November 08, 2004
Michael Moore Blames Angelina Jolie for Bush 'Stealing' the Election
A buddy of mine, who is also a lefty, has been trying to make sense of this report being pimped by Michael Moore and gang that Bush stole the election by sending super-secret hackers (I imagine Angelina Jolie) in through a backdoor left open by the Diebold Cororation. He's been bugging me to try to explain it. To be honest, every time I think of hackers my mind wanders to Angelina Jolie, which inevitably leads me to a Google Image Search.....Anyway where was I? Oh, yeah, how to respond? I'll let Frank J. do the talking, since I'm back doing a Google Image Search anyway:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Nuts. Plain nuts.I'm trying to respond but Angelina Jolie, like Ulysses' sirens, keeps pulling me from the point at hand!! Anyone have a better reply?
Posted by: Rusty at
08:17 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Alright...so after I looked at Angelina for a while...I made my way over to fat...er...Michael Moore's site and read his little essay. And in typical Moore fashion he'll convince a ton of people. But he bases his argument on a few things...
1. The election day pollsters had to be right for this to play out.
2. That means the voting machines were wrong (i.e. hacked)
BUT he fails to point out:
3. That means the pre-election day pollsters were wrong (and several of them were darn close to getting the election right).
So in Moore's world...2 things have to be lies for his theory to be true.
In my world...Michael Moore is an ass.
Posted by: Jeremy at November 08, 2004 08:53 PM (/U19w)
2
ALL ass, if you "ass" me.
Posted by: Vinnyboy at November 08, 2004 08:58 PM (ptOpl)
3
Because if there were any chance in Hades that the Diebold machines were rigged, John Kerry's 10,000-lawyer army would have sued already.
Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at November 08, 2004 10:02 PM (sVlFI)
4
Rusty:
I'm in the midst of something or I'd post in more detail, but just a quick note. It appears that they're comparing the exit polls with the actual count, without considering that:
1. An estimate has a margin of error, and therefore isn't directly comparable to a count; and
2. The exit polls were conducted and released gradually throughout the day. The Finals probably had a margin of error of plus or minus 4% (total of 8%) but earlier polls would have had a wider margin.
Bottom line: Statistically there isn't much difference between the exit polls (at least the finals) and the count. What difference does exist can be explained by oversampling, etc.
Someone needs to explain to those guys what a prediction interval is.
Sorry I haven't been around. I've been stressing over this project that has been languishing for too long.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 08, 2004 11:05 PM (OtR16)
5
Gawddangit, Rusty! My girlfriend was in the room!
Posted by: Editor at November 08, 2004 11:38 PM (uurD1)
6
... and on top of that she's got James Dobson's show playing on the radio, right now.
What? You think that whole scenario is funny?
Good thing I spent the $5 on that Martha Stewart's Living magazine at the grocery store tonight - it held her attention just long enough to click the back button. By the way, is Martha running the publication from prison.
Posted by: Editor at November 08, 2004 11:44 PM (uurD1)
7
http://leenks.com/redirect.php?lid=3783
angelina jolie and others...leenks.com is funny
Posted by: Mr. K at November 09, 2004 01:05 PM (hBz0t)
20kb generated in CPU 0.0123, elapsed 0.12 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1136 seconds, 256 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1136 seconds, 256 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
