Is Europe Warming Towards Bush?

Can't get the curve from that to Europe's collective political mind, though.

0 Replies

Quote:

He won the 2004 election without any uncertainty.

Yes that does make a difference which is why you will not find too many people still crying about a stolen election anymore. If others are like me we still don't like Bush but we now fully accept him as our President.

We have profited from the oil for food program as well. (cheney's companies, that guy that clinton pardoned)

So, now what excuse do those that were against the war have other than just plain not agreeing with the decision?

0 Replies

I've been reading the Economist, off and on since the 70's. There's no magazine that I trust more for a relatively impartial view of the world. If this column had come from The Economist I would consider it gospel...as it is, it's an interesting POV and we'll see if it is prophetic.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

I've been reading the Economist, off and on since the 70's. There's no magazine that I trust more for a relatively impartial view of the world. If this column had come from The Economist I would consider it gospel...as it is, it's an interesting POV and we'll see if it is prophetic.

Pan, that was my take - the interesting point of view, and considering they're British, although one (I forget which) lives in Washington, I believe. I didn't really care if they're long-term writers for The Economist (one of my favorites as well), although I did see an article on MSNBC recently describing them as such.

I like their style of writing and plan to read "A Right Nation" soon. A review of it states they view America as a conservative nation that would have remained conservative whether Bush won or not. Interesting. (They apparently thought he'd win all along, and stuck to it even when the numbers seemed otherwise.)

0 Replies

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4165172

0 Replies

Thanks for that link, Blatham!! An enjoyable 40 minutes - my only regret is it wasn't longer.

Plus, they quoted that last paragraph from the essay in the interview...of course, I liked that, but really they just make so much sense! Can't wait to get the book. I think they're Americaphiles. <grin>

Since they're closer to the action (being from England) than I am, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that there's change on the wind (both for the reasons they give and others I've recently come across).

0 Replies

I think that Blatham is secretly warming up to Bush as well.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
He won the 2004 election without any uncertainty.

Yes that does make a difference which is why you will not find too many people still crying about a stolen election anymore. If others are like me we still don't like Bush but we now fully accept him as our President.

Really? I guess you have not been paying attention to what is going on in the House and Ohio. Just because you don't see it on the evening news doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Look at it like this, GE owns NBC. Would it be in the best intrest of GE to blow the whistle on the Bushies, who give them over $100 Billion in government contracts? That couldn't be considered good for business could it?

25% of the population believe the election was rigged, yet there is no media coverage. Here is the latest paper written on the election. It follows a number of statistical analysis' done by PhD professors questioning the results of the election.

election fraud paper

Quote:

We have profited from the oil for food program as well. (cheney's companies, that guy that clinton pardoned)

So, now what excuse do those that were against the war have other than just plain not agreeing with the decision?

So true. All I hear about is the oil for food program, yet they are ignoring the obvious point, Russia, Germany et all were RIGHT!!!! There were no WMD's as the UN professed!!!!

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

panzade wrote:
I've been reading the Economist, off and on since the 70's. There's no magazine that I trust more for a relatively impartial view of the world. If this column had come from The Economist I would consider it gospel...as it is, it's an interesting POV and we'll see if it is prophetic.

Pan, that was my take - the interesting point of view, and considering they're British, although one (I forget which) lives in Washington, I believe. I didn't really care if they're long-term writers for The Economist (one of my favorites as well), although I did see an article on MSNBC recently describing them as such.

I like their style of writing and plan to read "A Right Nation" soon. A review of it states they view America as a conservative nation that would have remained conservative whether Bush won or not. Interesting. (They apparently thought he'd win all along, and stuck to it even when the numbers seemed otherwise.)

Here is an article from this weeks Economist. . .

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/01/kind_of_a_shame.php

0 Replies

Joe, the paper you cited would not get a passing grade in an undergraduate course in statistics. Just the questio of sample sizes and the associated confidence intervals are enough to assign the discrepancy to the exit polls. That a self-professed academic passed this **** off as "science" is a sad testimony to his professional standards and your credulity.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Joe, the paper you cited would not get a passing grade in an undergraduate course in statistics. Just the questio of sample sizes and the associated confidence intervals are enough to assign the discrepancy to the exit polls. That a self-professed academic passed this **** off as "science" is a sad testimony to his professional standards and your credulity.

