GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/02/24/americans-oppose-flight-of-wisconsin-14-their-indiana-brethren/trackback/

  1. Since lefties won’t like this poll result, it’s time for them to trot out their “Rasmussen is Hitler’s Pollster” decorations again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 1:20 pm - February 24, 2011

  2. so, i take it you don’t buy nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should now be considered a partisan pollster? rasmussen’s track record, especially in wisconsin-related polling, has been rather dubious.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - February 24, 2011

  3. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bonnie .Y. Ferguson, DNC Fail!. DNC Fail! said: Americans Oppose Flight of Wisconsin 14 (& their Indiana Brethren) http://bit.ly/eCc5h7 #tcot #tlot [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Americans Oppose Flight of Wisconsin 14 (& their Indiana Brethren) -- Topsy.com — February 24, 2011 @ 2:33 pm - February 24, 2011

  4. There it is! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 2:47 pm - February 24, 2011

  5. do you have a substantive response, ILC?

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 3:05 pm - February 24, 2011

  6. Chad, no need. Your claim about Rasmussen was too blatantly ridiculous.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 3:17 pm - February 24, 2011

  7. (continued) or substance-free, to begin with.

    Who do you think you are, Chad, writing a SUBSTANCE-FREE comment (you did not even provide a citation however flimsy), and then chiding others for responding in kind, or with appropriate lightness?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - February 24, 2011

  8. substance free? you have google and the internet, so you can look up nate silver’s blog on your own. but i guess it’s easier to remain ignorant, eh?

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 3:27 pm - February 24, 2011

  9. From reading your posts as examples, Chad, it must be.

    This is called a hyperlink. If you click on the little underlined word (don’t discriminate against it because it’s a lighter colour than the others!) It will take you to an article on HotAir that breaks down Rassmusen’s poll, putting the data out there where you can read it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 3:39 pm - February 24, 2011

  10. i read the poll’s results in the original post, so your link is redundant. and it also doesn’t answer the question i asked in the first place: does anyone dan with nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should be considered a partisan pollster? if you rely on rasmussen alone to “show” that americans oppose the actions of democrats in wisconsin, don’t expect to convince anyone to the right of sharon angle that you’re correct.

    and since google searches are apparently such an onerous task for the gaypatriots, here’s the link to silver’s analysis.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/rasmussen-poll-on-wisconsin-dispute-may-be-biased/

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - February 24, 2011

  11. and to premptively address likely attacks, yes, i know silver’s analysis relates to a different poll, but his larger point is that rasmussen has a documented bias in favor of republicans. and rasmussen’s recent polling related to wisconsin has been dubious, which casts a shadow on the results from today’s poll as well.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - February 24, 2011

  12. substance free?

    Correct.

    But hey, I’ll do it your way if you want. Your original, oh so substantive comment:

    so, i take it you don’t buy nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should now be considered a partisan pollster? rasmussen’s track record, especially in wisconsin-related polling, has been rather dubious.

    And my response, matching your same level of substance exactly:

    so, i take it you buy nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should now be considered a partisan pollster? silver’s track record, especially in wisconsin-related polling, has been rather dubious.

    There :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - February 24, 2011

  13. So now you can do the research, Chad, if you want to know why Silver’s track record in WI polling is dubious. (Which, of course, you don’t.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - February 24, 2011

  14. ilc, nate silver isn’t even a pollster. stop making a fool of yourself.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 4:15 pm - February 24, 2011

  15. Do you have a substantive response, Chad?

    We’re waiting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 4:16 pm - February 24, 2011

  16. And FTR: Wiki lists Silver as “an American statistician [and] psephologist”. So yes, he *ought to* know something about polling. (I mean, if he is going to opine on Rasmussen; not necessarily that he does.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 4:18 pm - February 24, 2011

  17. so let me get this straight. you’re attacking me for not substantively responding to your substance-free response to my comment in #2? wow. you conservatives have come a long way since the days of the “great communicator”.

    nate silver has made the case against rasmussen as an “independent” pollster. you either agree or disagree. i’ve heard a lot of nastiness on this comment thread, but not one credible reason why i should take rasmussen seriously.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 4:54 pm - February 24, 2011

  18. #17 – “wow. you conservatives have come a long way since the days of the “great communicator”.”

