The Worst President in History?

BernardR wrote:

I will repeat- I never call my personal friends- Mr.

Is that too difficult for you to understand Mr. Apisa?

And I showed you that you already have done so!

Is that too difficult for you to understand, Bernie, baby, boobie?????

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Do you really mean to suggest that Google hit stats are a reliable measure of veracity?

Google does hit stats? How do you get them?

I am an innocent, but the world has hardened me, and so I must ask: Is this a legitimate question, or are you making some feeble attempt at sarcasm?

0 Replies

I was serious Finn. I didn't know Google did hit stats, in fact I was pretty sure it didn't - not publicly anyway. But I wasn't going to say 'you don't know what you're talking about' without giving you the chance to explain what you meant.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Finn, It doesn't matter what "clinton pervert" brings up on Google. FYI, Clinton is no longer president. It also doesn't matter what "Finn pervert" brings up on Google; Clinton and Finn is just another citizen like everybody else.

What a perfectly idiotic reply.

Are you really this stupid?

Let's revisit the argument:

Google "clinton pervert," and you will find 286,000 hits

Google " bush worst president" and you will find 32,500,000 hits

Google "finn pervert" and you will find 47,800 hits

Google "CI idiot" and you will find 2,450,000 hits

Google "cicerone idiot" and you will find 14,000 hits

Google "CI pervert" and you will find 165,000 hits

Goodle "cicerone imposter idiot" and you will find 665 hits

Google "clinton worst president" and you will find 15,900,000 hits

Google "aliens really exist" and you will find 14.500,000 hits

Google "martian anal probes" and you will find 30,300 hits

Google "french are cowards" and you will find 1,170,000 hits

Google "liberal traitors" and you will find 2,340,000 hits

Google "democrat scumbags" and you will find 128,000 hits

Google "evolution is wrong" and you will find 45,400,000 hits

Google "earth is flat" and you will find 49,500,000 hits

Google "poor people are bad" and you will find 112,000,000 hits.

Google "America is evil" and you will find 68,500,000 hits

So, by your faith in Google:

1) Poor people are bad
2) America is evil
3) The earth is flat
4) Evolution is wrong
5) Bush is the worst president
6) Clinton is the worst president
7) Aliens really exist
8) CI is an idiot
9) Liberals are traitors
10) French are cowards
11) Clinton is a pervert
12) CI is a pervert
13) Democrats are scumbags
14) Finn is a pervert
15) Martians effect anal probes
16) Cicerone is an idiot
17) Cicerone Imposter is an idiot

Ultimate proof!

0 Replies

Of course it is proof to the Left wing, Finn. Did you notice how quickly they abandoned the Left wing screed by Wilentz after it was taken apart.

That is why the Democrats will ultimately fail. They argue on false premises and have no real solutions.

Your rundown on Google hits was beautiful, Finn. I don't think anyone in his right mind will use that as a rationale again.

Please notice, I said "right mind"

0 Replies

Yeppers, things are looking great in Iraq, peace and tranquility are just around the corner. Just another 1% solution from the Bush.

0 Replies

Oh I see what you meant - you mean 'results', not 'hits'. Pardon my stickling.

By the way the reducto ad absurdem argument doesn't hold.

While I agree google doesn't prove anything, that doesn't mean it can be discounted.

You are essentially saying if you can show that google presents a ridiculous result then all results that google produces are ridiculous.

It is very typical of the reactionary/conservative mind set (not an insult) to do the black/white categorisation of things. Like Bernard's 'if one lefty thinks this all leftys think this', which is odd considering he's comfortable admitting not all rightys think the same thing. Then again I guess the 'left' has it's fair share of 'my beliefs are more reliable than the evidence'. Sigh.

The world must seem much simpler when you think things are black and white. Except for us idiots who just can't see it.

0 Replies

They know better than to believe that crap, hingehead. They just hope it will confuse the issue.

0 Replies

Howdy Edgar - I thought maybe they just couldn't see it, but you think they can see it but are obfuscating so they won't be caught out as having 'backed the wrong horse'? I guess I'm niaive - I just thought it was a mind set thing - like Gallileo's priests.

I laughed when they call the Democrats lefties - the USA does seem very insular from the outside sometimes. Lefties in Australia are socialist leaning (at least) politically, can't see Democrats as socialists somehow.

Hitler was right wing - do I think that all conservatives are like Hitler? No.

When someone offers me a copy of the Green Left Weekly I always say 'Sorry, I'm already green, left and weak.'

