The Elephant in the Room (Bush hits all time polling low)

[Quinn]

As previously predicted, the dullard and chief has tied Carter’s polling lows. The second part of my prediction – that Bush would eventually surpass both Nixon and Carter to reach a historic post-war low – is only months away. Another new CBS poll showed 71% of military families disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq. Anyway, here's the beginning of the article and a link to the rest of it:

George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence?

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

What are the odds of democrat party affiliation oversampling,

25, 50, 75 or 100% ?

[Quinn]

The Newsweek poll isn't the only recent poll to reflect these numbers. A Wall Street Journal poll in late April showed nearly identical results (28% positive view/approval, etc.), indicating the same all time low relative to their own historical polling data. Guaranteed they will go even lower in the coming months to set an all time post war record.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Well when you take a poll consisting solely of MoveOn.org members this is the result you get and 28% of those commies dig George Bush, not so bad.

[trish]

Well when you take a poll consisting solely of MoveOn.org members this is the result you get and 28% of those commies dig George Bush, not so bad.

you're right. 28% of zero is zero, and george bush is the most vacuous zero we've ever seen in that office.

[Quinn]

Well when you take a poll consisting solely of MoveOn.org members this is the result you get and 28% of those commies dig George Bush, not so bad.

As previously stated, the Wall Street Journal's poll came up with same type of numbers as Newsweek's poll. Unless they're both part of some Liberal conspiracy -- which obviously isn't the case -- this is just another instance of your continuing inability to deal with the most blatantly obvious of realities. Nicely done, Walter Mitty.

-Quinn

[Jonny29]

Why" isn't it obviously the case" the wall street journal news stories are usually left biased and its editorials are usually right biased? So to me it would depend where the poll story was located in the jounal. However living in NYC the 28% approval of the President seems reasonable but if NYC is at 28% I would think(Did not poll anyone just an observation) the country as a whole would be higher.
I also believe leaders to lead regardless of polls and not be led by polls . If Senator Clinton had reviewed all the data provided to her and thought that she should vote against the war then that is what she should have done. BUt It seems to be reported often that she voted for the war for Political reasons and that disgusts me.
Former NYC mayor Guilaini fence sitting on abortion is another example. You are elected to be a leader not a follower!

[Quinn]

Why" isn't it obviously the case" the wall street journal news stories are usually left biased and its editorials are usually right biased? So to me it would depend where the poll story was located in the jounal. However living in NYC the 28% approval of the President seems reasonable but if NYC is at 28% I would think(Did not poll anyone just an observation) the country as a whole would be higher.
I also believe leaders to lead regardless of polls and not be led by polls . If Senator Clinton had reviewed all the data provided to her and thought that she should vote against the war then that is what she should have done. BUt It seems to be reported often that she voted for the war for Political reasons and that disgusts me.
Former NYC mayor Guilaini fence sitting on abortion is another example. You are elected to be a leader not a follower!

It "obviously isn't the case" because Bush's polling numbers have been trending in this direction for some time now – according to polls produced by a wide range of agencies with varying political alignments. Furthermore, do you really think Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are successfully colluding to arrive at the same numbers in some conspiracy driven polling campaign? If so, provide specific evidence relating to these most recent polls. Otherwise, simply admit what any objective person already knows: the overwhelming majority of American’s aren’t happy with the way things are going and aren’t happy with this president.

As for your argument about polling numbers in relation to geographic location, and NYC in particular, it's seriously flawed. If Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are arriving at a 28% approval rating, that's the national average because it's a national poll. Seriously, if you think Bush has a 28% approval rating in NYC, you're out of your mind and clearly don't live here. It's definitely lower. A state-wide Marist poll taken in March, when his approval rating was higher than it is now, gave him a 25% percent approval rating. If you know anything about New York State's voting patterns, you'll understand that his means NYC will have a substantially lower number.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Why" isn't it obviously the case" the wall street journal news stories are usually left biased and its editorials are usually right biased? So to me it would depend where the poll story was located in the jounal. However living in NYC the 28% approval of the President seems reasonable but if NYC is at 28% I would think(Did not poll anyone just an observation) the country as a whole would be higher.
I also believe leaders to lead regardless of polls and not be led by polls . If Senator Clinton had reviewed all the data provided to her and thought that she should vote against the war then that is what she should have done. BUt It seems to be reported often that she voted for the war for Political reasons and that disgusts me.
Former NYC mayor Guilaini fence sitting on abortion is another example. You are elected to be a leader not a follower!