    Why are you trying to disparage Reagan, Chad? From what I’ve seen, your president MuBarack is trying to emulate him.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 24, 2011 @ 5:17 pm - February 24, 2011

  19. you’re attacking me for blah blah blah

    I guess we should add “reading comprehension” to the list of Chad’s potential problems.

    Actually Chad, all along here, I have just been pointing out the lack of substance in your attack on Rasmussen, and your silliness in pretending that your attack was in any way serious. If that makes you burn with shame, good on you: it means you have a conscience.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 5:30 pm - February 24, 2011

  20. Or as I put it, back at #1:

    Since lefties won’t like this poll result, it’s time for them to trot out their “Rasmussen is Hitler’s Pollster” decorations again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 5:34 pm - February 24, 2011

  21. i never called rasmussen “hitler’s pollster.” what were you saying about reading comprehension?

    and you can disagree with silver’s conclusion that rasmussen is biased. but to conclude that it’s silly or non-substantive suggests strongly that you didn’t bother to read it in the first place.

    and to you and peter h., your attempts to chasten me are unavailing. i think you are both grossly delusional about the impact of your personal attacks on me.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 5:44 pm - February 24, 2011

  22. i never called rasmussen “hitler’s pollster.

    Then, Chad, you have been doing all this flailing, twisting and turning for nothing. Because (by your present account) the comment would not apply to you.

    Why would you write comment after silly comment, flailing twisting and turning, when *you* believe that comment X (which never addressed you) does not apply to you? Is it masochism, or narcissism?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 6:31 pm - February 24, 2011

  23. why did i respond? check comment #4, which was written by…oh yeah, YOU. are you really confused about why i responded to a comment that you clearly addressed to me? if comment #4 wasn’t addressed to me, then who were you addressing it to?

    masochism and narcissism? project much, eh hector projector?

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 6:43 pm - February 24, 2011

  24. why did i respond? check comment #4

    Then all you would have needed to say was, “I dont’ believe that [calling Rasmussen Hitler's pollster] is what I was doing.” End of story.

    But actually, it *was* what you were doing – in the sense I meant. People with senses of humor understand that I was using exaggeration, for sarcastic effect. Of course I really meant: It is now time for leftists to leap in with silly attacks on Rasmussen’s objectivity.

    And you obliged me. Beautifully. But, again, if in *your own eyes* my point should not or did not apply to you, then you needn’t have. You could have said nothing, or maybe 1 sentence. I do that all the time. I see some comment on GP directed at something or somebody, and I think “Well, I know myself better than anyone and it doesn’t apply to me”, passing it by. Rarely do I leap in to plaster the comment in question all over me, taking it as personally as possible.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 6:53 pm - February 24, 2011

  25. (continued) Except for fun. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 6:54 pm - February 24, 2011

  26. (Or if it mentions me by name, reaching for my attention. But even then I might ignore it.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2011 @ 7:04 pm - February 24, 2011

  27. your ad hoc rationalizations for your childish behavior and poorly conceived commentary are unpersuasive. you should really stop digging.

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 10:58 pm - February 24, 2011

  28. i note also that in your last comment, you acknowledge, implicitly, that i did offer a substantive criticism of rasmussen’s objectivity. and yet, throughout this comment thread, you have called my commentary “substance-free.” so which is it?

    alternatively, maybe you should just take my advice and stop digging, since you become more of a sideshow with each new comment,

    Comment by Chad — February 24, 2011 @ 11:09 pm - February 24, 2011

  29. you acknowledge, implicitly, that i did offer a substantive criticism of rasmussen’s objectivity

    Reading comprehension, Chad. I know you can work on it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2011 @ 5:27 am - February 25, 2011

  30. apparently the only way you can make an argument is by slinging mud. i’d be willing to bet that you still haven’t bothered to inform yourself about rasmussen’s bias by reading silver’s critique.

