Leaving the community

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Greg Butler wrote:

He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day --
all
the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!"


The funny part is that is exactly right.

Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO
work. :-)

Obviously there are exceptions

No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another
poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry.

Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say
what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to
represent the unpolled.

Since David is gone I guess I am asking anyone who cares to venture a
guess. What does the president have to do with these news groups?
Especially with the ending statements of "Thanks for all the
conversations. You guys have made me a better pilot." He doesn't like
the president so he is giving up a resource that can make him a better
pilot?

Just does not sound like a person that thinks rationally.



David Brooks wrote:

One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

Jay Honeck wrote:

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."


That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of
Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.


Agreed. I don't like everything about Bush but there was no way I was
going to vote for a guy claiming he will fight a smarter war on terror
and defend the country at the same time he takes a poll to see how he
should respond to the latest Bin Laden video.

Bush at least has firm beliefs in how things should be handled.

And now I am getting too political so I will end by saying I wish more
of my friends would try flying.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote:
That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

Aww take it easy, David. I'm appalled that my fellow citizens would
re-elect Bush but, still, some of my best friends are Republicans. Hell,
my business partner is just a hair to the right of Gengis Khan.

Sometimes the hyperbole gets a little too far over the top -- C J is
certainly a prime practitioner of the art --


Speaking of CJ... he hasn't been heard from in a week or more????

NEVER EVER vote against a candidate! If you are voting against one
person that means you are assuming the person whose name you select will
be better without actually knowing.

If you get to a fork in the road and one way gets to where you want to
go but is gravel rutted out and pot marked with large puddles while the
other way is paved and looks like a pretty decent road but you have no
idea where it leads, which way do you take knowing once you decide, you
can not turn back?

It always bothers me when someone says they voted against someone
because that tells me they don't really know who they voted for. All
they know is that they don't like one candidate.

Now if you get to a fork in the road and decide you know you don't want
to go where one road leads and have no idea where the other leads, then
maybe you should have stopped and asked for directions.

More people really need to vote in the primaries.





Bob Chilcoat wrote:

I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for that
matter, the back of my hair goes up. What thinking individual could vote
FOR this idiot. I guess my version of the least-bad candidate was the same
as only 49.9% of the rest of the country.

Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
function.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been

close.

The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left

of

Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
No, a fact is an invariant.

Really?

So, a statement regarding the position of the sun during the day isn't a
fact? After all, it varies continuously throughout the day.

You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".

Yes, most of these polls have significant biases.


Such as?

Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they poll
(as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until after
the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors.

Only an ignorant asshole would seriously claim that all Republicans work
while all Democrats are on welfare.

Oh, I'm starting to see what your problem is...

In any case, if you have a legitimate beef with the polls in question, state
them. So far, you've made no suggestions about why those polls are
significantly wrong, and as I've already pointed out, the chances of those
polls being correct are MUCH greater than the chances of them being
drastically incorrect.

Pete

Icebound wrote:


It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...


Some liberals may like to think that they are more progressive than
conservatives because they want to see a woman president. But
regardless of party lines, my take on it is that if you are one of those
people want to see a woman president than you are a sexist. Those that
don't bring it up either are not voicing their oppinion or truely don't
care. And it is those that truely don't care whether the president is
male or female that are the more progressive.

When it comes to racism, sexism, etc., those that are the loudest about
it are those that have the problem. Jesse Jackson for instance is one
of the biggest racists out there and he gets away with it because of his
past and because he is famous. And how do you accuse someone like that
of being what they claim to be against?

"When you obsess about the enemy, you become the enemy."
- May be a quote from Babylon 5, not sure. Great show though.

Cecil Chapman wrote:

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left
of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.


I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they do.
Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like T.
Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party to
hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

snip

Clinton was centrist? He may seem that way if he parallels your own
beliefs. But he is well left.

Most people like to think of themselves as well rounded and
accommodating to those on either side of them. But typically you are
more one side or the other. Hence those that fall on the same area of
the scale as you do seem to be centrist and the type of person you would
like to see running the country.

Just don't forget the President doesn't actually run the country. There
are three branches of government after all. For example, don't blame
the president for a deficit. The president asks for money to do what he
or she thinks needs to be done but it is up to congress to give it to
him or her. If you don't like government spending, write your
representative in congress. That is what they are there for. And they
generally reply on some nice letter head.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:38:26 -0700, Newps wrote:



Dave Stadt wrote:



You would be hard pressed to prove that. Polls are at best one step above a
WAG.

Science proves it. But, everything has to go right for the poll to
achieve that margin of error. First you must get a represenative random
sample. This rarely happens, there's always a little error here.
Second the questions must not be skewed one way or the other. Third,
the people must tell the truth. This also never happens. They always
give the margin of error when you see a poll, this is a theoretical
number that cannot be reached because no poll will ever be truly random,
somebody always lies, or says they're someone their not, etc. One of
the pollsters on TV this week said that to get the 850+ responses for a
+-3% poll they had to call over 10,000 people. With those kinds of
problems no way can a poll be anymore than a guess.

This is really a hoot. We wouldn't be talking about this at all if
the exit polls hadn't been so wrong. There's the proof. As to why
this happened, my theory is that there is a systematic bias error
because people who voted for Bush had better things to do with their
time than talk to the pollster. Same thing with the phone polls,
9,150 people were too busy to talk to the pollster and there is a
bias that affects the results in that.

Klein