It "obviously isn't the case" because Bush's polling numbers have been trending in this direction for some time now – according to polls produced by a wide range of agencies with varying political alignments. Furthermore, do you really think Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are successfully colluding to arrive at the same numbers in some conspiracy driven polling campaign? If so, provide specific evidence relating to these most recent polls. Otherwise, simply admit what any objective person already knows: the overwhelming majority of American’s aren’t happy with the way things are going and aren’t happy with this president.

As for your argument about polling numbers in relation to geographic location, and NYC in particular, it's seriously flawed. If Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are arriving at a 28% approval rating, that's the national average because it's a national poll. Seriously, if you think Bush has a 28% approval rating in NYC, you're out of your mind and clearly don't live here. It's definitely lower. A state-wide Marist poll taken in March, when his approval rating was higher than it is now, gave him a 25% percent approval rating. If you know anything about New York State's voting patterns, you'll understand that his means NYC will have a substantially lower number.

-Quinn

Once more, the Newsweek poll oversampled democrats by a wide margin.

Secondly the WSJ was refering to an online poll which reveals similar numbers for democrats with D.Harry(We`ve Lost)Reid and congress polling lower than President Bush:

Pelosi 30% positive 56% Negative

Reid 22% positive 52% Negative

Congress 27% positive 69% Negative

[Quinn]

Once more, the Newsweek poll oversampled democrats by a wide margin.
1) The poll rightly sampled more Democrats/Democratically aligned Independents than Republicans/Republican aligned Independents because there now are substantially more of the former than the latter. When seeking to implement a poll that is supposed to serve as a statistical representation of voter sentiment, why would you sample equally between the parties when their bases of support are now so unequal?

2) The Wall Street Journal’s Harris Poll showed similarly dismal approval ratings, reflecting the continuation of a trend seen in the polls of numerous polling organizations since 2005.


Secondly the WSJ was refering to an online poll which reveals similar numbers for democrats with D.Harry(We`ve Lost)Reid and congress polling lower than President Bush:

Pelosi 30% positive 56% Negative

Reid 22% positive 52% Negative

Congress 27% positive 69% Negative
Wow, selective representations aside, that’s a pretty desperate attempt to deflect from the topic at hand. Still, since I’m in a generous mood lately, I’ll address it:

1) The poll cited by the Wall Street Journal was not conducted online and gives no indication of using such an unsound methodology. Had you bothered to read beyond the Wall Street Journal’s misprint and looked at the actual data supplied by Harris Interactive – the organization that conducted the poll – you would have seen the following repeatedly referenced:

The Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between April 20 and 23, 2007 among a nationwide cross section of 1,001 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, size of place (urbanicity) and number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=752

2) I don’t like Pelosi or Reid much more than I do Bush, so I’m all for having at them. Still, since your citation of these numbers does represent a partisan attempt to deflect away from an unpleasant truth, let’s stay on point by including some of the things you selectively omitted:

a) The Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats, are why Congress is polling lower than Bush:

Republicans in Congress: 22% positive vs. 74% negative
Democrats in Congress: 35% positive vs. 58% negative

b) Reid’s positives are only 6 percentage points lower than Bush’s, but Bush’s negatives are a whopping 18 percentage points higher:

Bush: 28% positive vs. 70% negative
Reid: 22% positive vs. 52% negative

The bottom line remains unchanged: we have a president whose failed polices have earned him approval ratings in the same record setting, dismal range as those of Carter and Nixon. If the long-standing polling trend holds, we are only months away from witnessing Bush surpass both, which will make him the lowest rated president in this nation's post-war history.

[trish]

the wall street journal news stories are usually left biased and its editorials are usually right biased

that's rather telling, isn't it? the wall street journal is right leaning, but still professional enough not to overly slant the news; consequently the right leaning readership has the illusion the news is left-biased. tell me, Jonny29, when you open your eyes in the morning does the world seem to lean kinda left?