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 9:44 am - February 25, 2011

  31. apparently the only way you can make an argument is by slinging mud.

    Again reading comprehension, Chad. Keep at it.

    The above quote is, of course, a bit of mud-slinging on *your* part that I already dealt with in several comments:

    #6 – [there was] no need [to address] Your claim about Rasmussen [as it] was too blatantly ridiculous or substance-free, to begin with..

    #12 – so, i take it you buy nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should now be considered a partisan pollster? silver’s track record, especially in wisconsin-related polling, has been rather dubious… So now you can do the research, Chad, if you want to know why Silver’s track record in WI polling is dubious. (Which, of course, you don’t.)
    #16 – And FTR: Wiki lists Silver as “an American statistician [and] psephologist”. So yes, he *ought to* know something about polling. (I mean, if he is going to opine on Rasmussen; not necessarily that he does.)
    #15 – Do you have a substantive response [to that]? [No.]

    #19 – Actually Chad, all along here, I have just been pointing out the lack of substance in your attack on Rasmussen, and your silliness in pretending that your attack was in any way serious.

    #24 – Of course [my initial crack at #1] really meant: It is now time for leftists to leap in with silly attacks on Rasmussen’s objectivity. And you obliged me. Beautifully.

    That last one Chad, about your having leapt in to beautifully oblige my prediction that started all this, is called a “statement of fact”.

    Is it that, in the world of left-liberals, statements of fact are called “mud-slinging” when the leftie doesn’t like them? I’ve certainly observed that before. Or is it a reading comprehension issue, like I’ve been saying?

    Anyway Chad, best of luck to you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2011 @ 10:57 am - February 25, 2011

  32. Per Chadwick: “i think you are both grossly delusional about the impact of your personal attacks on me.”

    Well, if anyone knows about gross delusions, it would be you, dear.

    Like ILC (whom I’ve met and is a wonderful man, btw), I don’t offer anything except facts and observations – and if someone mentions me by name, then I will address them if I see fit.

    And from what I’ve seen of your inane posts, you would be giving Joan Rivers enough material under the theme “stupid” for years.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 25, 2011 @ 11:09 am - February 25, 2011

  33. what are you, like 12? grow up.

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 11:23 am - February 25, 2011

  34. The Mud-Flinging Victim. The individual who flings mud at others, including the accusation that others are mud-flingers – as part of an effort to simultaneously play the role of Victim.

    I’ve dealt with Chad’s species before. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 25, 2011

  35. yup ilc, your hands are totally clean. you definitely didn’t misrepresent my views, belittle legitimate criticism by calling it “silly” and “non-substantive”, and say i have trouble with reading comprehension. you’ve been nothing but a freaking saint.

    contrary to your naked assertion (veiled, incidentally, as another personal attack) i’m not interested in playing victim. i’m interested in having a adult conversation. you aren’t.

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - February 25, 2011

  36. Of course you are, Chad. Like most teenagers, you want to play at being an adult;you just don’t want to meet the standards of fact, rationality, or emotional control required.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2011 @ 12:49 pm - February 25, 2011

  37. oh that’s rich, a lecture in rationality from nd30. the same nd30 who thinks anyone to the left of sarah palin is a “child rapist” or a “gay-sex liberal”, whatever the hell that means.

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - February 25, 2011

  38. And, as expected, adolescent Chad throws a screaming tantrum about how mean and awful the adults who correct him are.