Waffle ends.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid, Hingehead, that your logic is flawed.

You said:

************************************************************

While I agree google doesn't prove anything, that doesn't mean it can be discounted.
**********************************************************
You are correct about the first part, but too vague in the second part of your sentence. That doesn't mean that it can be "discounted". What do you mean, "it"? Do you mean "google's findings on A PARTICULAR POINT or do you mean the information that Google has a certain number of hits on a particular topic? If you are making the mistake, that Finn clearly pointed out, that the number of notations for a phrase or statement can be equated with the truth of that particular phrase or statement, you are most certainly not correct.

If you interview 5,000 people and ask them Whether Cleopatra was Egyptian by birth, some would say they did not know but many others would say yes, she was. In fact, the Ptolemies were not Eqyptian but Macedonian. The large number of responses would be wrong.

Then you say:
*************************************************************

You are essentially saying if you can show that google presents a ridiculous result then all results that google produces are ridiculous.

*************************************************************

What this evidently means that if a movie studio produces a ridiculous result then all results that the studio produces are ridiculous.

Of course, You are wrong in your logic!!!

0 Replies

Finn still doesn't get it: Clinton is no longer president, and looking for "Clinton pervert" has absolutely no meaning in this debate.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....

0 Replies

Bernard

Google doesn't have 'hits' - hits are page views. You mean 'search results', as I explained to Finn. (sorry I do web work - and saying 'hits' out of context makes me itch.)

What i was saying was is that if Google returns a bunch of results for a search, that neither proves nor disproves anything except that the search syntax resulted in hits from google.

eg Finn used the search:

The Earth is flat - and got a number of results

If I search

The Earth is round - and I get a number of hits

does this prove either statement is true or false? No.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Oh I see what you meant - you mean 'results', not 'hits'. Pardon my stickling.

By the way the reducto ad absurdem argument doesn't hold.

While I agree google doesn't prove anything, that doesn't mean it can be discounted.

You are essentially saying if you can show that google presents a ridiculous result then all results that google produces are ridiculous.

It is very typical of the reactionary/conservative mind set (not an insult) to do the black/white categorisation of things. Like Bernard's 'if one lefty thinks this all leftys think this', which is odd considering he's comfortable admitting not all rightys think the same thing. Then again I guess the 'left' has it's fair share of 'my beliefs are more reliable than the evidence'. Sigh.

The world must seem much simpler when you think things are black and white. Except for us idiots who just can't see it.

Yes, you're right. I misused "hits" for "results."

No, I am not saying that if some google results are ridiculous all are ridiculous. I am saying that it is ridiculous to assert that Google "results" are, in any way, meaningful, and that if you chose to rely on Google "results" to prove your point, you can hardly discount Google "results" that prove other points.

In short, I am saying that basing any opinion on Google "results" is ridiculous, not because some "results" are ridiculous, but because all "results" are ridiculous when considered proof of anything other than the fact that there are huge numbers of people who will believe anything under the sun.

Google "results," obviously do not mean that this is the number of people who believe a certain statement. For instance, because there are almost 50 million Google results for the phrase: "Earth is flat," clearly doesn't mean that 50 million people believe the earth is flat.

Obviously Google draws no distinction between sites which contain: "People who believe the earth is flat are morons," and sites which contain "All physical evidence proves the earth is flat."

Thus, Google makes no distinction between sites which contain "Bush is the worst president in history," and "Only idiots who have no concept of history will assert that it can be resolved that Bush is the worst president in history."

As for your scrambled argument about black and white perceptions, what the f*ck are you talking about?

Just as it one should bet cash money on the power of a speaker castigating gays before a certain audience, one can also win a fortune betting on Liberals pontificating about the evils of absolutism and the virtue of moral relativism.

That you might insist that we all walk a mile in the moccasins of each and every miscreant contributing heartache to society is, at least, subject to some level of debate. That you insert this premise into each an every argument is at best ridiculous.

You are not an idiot for being unable to see the world in terms of black and white. You are an idiot because you attempt to reduce the arguments of our times to such absurd black and white perspectives.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Then you say:
*************************************************************

You are essentially saying if you can show that google presents a ridiculous result then all results that google produces are ridiculous.

*************************************************************

What this evidently means that if a movie studio produces a ridiculous result then all results that the studio produces are ridiculous.

Of course, You are wrong in your logic!!!

OK, let me get this right. I summarise the basis of Finn's argument against google.

Then you paraphrase my summation of Finn's argument.

Then you say that Finn's argument is ridiculous and somehow try to attribute that argument to me.