[chefmike]

The WSJ is run by bolsheviks, everybody knows that, trish...

[White_Male_Canada]

A Wall Street Journal poll in late April showed nearly identical results (28% positive view/approval, etc.)

Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%,
Lowest Level So Far, in Harris Poll
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
April 26, 2007

Methodology: This Harris Poll was conducted online among 1,001 adults April 20-23

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117752895118782401-uDkZU8lRXG_TdtfisPq050345ew_20070503.html?mod=blog s

WSJ “misprint” ? Easy to verify.


The poll rightly sampled more Democrats/Democratically aligned Independents than Republicans/Republican aligned Independents because there now are substantially more of the former than the latter.

False. The Newsweek polling data stated that 36% were registered democrat and 24% republican when in reality it is about 33% Democrat, 31% Republican.

Ramussen narrows the Newsweek gap and for May, approval fluctuated between 41% and 35%. Higher than Pelosi or Reid with the exception that Bush is not running for re-election.

Newsweek, "The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. Leaners. "

Anything over 3% is practically worthless.

Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas, “There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Sidein New York and they have a liberal bias...."

[Quinn]

A Wall Street Journal poll in late April showed nearly identical results (28% positive view/approval, etc.)

Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%,
Lowest Level So Far, in Harris Poll
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
April 26, 2007

Methodology: This Harris Poll was conducted online among 1,001 adults April 20-23

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117752895118782401-uDkZU8lRXG_TdtfisPq050345ew_20070503.html?mod=blog s

WSJ “misprint” ? Easy to verify.
ROTFLMAO…. Unfortunatley for you, it is easy to verify the misprint. Once again, for all of the slow people: the poll was conducted by Harris Interactive for the Wall Street Journal, not by the Wall Street Journal itself. Harris Interactive is unequivocal as to the methodology it employed for this poll – going so far as to state it twice in the same poll:

1) These are some of the results from the latest Harris Poll of 1,001 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone between April 20 and 23, 2007 by Harris Interactive®.

2) The Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between April 20 and 23, 2007 among a nationwide cross section of 1,001 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, size of place (urbanicity) and number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=752

See how easy that is when you don’t attempt to misrepresent the facts?



The poll rightly sampled more Democrats/Democratically aligned Independents than Republicans/Republican aligned Independents because there now are substantially more of the former than the latter.

False. The Newsweek polling data stated that 36% were registered democrat and 24% republican when in reality it is about 33% Democrat, 31% Republican.
Maybe you need to update your facts because there’s been a substantial shift in voter alignments starting in late 2005/early 2006 (depending upon the pundint) that has continued and accelerated to this day. Furthermore, polls – including the Newsweek poll – take into account statistical representations of Independents and how they are likely to vote – which is overwhelmingly Democratic these days. To that end, you omitted important data contained in the Newsweek poll:

27. As of today, do you lean more toward the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

Total Republican/Lean Republican 37%
Total Democrat/Lean Democrat 52%

The problem for you is that these results are firmly in line with recent polls conducted by other organizations. For example, a recent USA Today poll, cited in an April USA Today article, and a recent Pew Research poll, cited by numerous sources, showed the following results:

1) Asked in the USA TODAY poll who they would want to see win the White House if the election were today, 51% of registered voters said the Democrat, 38% the Republican — a landslide.

2) A recent Pew poll showed a sharp change in Americans' political-party identification: Democrats now outnumber Republicans 50 percent to 35 percent, as opposed to 2002, when both had 43 percent. . . .

I guess the Newsweek poll, the Wall Street Journal’s Harrison poll, the USA Today poll and the Pew Research poll have strikingly similar results because the relevant organizations are all part of the same conspiracy. :roll: It’s either that or they’re defying statistical probability by all making the same mistakes – at least that’s what we would have to believe if were to follow your weak argument that the previously discussed polls are faulty. :roll:


Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas, “There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Sidein New York and they have a liberal bias...."

It’s unfortunate for your argument that many organizations other than Newsweek have shown the same, massive downward trend in Bush’s approval rating and the same substantial shift in voter sentiment since late 2005/early 2006. Ouch!!!