You have got to be kidding me. Did you read the article? It is based on simple standard deviation, and it IS basic statistics. It is based on sample size and it is elementary stuff. To even question the validity of using statistics to examine the election results, then to call a well written paper as **** is completely dishonest and unAmerican.

Do you know something about statistics, if you do then please enlighten me, because I deal with statistics almost everyday. I read the article and looked at the data. It DOES show a discrepency in the predictibility of the exit polls when compared with the results of the election.

So please enlighten me as to why everywhere else in the world exit polls exist as the barometer for free elections, except in the US when electronic voting machines are at play. Do the laws of statistics somehow fail to work at these locations? Is there some sort of "magic" physics that causes the exit polls not to work here, with electronic voting, yet the wrok EVERYWHERE there is a paper trail?

We contested the elections in the Ukraine on what? Yep, the EXIT POLLS!!! Why does it show election fraud every but the US? Open you eyes man.

Now, how about these papers, or are you going to call Penn and Berkeley PhD professors hacks too.

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WPwappendices.pdf

http://mediastudy.com/freeman.pdf

Furthermor, as you call it a "self professed" acedemic, maybe you should e-mail the University of Illinois, because that is where one of the authors is a professor. Maybe they'd like to hear your opinion on how he has "passed this off as science". Man, it's right out of the republican handbook. Bring doubt into the credibility of the person making the claim.

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
panzade wrote:
I've been reading the Economist, off and on since the 70's. There's no magazine that I trust more for a relatively impartial view of the world. If this column had come from The Economist I would consider it gospel...as it is, it's an interesting POV and we'll see if it is prophetic.

Pan, that was my take - the interesting point of view, and considering they're British, although one (I forget which) lives in Washington, I believe. I didn't really care if they're long-term writers for The Economist (one of my favorites as well), although I did see an article on MSNBC recently describing them as such.

I like their style of writing and plan to read "A Right Nation" soon. A review of it states they view America as a conservative nation that would have remained conservative whether Bush won or not. Interesting. (They apparently thought he'd win all along, and stuck to it even when the numbers seemed otherwise.)

Here is an article from this weeks Economist. . .

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/01/kind_of_a_shame.php

The full title of the article from The Economist print edition is "When Deadly Force Bumps Into Hearts & Minds" and has absolutely nothing to do with James Wolcott, other than he posted some of the article on his blog.

An example of one paragraph he chose to omit:

Quote:

And there's much more.

If permitted, I would respectfully ask you to debate your concerns on this topic elsewhere.

This thread concerns another topic entirely.

Thanks, Joe!

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Joe Republican wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
panzade wrote:
I've been reading the Economist, off and on since the 70's. There's no magazine that I trust more for a relatively impartial view of the world. If this column had come from The Economist I would consider it gospel...as it is, it's an interesting POV and we'll see if it is prophetic.

Pan, that was my take - the interesting point of view, and considering they're British, although one (I forget which) lives in Washington, I believe. I didn't really care if they're long-term writers for The Economist (one of my favorites as well), although I did see an article on MSNBC recently describing them as such.

I like their style of writing and plan to read "A Right Nation" soon. A review of it states they view America as a conservative nation that would have remained conservative whether Bush won or not. Interesting. (They apparently thought he'd win all along, and stuck to it even when the numbers seemed otherwise.)

Here is an article from this weeks Economist. . .

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/01/kind_of_a_shame.php

The full title of the article from The Economist print edition is "When Deadly Force Bumps Into Hearts & Minds" and has absolutely nothing to do with James Wolcott, other than he posted some of the article on his blog.

An example of one paragraph he chose to omit:

Quote:

And there's much more.

If permitted, I would respectfully ask you to debate your concerns on this topic elsewhere.

This thread concerns another topic entirely.

Thanks, Joe!

NP, I just came across it during my surfing, thought I'd add it in seeing how you are a fan. If you have the entire article, I'd likt to read it.

0 Replies

Joe...go to:

http://economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3524840&bypass=1&pbuviewed=1

Under Current Subscribers, use:

Email: [email protected]

Password: economist

That should bring up the complete article.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Joe...go to:

http://economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3524840&bypass=1&pbuviewed=1

That should bring up the complete article.

Thanks for the link, it was a great article. I ofter read the Economist when travelling, I commonly pick it up at the airport.

Maybe your O.K. after all Smile

0 Replies

God, I love bringing people together!

0 Replies

Is Europe Warming Towards Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know