BillsNYC Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html Are you f-ing kidding me????? YOU LOST BECAUSE 59 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. YOU ALLIGNED YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL MOORE AND MADONNA AND ALIENATED ALL OF MIDDLE AMERICA! YOU NEVER TOOK A SOLID STANCE ON ANYTHING! GET IT THROUGH YOUR F-ING THICK SKULL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 KERRY=CASTRO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Always comforting when you hear a man like John Kerry parrot a Communist Dictator and America's arch-enemy. Not only that, but OBL's tape read right from Fat-Ass Moore's talking points. How does that HELP Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Give Kerry a couple of days and he'll change his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html Are you f-ing kidding me????? YOU LOST BECAUSE 59 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. YOU ALLIGNED YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL MOORE AND MADONNA AND ALIENATED ALL OF MIDDLE AMERICA! YOU NEVER TOOK A SOLID STANCE ON ANYTHING! GET IT THROUGH YOUR F-ING THICK SKULL!!! 124740[/snapback] I didn't think it was possible to dislike Kerry even more after the election was over. Guess I was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I'm sorry...when I read a Fox News Exclusive about something Kerry said to Geraldo Rivera, I can't help thinking that somebody somewhere FUBAR'd the story to the point where it's not remotely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html Are you f-ing kidding me????? YOU LOST BECAUSE 59 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. YOU ALLIGNED YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL MOORE AND MADONNA AND ALIENATED ALL OF MIDDLE AMERICA! YOU NEVER TOOK A SOLID STANCE ON ANYTHING! GET IT THROUGH YOUR F-ING THICK SKULL!!! 124740[/snapback] Maybe Ted and him can share a drink together, and drown their sorrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I'm sorry...when I read a Fox News Exclusive about something Kerry said to Geraldo Rivera, I can't help thinking that somebody somewhere FUBAR'd the story to the point where it's not remotely accurate. 124839[/snapback] I try to avoid FOX News like the plague, but this story reminds me of the Bush DUI story that intentionally broke the weekend before the 2000 election. There's just too much irony this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I'm sorry...when I read a Fox News Exclusive about something Kerry said to Geraldo Rivera, I can't help thinking that somebody somewhere FUBAR'd the story to the point where it's not remotely accurate. 124839[/snapback] Rivera found Kerry's comments in Al Capone's secret vault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 YOU LOST BECAUSE 59 MILLION AMERICANS 58+ million voted bush, 54 million voted kerry. That's 112+ million out of the nearly 220 million of eligible voters. 100 million people voted for none of the above. Neither party ever has a mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 58+ million voted bush, 54 million voted kerry. That's 112+ million out of the nearly 220 million of eligible voters. 100 million people voted for none of the above. Neither party ever has a mandate. 124906[/snapback] No, that last 100 million *didn't* vote. If they all had voted for neither Bush nor Kerry, the election would've been a lot different. But they didn't. You don't fit into the mandate equation if you don't vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 58+ million voted bush, 54 million voted kerry. That's 112+ million out of the nearly 220 million of eligible voters. 100 million people voted for none of the above. Neither party ever has a mandate. 124906[/snapback] Of course they have a mandate. If you can't be bothered to get off your lazy ass and vote, than your opinion is worth stevestojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 No, that last 100 million *didn't* vote. If they all had voted for neither Bush nor Kerry, the election would've been a lot different. But they didn't. You don't fit into the mandate equation if you don't vote. 124922[/snapback] Maybe if "none of the above" was an option on the ballots more people would vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 58+ million voted bush, 54 million voted kerry. That's 112+ million out of the nearly 220 million of eligible voters. 100 million people voted for none of the above. Neither party ever has a mandate. 124906[/snapback] WRONGO !!! Statistically, once your population sample size reaches a certain number, it correctly predicts the final outcome +/- some error tolerance and will not be that far off from the percentages determined from a sufficiently large enough subset of the entire population. However, there could be more variances than one might expect in the final electoral college counts. But, they would not be significant. This only works if the subset population accurately reflects the same characteristics as the total population. This would not work if for example you excluded ALL city dwellers, or all blacks, or all women, etc. Also, this was NOT a choice between the lesser of two evils or even a choice between just two people because you have to account for the fact that Kerry did win a "runoff" against more than 10 others and even those 10 had to be selected from a larger number of potential candidates. And GWB had to do the same in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Statistically, once your population sample size reaches a certain number, it correctly predicts the final outcome +/- some error tolerance You are making an assumption that those 100 million wanted to vote for one of the candidates running. I am adding the variable that many of those 100 million did not want to vote for any of the choices which changes the parameters. As far as primaries go - what percentage of people voted there - 20 %? (I don't have the actual figure.) So kerry was the lesser of 10 and bush was the lesser of 10 and then bush was the lesser of 2. That's inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Perhaps if Mr. Kerry had positioned himself more as a pro-war anti-terrorism candidate, the presence of the bin laden tape wouldnt have hurt him so much. But with his global test, and votes against the war, something like that was bound to do him in. Good riddance Mr. Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 58+ million voted bush, 54 million voted kerry. That's 112+ million out of the nearly 220 million of eligible voters. 100 million people voted for none of the above. Neither party ever has a mandate. 124906[/snapback] I didn't know Michael Moore posted on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I didn't know Michael Moore posted on this board? 125029[/snapback] I'll take his money. Or GBs for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Maybe if "none of the above" was an option on the ballots more people would vote. 124936[/snapback] Yeah right. You can vote without actually voting for a Presidential candidate. When you're in the booth, there are plenty of positions to vote for. "None of the above" *is* an option. But 100 million of us couldn't even be bothered to say that. If they had, they'd have at least sent a message that there are 100 million voters out there waiting for someone to appeal to them. Again, they did not. They didn't do anything. If 100 million voters had declined to select a Presidential candidate, maybe there'd be a shred of weight to your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Perhaps if Mr. Kerry had positioned himself more as a pro-war anti-terrorism candidate, the presence of the bin laden tape wouldnt have hurt him so much. But with his global test, and votes against the war, something like that was bound to do him in. Good riddance Mr. Kerry 125005[/snapback] Ahhhhh, soundbites... Spin, spin, spin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts