Jump to content

Let me save you the trouble and scream


Recommended Posts

I can almost see the responses in my mind as I type this... :o

 

Yes, it's from Berkely, but the findings are rather interesting if you actually look at the analysis.

 

The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush

in the 2004 Florida Elections

 

Summary:

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may

have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.

Bush in Florida.

- Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic

voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases

in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect

cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,

number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of

Hispanic/Latino population.

- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received

approximately 72,000 excess votes.

- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to

chance.

 

Front Page

 

Summary (pdf)

 

Take it for what it's worth, Bushies. I'm sure you've already dismissed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can almost see the responses in my mind as I type this... :o

 

Yes, it's from Berkely, but the findings are rather interesting if you actually look at the analysis.

Front Page

 

Summary (pdf)

 

Take it for what it's worth, Bushies.  I'm sure you've already dismissed it.

125403[/snapback]

Yep, it's a big giant conspiracy that the media has been setting up for the past 2 years. Now they get to talk about the conclusion.

 

Same thing they did four years ago when so many minorities were disenfranchised.

 

This stuff just never gets old. :lol: These people are amazingly incompetent and prove the absurdity of this stuff through their actions every day. But hey, the newspaper's reporting it. That means it must be true.

 

A Berkely website? Yeah, that's credible. No agenda there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it's a big giant conspiracy that the media has been setting up for the past 2 years.  Now they get to talk about the conclusion.

 

Same thing they did four years ago when so many minorities were disenfranchised.

 

This stuff just never gets old.  :o  These people are amazingly incompetent and prove the absurdity of this stuff through their actions every day.  But hey, the newspaper's reporting it.  That means it must be true.

 

A Berkely website?  Yeah, that's credible.  No agenda there.

125419[/snapback]

Ladies and gentlemen, our first (of likely many) sub-5-minute analysis of the data presented. "After carefully reviewing the findings, I say this is BS!" I wonder how long your mouse pointer hovered over the 'Add Reply' button before you just had to click?

 

Why do I even bother? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, our first (of likely many) sub-5-minute analysis of the data presented.  "After carefully reviewing the findings, I say this is BS!"  I wonder how long your mouse pointer hovered over the 'Add Reply' button before you just had to click?

 

Why do I even bother? :o

125430[/snapback]

With garbage like that? I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in order to my response to be deemed "worthy" in Tennyboy's eyes, I have to carefully review and conduct analysis of the data and must come up with a conclusion that agrees with his.

 

Makes sense.

 

On Mars, maybe.

 

The elections over, kid. You lost. Get over it. There was no "fraud". There were no "roadblocks". There were no "thugs" at the polls "disenfrachising" the "poor black, dumb folk". The owner of Diebold didnt meet with Bush, Karl Rove didnt meet with bin Laden and slip him a script and a blank VHS tape. And just because the great great great great great Grandfather of the guy in the mailroom at Gallup is an Evangelical, that doesnt mean their polls are biased.

 

But you guys just keep throwing stuff on the wall. Something will stick soon enough. Try using "aliens" as an excuse.....or maybe the Loch Ness Monster. Those might work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With garbage like that?  I have no idea.

125432[/snapback]

How about actually looking at the stats and conclusions and refuting what was found instead of saying "It's from Berkley, so it must be wrong!" This is a statistical analysis based on freely available public records. Numbers can be manipulated, true, but this is not an opinion piece, it's a mathematical interpretation of statistical data. Either their argument is statistically viable or it is not. If you believe it is not, then by all means, show why it is not.

 

You're argument is the equilavent of many here who slammed Fahrenheit 9/11 for being full of lies without even seeing the movie. They may be correct, but they're automatic knee-jerk reaction ensures that they will never really know one way or another. I'd expect more from a self-proclaimed free-thinker such as yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in order to my response to be deemed "worthy" in Tennyboy's eyes, I have to carefully review and conduct analysis of the data and must come up with a conclusion that agrees with his.

 

Makes sense.

 

On Mars, maybe.

 

The elections over, kid. You lost. Get over it. There was no "fraud". There were no "roadblocks". There were no "thugs" at the polls "disenfrachising" the "poor black, dumb folk". The owner of Diebold didnt meet with Bush, Karl Rove didnt meet with bin Laden and slip him a script and a blank VHS tape and just because the great great great great great Grandfather of the guy in the mailroom at Gallup is an Evangelical, that doesnt mean their polls are biased.

 

But you guys just keep throwing stuff on the wall. Something will stick soon enough. Try using "aliens" as an excuse.....or maybe the Loch Ness Monster. Those might work.

125445[/snapback]

You're still convinced I'm Tennyboy? Well, that certainly proves that you don't know what you're talking about. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Berkeley prof says that this "report" is pure BS.

 

Stats can make "data" say anything you want it to.

 

I think the prof should worry about the Big Game (Cal vs. Stanford) tomorrow and how it affects Cal's Bowl chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Berkeley prof says that this "report" is pure BS.

 

Stats can make "data" say anything you want it to.

 

I think the prof should worry about the Big Game (Cal vs. Stanford) tomorrow and how it affects Cal's Bowl chances.

125466[/snapback]

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful logic, refute the paper by slamming the University.  Nice analysis.

125508[/snapback]

 

Go cry it off.

 

Find a halfway credible university and maybe someone will read the paper they produce (and even then there are no guarantees because a lot of garbage comes from and is published by major universities).

 

Berkeley? Golly, I sure hope Michael Moore's analysis comes to the same conclusion. That'd be an airtight case right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can almost see the responses in my mind as I type this... :D

 

Yes, it's from Berkely, but the findings are rather interesting if you actually look at the analysis.

Front Page

 

Summary (pdf)

 

Take it for what it's worth, Bushies.  I'm sure you've already dismissed it.

125403[/snapback]

 

 

Yup...that all sounds about right. We made sure to steal about 1.2 million votes, spread across key states to ensure the proper election results. We also have the big media in our hip pocket, so outside of the truth and freedom fighters in places like Berkeley, no one will even know what really happened.

 

Straight up, Bush only won about 22 states, the rest we scammed from the vote fraud.

 

Anyway, we're already well on the way to a repeat performance in 2008, by then we'll have even more infrastructure in place to ensure another beat down for the libs, no matter what the will of the people might be.

 

Congratuations on finding the truth. Of course, there is nothing you can do about it, so just lie back and enjoy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link for the other prof or the big game? :D

 

Sorry, no link. I heard it on the local radio station this morning. I live in the Bay area.

125502[/snapback]

You are probably thinking about Prof. Henry Brady, a Pol. Sci. professor at Berk. There was a different flap over the votes Bush received in certain counties in comparison to the number of registered Republicans. Typically only around 14% of democrats voted for Bush in Florida so if you add that to the registered republicans in a county, you should get something close to his actual total but in fact, he has much larger numbers. Brady, along with some other academics from Howard and Cornell showed that there was in fact no hanky panky suggested by that data. The study that started this thread however is an entirely different analysis which hasn't, at least in my little corner of the media stream, been vetted by many experts yet. It would be easy to confuse the stuff Brady debunked with this new allegation which has yet to be verified or trashed. Well, at least not so I have noticed. The weekend is young yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weekend is young yet.

125542[/snapback]

 

yes there is still plenty of time for wacky conspiracy theories! there's still 48 hours to prove GW is a Roswell Grey using space time manipulation to alter the outcome of the election!

 

Go forth! The weekend is young and the world needs you! I'll stay back this weekend to guard the women and beer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...