On 10/21/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my point remains, 29% (being generous) is no mandate.

While 29% is certainly not a mandate, that's also not what the numbers
show unless you choose to tell only half of the story. Your argument
implies that 100% of non-voters and 100% of non-voting eligible voters
would have voted for someone else.  Or said a different way, that 100%
of Bush supporters actually voted and that number was only 29% of all
Americans.

I see what you are trying to say, but this sort of false statistical
non-sense is exactly what the hate filled media (on both sides) is
using to prop up their ratings by feeding their respecitve audiences
bullshit that supports their agendas (usually followed by a screaming
fit of rage directed at a guest).

By regurgitating these crappy stats you are essentially supporting a
propoganda campain designed to keep America split right up the middle.
 It's a statistically unsound crap statement and I know you're too
smart not to know it - it just sounds sensational and supports your
argument.  Worse, there ARE people out there who don't know any better
and don't realise it's a totally false manipulation of the actual
statistics.

-Cameron

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Purchase Captivate from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and 
support the CF community.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=52

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:177746
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to