At this point, you may feel free to put forth whatever factually selective misrepresentation you wish. Your argument has been crushed, and I’m not wasting anymore time exposing your failure to alter the bottom line: we have a president whose failed polices have earned him approval ratings in the same record setting, dismal range as those of Carter and Nixon. If the long-standing polling trend holds, we are only months away from witnessing Bush surpass both, which will make him the lowest rated president in this nation's post-war history. Deal with it.

-Quinn

[trish]

LOL

[White_Male_Canada]

ROTFLMAO…. Unfortunatley for you, it is easy to verify the misprint.

Deflecting from your biased Newsweek won`t help you.

Unfortunately, your comprehension of polling statistics, specifically the biased Newsweek poll, is as lacking as your knowledge of Constitutional law.

I'm not sure whether someone else already responded, but the Harris poll was conducted online. Please let me know if you have further questions.

Best,
Beckey
Beckey.Bright@wsj.com

Being the reigning Village Idiot I`ll dumb it (Newsweek) down for you:

IT’S THE SAMPLE STUPID:

NEWSWEEK
Newsweek’s sample was as follows:
22% - Republican
35% - Democrat
36% - Independent

RASMUSSEN (during the same polling period — still undersamples Republicans but to a lesser degree)
31.4% Republican
37.2% Democrat
32.4% Unaffiliated

Result:
President Bush JA rating 40% (78% among Republicans) // Every top tier REPUBLICAN presidential contender bests every top tier Democrat contender !

Have I lost my Idiot yet? Probably, since you`ve already delfected from the issue of registered voters to those who are "leaning...identify"in a desperate attempt to save any last semblance of an argument. Mehh, really doesn`t matter but to place the cherry on top of your bogus biased push poll:

"...831 registered voters. Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error. The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. leaners. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.”-

Anything over 3% can be considered statistically useless.

The sampling bias is even worse for the REGISTERED VOTERS:

831 registered voters:

422 (51%) Democrats
324 (39%) Republicans

You`re unbelievably dumb,

and still the champ. Way to go Village Idiot ! 8)

[Quinn]

*Yawn*

Will the next self-loathing closet case please stand up so I that I can obliterate his imbecilic arguments and expose his outright misrepresentations too.......

[White_Male_Canada]

*Yawn*

Will the next self-loathing closet case please stand up so I that I can obliterate his imbecilic arguments and expose his outright misrepresentations too.......

You`re as easy as a two dollar Bangkok whore Village Idiot. That`s why I rarely bother embarrassing you anymore. It`s become tedious, and boring in direct proportion to your inane and lack of substance in your replies. And naturally, being the VillageIdiot you cannot comprehend the other "WMC"(copies are never as good as the original) was being derisive and sarcastic towards homosexuals,being immediately banned after the second post. But, that what make you, you. 8)

Now, in regards to Newsweek`s bogus push poll use of Registered voters, which used two sets of numbers. One set I`ve already quoted(D35/R22), the other, directly under "Registered voters" had 24% Republicans to 36% Democrats.

What makes this poll such a sham is not only error rates of 7 and 8% but simply compare that to the information given by Newsweek's NBC partners in February, which showed that party affiliation- Democrat34.3% to Republican30.4%, with 33.9% independents.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150019/

You do not deserve a clever image of my own creation to further humiliate you, you`ve done that job yourself in your haste to try prove your left-wing views with your bogus push poll.

[svenson]

white-male-canda ignores whats real and gets caught lying by quinn another time dont you get tired of loosing to him and other persons all the time. you are so sad and patetic. you need to have pride in yourself so bad

[White_Male_Canada]

white-male-canda ignores whats real and gets caught lying by quinn another time dont you get tired of loosing to him and other persons all the time. you are so sad and patetic. you need to have pride in yourself so bad

Eh? You`re a peculiar little fellow, irrelevant but peculiar. But what do we expect from a country that produces peculiarities such as yourself and bjork. 8)

When bjork attacks !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lhgiuTFxxM

[specialk]

white-male-canda ignores whats real and gets caught lying by quinn another time dont you get tired of loosing to him and other persons all the time. you are so sad and patetic. you need to have pride in yourself so bad

Eh? You`re a peculiar little fellow, irrlevant but peculiar. But what do we expect from a country that produces peculiarities such as yourself and bjork. 8)

Watch out svenson...this guy is on the make for a new boytoy since Tfool dumped him....you could be next!!!

