Started by Marc.Knight, March 17, 2011, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: b_dubb on March 10, 2014, 03:09:04 PMLittle boys?
Quote from: b_dubb on March 10, 2014, 03:33:13 PMNah I just followed your comment to its logical conclusion. So does this mean you're on a first name basis with Gary Gliitter?
Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 10, 2014, 03:43:13 PMWell, whomever Mr. Glitter is, you certainly appear to know far more about him than I. Perhaps you are trying to ''reach out''. A cry for help, perhaps?
Quote from: b_dubb on March 10, 2014, 03:51:58 PMI'm not the one getting handjobs from little Thai boys.
Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 10, 2014, 03:58:50 PMYour friend, Mr. Glitter, does that, does he? And he tells you all about it, I'm assuming.
Quote from: b_dubb on March 10, 2014, 04:06:05 PMAgain you're the one making trips to Thailand for sketchy massages. Your confusion may be due to an advanced STD that you may have picked up from one of your friends. You're going to want to see a doctor about that ASAP.
Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 10, 2014, 01:56:19 PMIf they were the kind of massages I used to get in Thailand...
Quote from: b_dubb on March 10, 2014, 04:40:35 PMSo what kind of massages were you getting in Thailand that weren't available here in the US?
Quote from: ONeill on March 09, 2015, 01:39:32 PMLimbaugh is great, even when I disagree with him completely.But I have one thing against him - when I want to pirate some torrents of Rush (the band) performances all I get as results are pirated Limbaugh shows. FUCK YOU YOU FAT BLOB!
QuoteLimbaugh is great, even when I disagree with him completely.
Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 18, 2015, 02:11:37 PMRoss Perot did not cost H W Bush the election.
Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 18, 2015, 05:08:12 PM1.I wouldn't take Rush's word for anything, not what he first says, or even when he rebuts himself. This also disputes Rush's later claim: In 1992, 53 percent of those who backed Perot for president described themselves as moderate, with 27 percent calling themselves conservative and 20 percent liberal, according to the exit polls.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041701613.html2.Some of them may have been traditional Republican voters, but there was also a desire to throw H W Bush out. The exit polls show that 1/3 of Perot voters would have voted for H W, 1/3 would have voted for Clinton and 1/3 would not have voted.3.Even if you disagree with the above stats, H W lost by nearly 6% and Perot received 19% of the vote. Simple math shows that H W would have needed nearly 2/3 of Perot voters to win the popular vote, assuming that every Perot voter would have voted. Highly unlikely to the point of being impossible.4.Of course, the popular vote does not decide the Presidency but the electoral college vote does. Republican pollsters at the time agreed that the only states that went to Clinton that may have gone to H W without Perot being on the ballot was Montana (Dole won Montana in 1996). Obviously Montana would not have altered the electoral college vote outcome. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/5.So, we know by exit vote, we know by simple math and we know by the electoral college totals that Clinton would have defeated H W without Perot on the ballot. The only argument left is that Perot changed the dynamic of the election and aided Clinton. This is obviously counterfactual and can't be proved one way or the other with any definity. What we do know that is that Perot dropped out of the race for around two months and during that time, Clinton actually gained slightly in the polls, not H W. In fact, it was argued by some at the time Perot reentered the race, that his reentry would cost Clinton the election. Upon Perot's departure:Departure Of Perot Could Hurt Bush MoreA surprising number of Republican strategists were talking defeat yesterday. Some fretting publicly, and some grousing privately, but their message was the same:http://articles.philly.com/1992-07-17/news/26026358_1_perot-voters-perot-and-clinton-democrat-bill-clintonClinton reaps the rewards of Perot's withdrawal. And George Bush's re- election effort is in serious, serious trouble. While it is certainly true that Perot mainly set his fire upon H W, he also went after Clinton ("going from Governor of Arkansas to President of the United States is like going from managing a small business to being CEO of Wallmart".) It's also true that Clinton was doing fine on his own going after H W.So it seems even the 'dynamic' argument is dubious at best.The whole "H W would have won" is nothing but Republican historical revisionism that was an attempt to claim Clinton was somehow an 'illegitimate' President. Similar to the claims that McCain and Romney lost because 'they weren't conservative enough.'This is one article that backs up my argument: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/Here is another article: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htmThere used to be an article by, I believe, CNN polling analyst Bill Schneider on it (which is where I got the 1/3 Bush, 1/3 Clinton... from) but it doesn't seem to be around anymore.It's pretty clear the only thing Dimbaugh was sorry for was that he was sorry he was late to join in the Republican historical revisionism.
Quote from: Izintit? on April 19, 2015, 06:18:06 AM First let me say,excellent post! The truth is we`ll never know. My point is that it wasn`t 4%, 6%,or even 9%- it was a whopping 19%! It is not difficult to see how those votes could have made a difference in states like Georgia,Ohio,Colorado and Montana is all.
Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 20, 2015, 01:25:57 AMThanks. Clinton lost Georgia, Colorado and Montana in 1996 (but won Florida after losing it in 1992) so it is possible. However, even had he lost those three states (I doubt he would have lost Ohio) and even had he lost Ohio, Clinton still would have won the electoral college.That said, as I said earlier, before Republicans decided to get into revisionist history over this, it was generally agreed by pollsters on both the left and the right that the only state Perot helped Clinton win that he likely would have lost is Montana.
Quote from: The General on March 02, 2016, 02:13:12 PMI wish Rush would figure out when his breaks are and leave a little breathing room.He's always mid sentence and starts trying to cram words in edgewise at the last second.Lay off the coffee and look at the clock, Rush! How long have you been broadcasting?
Quote from: Ciardelo on March 02, 2016, 02:19:32 PMLove listening to Rush. It seems his detractors who ineffectually bleat about him don't get it. But he's getting better each day.
Quote from: GravitySucks on March 04, 2016, 02:05:21 PMWhen Rush started his broadcast went national in 1988, Houston did not have 10 digit dialing. You didn't dial the area code for local calls. My work phone number was 282-2882. We didn't have caller ID, but we had a different ring tone for inside vs. outside calls. For 3 hours a day, I couldn't take outside calls, I had to let them just go to voice mail. Even with my own voice and message on the voicemail recording, it was unbelievable the number of calls I would get with people going off on Rush. I wish that I would have kept some of the juicier ones. It would have made a great "Best of" mashup.
Quote from: MV on March 04, 2016, 05:23:04 PMso there were THAT many people dumb enough not to know they had to put the 800 in front of the number?