and b) is pre-final count and has not been revised.  There are also issues with survey construction which haven't been addressed.

Woodrow: 

Ant:  So exit polls that are "nearly always going to be less accurate" are a reliable source of information?

Woodrow (hypothetical answer): well no, unless of course they agree with a republican point of view.

Holy shit. You're more ignorant than I thought.

If they revise the data to more accuratley represent the election, then how is this data erronious? The poll numbers I posted are within a half percentage point of the actual results.

No your more ignorant than I thought!