[svenson]

white-male-canda ignores whats real and gets caught lying by quinn another time dont you get tired of loosing to him and other persons all the time. you are so sad and patetic. you need to have pride in yourself so bad

Eh? You`re a peculiar little fellow, irrlevant but peculiar. But what do we expect from a country that produces peculiarities such as yourself and bjork. 8)

Watch out svenson...this guy is on the make for a new boytoy since Tfool dumped him....you could be next!!!

this sad person says im irelevant because other persons always point out how irelevant and sad he is irelvant is what happens when no persons acept you or you lies. I add to quinn list of what persons say to you to show what is irelevant



Problem is , lies don`t hold up to the facts.
That's probably why no one believes a word you say either here or in public!


hahahahahaha so funny specialk, your wit has made my day - Don't Listen to WMC - "she" is a piece of sh*t


My opinion has nothing to do with it. You keep making this allegation without offering even a shred of evidence that it's true. You just make this unsupported assertion and say, "So there." Then, when I call you on it, you post one thing and claim that it's another. You're dishonest, Michael, and that bugs me.


I have read 'my' Constitution, several hundred times. Now explain this to me. Where did I ever state that civilians do not have authority over the military. The only person in this ongoing debate that brings up the question of civilian authority is you, yet you continue to use it as a 'strawman' to divert attention from the fact that you have no answer to the questions that are repeatedly posed to you.

As to exposing an intellectual shallowness by calling opponents names…


Man, I must nominate WMC, as the most retard fuck in the Universe! You're not actually from Canada are you? Maybe you are, and you live in a hut on a melting ice pack on Hudson Bay


Once again, you are either misstating, or misrepresenting the facts.


What can I say, you’re so confused and desperate to obfuscate that you now your mixing lies with diversions, accusations and bone-headedness.

Let’s begin with the lies: you never mentioned the 15 micron line…an irrelevant line to our discussion…until a few posts back…long after you already claim CO2 was absorbing as much as it can and no higher concentrations could absorb more...go back and look.

Let’s look at the diversion and accusation: I never mentioned VOCs, HFC, and PFCs. We’re talking CO2.

Let’s look at the bone-headedness: The 15 micron line is outside the window of infrared transparency. As long as it remains outside the window it’s relevant to the issue of further warming. That one line is already doing all it can to warm the Earth. This is in fact you’re original argument, but restricted to the 15 micron line. So of course the other two absorption lines which are within the window are now more relevant. If we dump higher concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere it will be those lines that will have the task of soaking up more energy. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what makes two higher energy lines minor, in this regard, relative to the lower energy 15 micron line way outside the window.


ive lurked here enough to sea you loose this argument to lg trish and other persons. why should i repeet what evryone now knows. you change your position and contradict youself many times in other arugments you loose now no one takes you seriously. you do it to youself.

all you do is insult and try to be tough guy. you make antigay remarks and insult persons sickness you are low person and is why all persons on the HA dont respect you as an adult man. you are sad and no like youself


I want you to read this editorial carefully, and stop with your repugs bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

Ouch ! Be humble, you're a loser.


Ongoing debate? Perhaps the ongoing debate that White_Pinhead_Chickenhawk and his ilk need to be concerned with is the debate between themselves and their own hypocrisy...


I see medical science isn't your strong suit. hey, but at least you're getting good at character defamation.


I've had enough of your arguments and tedious repetition of words like "EnviroGestapo". I am sorry that you have not yet realised that you do not know what you are talking about.


For everyone that reads these posts, it must be made clear that WhiteMaleCandada is truly without a point....and those who tolerate his foolishness must see this as time goes forward.

WhiteMale could not respond to the issue of John Howard not "putting up" sufficient troops to make his so-called support of the Iraq war, instead he relies on moving to what i call "shiny keys" (diverting the point to something not relevant to the issue but instead becomes a direct attack on the person being discussed......