    No wonder Chad needs hiring quotas based on minority status. Businesses have no interest in hiring people like himself who scream and whine and namecall whenever their fallacies and mistakes are corrected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - February 25, 2011

  39. and, as expected, nd30 sprints to the bottom of the barrel. since he’s incapable of responding coherently to a criticism of rasmussen’s polling methodology, he bleats about hiring quotas and accuses me of fallacies that he can’t even articulate. typical empty diversion.

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - February 25, 2011

  40. #39 – This is rich, coming from someone who obviously can’t find the “Shift” button on his keyboard.

    e.e. cummings is SO 30 years ago, honey.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 25, 2011 @ 2:57 pm - February 25, 2011

  41. oh pete. you slay me with your wit!

    Comment by Chad — February 25, 2011 @ 3:30 pm - February 25, 2011

  42. Actually, Chad, if you had demonstrated the ability to move beyond adolescent tantrums, it would be fine. But you came in screaming that Rasmussen was wrong and that anyone who disagreed with you was an ignorant poopyhead. Thus, you are called out as an immature adolescent because you display said reasoning pattern.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - February 26, 2011

  43. nd30, your last post is ridiculous, though i’m impressed that you managed to cobble together a comment without the words “child-rapist” or “gay-sex liberal.” you’ve expanded your repetoire of smears.

    regardless, your post is nothing but an absurd personal attack, which strongly suggests that you found my argument too difficult to understand. people with great minds talk about ideas; people with average minds talk about things; people with small minds talk about other people. guess which category you fit into?

    Comment by Chad — February 26, 2011 @ 10:23 pm - February 26, 2011

  44. people with great minds talk about ideas; people with average minds talk about things; people with small minds talk about other people. guess which category you fit into?

    Which is why, chad, your posts consist solely of the following:

    so, i take it you don’t buy nate silver’s assessment that rasmussen should now be considered a partisan pollster?

    substance free? you have google and the internet, so you can look up nate silver’s blog on your own. but i guess it’s easier to remain ignorant, eh?

    ilc, nate silver isn’t even a pollster. stop making a fool of yourself.

    and to you and peter h., your attempts to chasten me are unavailing. i think you are both grossly delusional about the impact of your personal attacks on me.

    masochism and narcissism? project much, eh hector projector?

    your ad hoc rationalizations for your childish behavior and poorly conceived commentary are unpersuasive. you should really stop digging.

    alternatively, maybe you should just take my advice and stop digging, since you become more of a sideshow with each new comment,

    apparently the only way you can make an argument is by slinging mud.

    oh that’s rich, a lecture in rationality from nd30. the same nd30 who thinks anyone to the left of sarah palin is a “child rapist” or a “gay-sex liberal”, whatever the hell that means.

    Thus, as your own analysis demonstrates, you are clearly small-minded.

    That is, if you would apply your own rules to yourself. But your hypocrisy is so obvious and blatant that you don’t, just like a teenager who wants adult privileges without having adult responsibilities.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2011 @ 12:40 am - February 27, 2011

  45. yeah nd30, and i suppose you consider yourself immune to such scrutiny. so what ideas or thoughts have you contributed to this discussion?

    Comment by Chad — February 27, 2011 @ 2:12 am - February 27, 2011

  46. and you do realize that all the quotes you so dilligently lifted were responses to other people, right? context matters. and pointing out that you have called many people on this blog “child rapists” isn’t a personal attack–it’s a fact.

    Comment by Chad — February 27, 2011 @ 2:44 am - February 27, 2011

  47. Chad: You are indeed a childish hypocrite. It’s a free country and a free blog, so do continue your campaign of insulting-the-individual-while-pretending-you-don’t, by all means. But NEVER… EVER… think that we’re co-operating. Never think that we don’t all see right through you. EVERY single time you post an insult on somebody here, whether straightforward or indirect, you should think to yourself “Everybody sees through me… I, Chad, truly am a petty hypocrite, and everybody knows it.” We do. Just keeping you informed of the facts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2011 @ 8:10 pm - February 27, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.294 Powered by Wordpress