Put your analyst on danger money baby.

0 Replies

I think we actually agree on the google stuff Finn, I guess it was your apparant childish glee in proving CI was an idiot through google that warped the point you were trying to get across.

Thanks for calling me an idiot. Means a lot to me.

Still waiting for some one to define what's a lefty and what's a righty.

0 Replies

No, sir, If you read Finn's argument carfully and then also read mine again,you will find that Finn and I are in agreement.

Basically--the number of search results on anything proves very little. I did not, as Finn did, however, enlarge my comments to say as he did--
***********************************************************
Thus, Google makes no distinction between sites which contain "Bush is the worst president in history," and "Only idiots who have no concept of history will assert that it can be resolved that Bush is the worst president in history."
***********************************************************

This alone would essentially consign Mr. Imposter's theory to the waste basket!!

0 Replies

Clinton's ranking as president since WWII does have relevance. He's second after Reagan. George W Bush is close to the bottom with 3.

7. Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II - Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, which one would you consider the best president?

..................................Wht.. Wht... Wht... ........Evangl/BrnAgain
...................... .. Tot... Men... Wom.... Prot... Cath... Christians

Harry Truman ... .. 7%... 8%... 6%.... 8%..... 13%.... 7%
Dwight Eisenhower .5.... 5.... 5.... 6.... 3 ... 8
John Kennedy......... 18... 14... 21... 13.. 19.. 13
Lyndon Johnson..... 1.... 1.... 1.... 1.... -..... 1
Richard Nixon........ 1.... 1..... 1 .... 2 ..... - .... 2
Gerald Ford........... 1.... -.... 1.... 1..... 1.... 0
Jimmy Carter ...... 5.... 4.... 5..... 4..... 6..... 4
Ronald Reagan..... 28... 36... 20... 37... 28... 39
George Bush Senior.2..... 2..... 3.... 5.... 1.... 6
Bill Clinton............ 25... 23.... 28... 15... 22... 10
George W. Bush ... 3.... 2..... 5.... 5.... 1..... 6

SOURCE: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=919

0 Replies

That last posting should also be consigned to the waste basket since it is unsourced. I can't really tell whether it was made up out of whole cloth by Mr. Imposter or by some far left winger like Dr. Sean Wilentz, who has been totally rebutted.

Additionally, just as in Sports, or the Entertainment field, or in Business or in almost any endeavor, a person who is still in the respective field CANNOT be evaluated until the end of his career.

John Wayne won his Academy Award for "True Grit" when his career was nearly over.

Barry Bonds may or may not pass Hank Aaron for the all time lead in Home Runs.

Bill Gates may or may not break the 100 Billion mark.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Obviously Google draws no distinction between sites which contain: "People who believe the earth is flat are morons," and sites which contain "All physical evidence proves the earth is flat."

Actually this is wrong. Google does make a distinction, not in the number of hits, but it does rank them with an algorithm that weighs heavily toward your search terms appearing in URLs that point to the page that google presents as the result.

The search strategy was pretty woeful, it would have picked up 'James Dolby discography 'The Flat Earth' ' and 'I have a bucket of earth in my flat'.

I still think Google can give some meaningful qualitative social metrics if used right, but I'm sure you don't give a rats.

I'm looking forward to January 2009 when I am allowed to say GWB is the worst president in history, without offending the sticklers.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Finn still doesn't get it: Clinton is no longer president, and looking for "Clinton pervert" has absolutely no meaning in this debate.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....

And thus you have proven yourself to be an idiot.

I like to give my fellow A2Kers the benefit of the doubt and respond to their arguments with what I consider to be a logical response. I may be off base and be missing a sublime truth, but I defy anyone to present an argument i have made that is an inane as what CI is trying to load us with.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a homeless bum wandering the streets of a major urban center insisting that frankenstein radio airwaves are penetrating his anus.

Are you arguing that hundreds of thousands and millions of Google results that suggest Clinton is a pervert and the worst president in history are accurate but immaterial because Bush is the current president?

I'm happy to concede that the flaws of Clinton are immaterial to an assessment of the flaws of Bush. Whether or not Clinton was a scumbag president has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not Bush is, likewise, a scumbag president.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that if you use a particular source to promote your point, integrity requires you to use that very same source as proof of all points. And so if Google results prove Bush is the worst president in history, they also prove the earth is flat and that evolution is wrong.

I fully expect a "Yeah, so's your old man!" response and therefore, unless I am shocked by your reply, this is the last time I intend to respond to your daffy tripe.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know