Again, why are you here on this board. Why don't you go somewhere where right wingers will make you feel like a king....of the other dummies.





That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate� drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving. :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

Yep Quinn, WMC is a bully, and like all bullies he's weak and insecure, that what fuels his N.P.D.! Like I said, a very disagreeable man who doesn't get along with people here because they see right through him, and apparently, the same also applies in his Professional life. I wish you, and everyone else, the best in your arguments with him!!!


Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.


Christ your such an arsehole.
seanchai


First of all, I never said that. Nice try. :wink:


Second of all, it would have saved everyone a lot of time if you would have just told everyone you were a troll right from the begining.


White Canada Male - honestly I don't know what your doing here besides trying to boost your own self-esteem by trying to prove how intelligent you are. This is a forum for those that like T-girls and politics. You only like politics so why don't you just go to another forum and let TFan do all of the dirty work for you. At least he shares your sick political perspective and likes Tgirls.


Middle finger people like WhiteMaleCanada (MFP's are people that you give the finger when you see them or hear them around) are never every concerned about what a foreign leader has to say unless they fall in lock step with the stupid thoughts they generate in their fevered brains.


I've tried to abstain from responding to this post and have given up trying to read the messages. But I have absorbed the slant of "White_Male_Canada".

Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. Get a job or a hobby or something. Who gives a flying fuck about what you think. Reflect on that! I don't give a fuck about what I think.

I said you're a pain in the ass. I was wrong! You're a talking ass.



Hagel ? That the one who compared the US armed forces to Nazis?

Nope. You can't even bother to keep your own bullshit straight.


I strung those letters together on purpose knowing dolts like you would get tripped up. For fucks sakes it`s a Colt AR-15 A2 Govt model w/H-bar. I suppose you don`t even know the twist rate?

Thanks! You reminded me of the old PeeWee Herman line: "I meant to do that!"

Heehee. Cracks me up every time.

The A2 is a nice weapon. Twist rate is 1:7. Do the bayonet lugs make you feel like a real soldier?


What is it with you angry little people? Can`t stand the fact that there are others who really don`t think socialism and collectivism is the be all end all?

Personally, what makes me angry are liars and dissemblers, particularly those who are abuse my country and hold my fellow American citizens in contempt. I don't much care where you are politically, but you're a liar, so I feel compelled to demean and humiliate you.


Hey pinhead ...what up??? Still going to therapy for that liberal cocksucking fetish of yours?????


The rest of the comments are just laughable. Clearly this person can't be serious.


Dude, if we thought like you we would still think the earth was flat.


Michael, this thread is moving beyond merely irritating to boring. I’m going to reply to this silliness once more. If you need it repeated for a third time, then you’re going to have to find somebody else. I don’t have the patience to work with the developmentally disabled.



You dumb fucking liar.

Well if anyone should know it's you, your the biggest dumb fucking liar here by a million miles, eh "Prof." (allegedly)!


I don't want to seem like an intellectual snob and no doubt you'll tell me that I'm avoid the debate. But there is no point debating with someone like you who lacks a basic understanding of something but seems to think that he knows everything. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, WMC.


WMC

Let’s see:

You’ve misrepresented my assertions and you continue to misrepresent them when i make them explicity clear. That's why the fucker, fucker. And you misrepresent the assertions of the IPCC. It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past. I’m not saying you’re an idiot. I’m say you’ve got no integrity.

You drop names but you give no substantial arguments of your own. What formula do you use?
Your odd locutions (like “that chart in no way defines exponential growth� or "proves exponential CO2") and your repeated insistence on mundane phrases (“usually given in Watts per meter2�), which I suppose you suppose makes you sound like a scientist,
your inability to distinquish between a curve that exhibits exponential behavior over an interval and a theory from which exponential behavior can be deduced,
your inability to comprehend that a derivation from first principles (which you continually demand) is not a proof (experiment and methodical observation come as close as we get to proof in science),
all the above, indicate your unfamiliarity with the topic upon which you labor to pronounce. It’s horrifying what little integrity you seem to have.

