Leaving the community

"Laura Clayton" wrote in message
...
Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
their world views.

Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool over
60% of the people.

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

No matter how you slice it however, the endless litany of complaints,
criticisms and Monday morning quarterbacking that cam out of Kerry's
mouth is what turned a lot of people off. Anybody can bitch about stuff.

Kerry had 20 years in the senate to do some constructive things what the
hell was he doing all that time (besides wind-surfing and playing golf).



Peter Duniho wrote:

I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
straight. This is not disputable.

Pete

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If you apply any intellectual honesty to the campaign rhetoric out of
the Kerry/Edwards duo you would certainly conclude that the facts were
not in total alignment.

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. I have never said, nor
do I believe, that Kerry was all that great a candidate. I am strictly
addressing the *facts* that Bush had his chance to prove what kind of
President he'd be, and he wound up being a lying, war-mongering one.

Maybe Kerry would've been too...who knows? But at least he'd have been a
*different* lying, war-mongering President.

Neither candidate ran what I felt was a "stellar" race. They both said all
sorts of things that were either outright false or only half-true. But only
one of the candidates lied about the conditions under which he'd attack
Iraq, as well as whether and how Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda at all, and then
later continued to lie about whether he'd lied.

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made. Contrary to what Laura apparently would like
to believe, this isn't just an issue about "fellow voters who simply do not
agree with [someone else's] world views". The "fellow voters" aren't even
in possession of the facts.

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with Bush.
That's fine. But when a person simply doesn't know the facts or refuses to
believe the facts, and then bases a decision on *that*, I find that to be a
clear indication of a lack of intelligence. Just as Bob implies, and to
which Laura took (inappropriate) offense.

Pete

I agree with much of what you said except the below assessment:

Peter Duniho wrote:
But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the whole,
simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that contradict
everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay attention to those
reports when they were made.

If this is true, then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their claims
as well. Kerry failed to make his case to the vast majority of America.
The exception was the Democratic bastions of the northeast and the left coast.
Those areas of the country would vote for the democratic candidate if it
was Alfred E. Newman, admit it!

When it is all said and done, most Americans felt like they could sleep
better at night voting for Bush (myself included). More of us were voting
*for* a ticket as opposed to *against* one.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If this is true,

It is true. Factual reports provide the facts, polls provide the
information regarding what people believe.

then I submit that people who voted for Kerry and Edwards
refused to believe any factual reports that contradicted many of their
claims as well.

Perhaps. As far as I know, there is no polling data on that. However,
there are "little lies" and there are "big lies". IMHO, "big lies" are the
ones where thousands of people die. Kerry hasn't made any of those "big
lies".

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
...polls provide the information regarding what people believe.

Uh huh. Which polls are these?

A well-known, well-respected polling organization. Gallup. Maybe you've
heard of them?

Are they compiled by the same ones compiling the exit polling data?

Gallup is, I believe, one of the companies that do exit polling as well.

Pete

Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones
compiling the exit polling data?

This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls
on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like you
should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened.
Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete, i.e.
around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed. The blogging community took
the leak and ran with it. Of course those numbers are not going to be
accurate since the poll is not yet finished! The polling data at the end of
the day was accuate. And yes, the demographic and rationale data is just as
accurate.

Peter Duniho wrote:

But the real issue here is that the people who voted for Bush, on the
whole, simply either refuse to believe the factual reports that
contradict everything Bush claimed and claims, or failed to pay
attention to those reports when they were made.

So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts". How do you reconcile that
argument with this statement from the same post?:

I can respect someone that fully understands what Bush did, and still
decides that in the greater scheme of things we're better off with
Bush. That's fine.

If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters fully
understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than
Kerry?

Man, talk about sour grapes...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
So, just to confirm, you're saying that anybody voting for Bush failed to
pay attention or chose to ignore "the facts".

I'm not saying at that all. You need reading lessons, I guess.

If "that's fine", then why can't you just admit that 51% of the voters
fully understood what Bush did and still decided we're better off with
him than Kerry?

Why would I admit something that's not true? 51% did not act as you claim.
Extrapolating from the Gallup data, 18% of the voters fully understood what
Bush did and still decided we're better off with him than Kerry. 33% did
not fully understand what Bush did and yet made the same decision.

Pete