You’re always on the edge of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being religiously bound to their own view. Now i agree it's closed minded to be blindly bound to your own perspective. But judging from your other posts in this forum you're something of a religious zealot. So just what does it mean when you accuse someone of being a religionist? What kind of loopy criticism is that? You simply have no intellectual integrity and I simply have no more reason to continue of this discussion.

But before I go, hold out your hands….palms up, sweetie…yeah, just like that…HERE’S YOUR ASS.


God, Michael, you're tripping over your own bullshit again.



Radiation absorption is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated.

and since when do logs saturate? seriously why do you even try to talk maths and physics if you clearly havent got an understanding of it?


Let me just say congratulations on qualifying as a Certified Tranny Expert for making over 1000 posts. Interestingly, not one, it seems, has been on the topic of transexuality and most have consisted of tedious drivel.


I think your warning's come too late for WMC, specialK. He does seem to have a large amount of "guys in leather" pics on his hard-drive. Until today I'd only seen some of his cowboy pics and thought that was just because he's a cowboy scientist (allegedly), but after seeing his gay biker pics today I think we're all starting to see the real WMC emerge. After him freely admitting the following, I think its a sure bet that he's active on at least a few boards far more gayer than this one.

“Then I found this Forum and decided to piss off all the lemmings. One of many left-wing boards I like to enter.� White_Male_Canada.


People, you must understand that White_Male_Canada is in fact a radical serb (so called "cetnik"). As such,he's always looking forward to see the entire west world being more radical, more christian,more conservative and more fascistic in general. Every single move from red to the blue block is something wonderful to him, in his understanding it is just a step closer to radicalisation
of the christian world. It sounds crazy, but that's it.



While you were out boating I was repelling from 100 cliffs(sans harness,repell seat) and static target practicing with my trusty AR15HHBARGvt model.What I do or how I train in my spare time is none of your concern nor does it matter.

Wow...it sounds like you guys in the Canadian boy scouts are really intense...fuckin' major....dude....

And BTW, Rambo...it's rappel not repell...

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:


"You are now logged as White Male Canada, Pat Robertson"



When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

Chesterton

Love your new sig, Michael. So utterly appropriate to you.

A misquote, and not Chesterton.

http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/any-everything.htm


In any case, you've ingnored my responses to your skewed, illogical arguments and have replied with inane rhetoric. It seems to me you lack both a sense of humour and the ability to make a reasoned argument.


Luke 6:41-42 41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye

Your own spiritual blindness is showing.


Dude, were you dropped on your head when you were a child? WTF.


Still waiting for a reply from WMC, trish? You'll only get one from him if he thinks he can trump you. The man, or should I say shit, has not integrity!


You are pathetic.


Question for White_Male_Canada: If all you do is claim Jesus heals the blind and spout right-wing politics, then what are you doing on the HA boards? I have never seen you post any pictures of shemales or discuss them. Using a TS website just to discuss your own politics defeats the purpose of joining HA as opposed to FreeRepublic.

So answer me: why do you post on a TS website if you never or rarely discuss T-girls?


visit a doctor, man.... you really got mental problems.


There's that conspiracy talk again. Do you realize it makes you look stupid?

Why don't you read up a little on the subject before spouting any old rubbish? Just because Rush Limbaugh says something doesn't mean it's right.


But, just to go along with the analogy...we'd find out. It's called research for a reason.



YourCanadianDaddy, you are misstating the facts, but since Hannity always does, its understandable you would too.


Do you read this stuff before you cut and paste it?

"...likened to David Cameron for the way he dropped traditional policies to modernise his party..."
"...based his appeal around reforming rather than overhauling Sweden’s social welfare system..."
"...he beat the left on their home territory of popular state-funded health, education and social care services..."

The point of that story is that Reinfeldt won the election by moving the Moderate Party to the left.

And the title of your post is nonsensical. Sweden's Moderate Party and the Alliance for Sweden coalition that it leads have literally nothing in common with the neoconservative movement. Truly, not a single thing.

You should stick to demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. politics.


So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.


Yeh, the fucking tosser waited till he saw I was logged in, then he edited his last post. WHAT A FUCKING SNEAKY BASTARD!!!


It is a tactic as old as time. when some person, or group of people disagree with you, and you are unable to refute their claims, simply accuse them of some nefarious act or belief. Then, in order to make it seem real, repeat the charge loudly and often without regards to the truth or falsity of the charge.

You are doing a very good job of ignoring the questions and simply restating your claims.

Now I ask you what should be a simple question. How do you justify this staggering leap of illogic, a leap that Evel Knievel would not attempt. I eagerly await your reply.


Where in my statement did I say Ann Coulter was a US Senator? Why are you also using quotes from someone that has a bias? Of course, the publisher is not going to admit they are wrong for publishing the material. I thought it was funny when your proof of plagiarism of Joe Biden was some amateur website.


THAT'S IT?????? THAT'S ALL YOU GOT???? PINFUCKIN HEAD!!!..............ALL YOU CAN MUSTER IS A FEABLE ATTEMPT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH?????.................


Your arguments aren't subtle, they are incoherent and non-existent.


I doubt this retard´s into T-girls. He´s just here to spread this bullshit. Seems you got too much time, WMC.


Touche!!!! You Ms Katt are the perfect foil to White_Man_ Inna White Sheet or Your Doody or what ever the f#$k he's calling himself this time around


Talk about picking your words carefully. You didn't talk splits or percentages or past history. You said, simply:


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by more Republicans than demorats.Check the vote count

NO BS. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act.

You either misstated or misrepresented what the reality was.

Then, scrambling to cover being called on it, you start namecalling with insults, try to impugn my source (which wasn't Wikipedia, for your information) without addressing its accuracy, start flinging irrelevant and incorrect crap about Kerry, and post a mean,and demeaning but meaningless picture of Hillary.


He never admits anything.

To this day he remains a pompous prevaricator of prodigious proportions....


dont waist you time. you cant talk about whats reel with him hes in his own world and has no integrity. its why people ignore him



Felicia saved your skin by pasting the 1st and not delving into the historical aspects? Hardly.


Aww, the conversation is over? So you have no substantive argument to offer at all, just baseless slander? That's shocking, Michael. I'm shocked.


I didn't say Felicia saved my skin, I said she saved me from unraveling the issue of the separation of church and state for you. I don't need my skin saved, thank you very much.

I really have better things to do than banter with you since you're obviously right and we're obviously wrong. Gawd, I just love newbies on this friggin' board. Sigh.



The overwhelming preponderance of evidence always sends them scurrying away. (quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est)

I believe it was the overwhelmig preponderance of irrelevent crap that drove your opponent on to better things.

white male canada you just posted this shit for attention because you don't even normally post here,please crawl back to your politics section and keep posting your bullshit there.


Where did I say this? Nowhere. I said no such thing. Please, read what I wrote before you launch an attack against a position which I did not take.


The truth is usually the exact opposite to what WMC says it is.

you are sad

[specialk]

Sven...he surely isn't fooling anyone here at HA. I only wish I knew what he said at Gayland to get kicked out so fast?...Musta been a doozie :roll:

[Quinn]

LMFAO………….. Nicely done, Svenson. Don’t worry about Tinkerbell calling you “irrelevant.” When other people use something against him that he considers particularly damaging, he copies its usage. For example, posters have been calling him irrelevant for about a month now, so – as usual – he’s attempting to displace that reality onto others because he can’t face it. It's far from the first time.

He’s just desperate because he’s been caught lying, again, and his absurd argument has been crushed, again. Let his closeted sissy ass post whatever he wants. It’s no more important than the continuous laughter we experience by exposing him for the cautionary tale he has become to this forum’s posters.

-Quinn

@ Special K. Yeah, I've been wondering what Tinkerbell did to get himself banned as well. I have no doubt that it was even funnier than his ode to being a pantywaist.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

BOGUS PUSH POLL + VILLAGE IDIOT = MINCEMEAT 8)

[Quinn]

I see a certain self-loathing nancy boy is still really upset that he's been caught lying, again, and that his imbecilic argument has been obliterated, again. There there, my little sissy; everything will be alright. You can stop crying now..

-Quinn

[svenson]

white-male-canada is a looser person. he cant tell the truth that quinn caught him lieing about the wall street journal pol. hes so sad like jamie-michele