It's official! - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dudesky · #16 03-09-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Ron Paul is so "over".

He's been having his supporters becoming delegates wherever they can. See how many pledge to him at the convention and get back to me.

TwitchKitty · #17 03-09-2012, 05:26 PM

What is the price of Kool-Aid these days?

One of the links lead to:

Inflation, Money Supply, GDP, Unemployment and the Dollar - Alternate Data Series

We had a thread about this a while back.

elchivito · #18 03-10-2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

In primary elections, when you're 0-22 in winning states and a delegate count under 30, the only reason to be in a race is publicize issues to a national audience, not to win a nomination.

Exactly. Ankle biters are important.

LaRondo · #19 03-11-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The money is backed by the fact you are willing to accept it in your paycheck each week. That is what truly gives it value, not the current price of some arbitrary metal.

On a second glance, you might be right, or does anybody know where all the Gold is to cover the standard?

LaRondo · #20 03-12-2012, 01:37 PM

MTI · #21 03-12-2012, 02:05 PM

It's too bad that those at the rally didn't vote apparently. . . or were the only ones that did vote for Mr. Paul. Perhaps he's like Michael Bolton . . . sells a lot of recordings, but no one ever admits to being a fan.

tbomachines · #22 03-12-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

It's too bad that those at the rally didn't vote apparently. . . or were the only ones that did vote for Mr. Paul. Perhaps he's like Michael Bolton . . . sells a lot of recordings, but no one ever admits to being a fan.

No the votes are all rigged by a huge media conspiracy, obviously

LaRondo · #23 03-12-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

It's too bad that those at the rally didn't vote apparently. . . or were the only ones that did vote for Mr. Paul. Perhaps he's like Michael Bolton . . . sells a lot of recordings, but no one ever admits to being a fan.

Ofcourse, you know they all didn't vote!

LaRondo · #24 03-12-2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

No the votes are all rigged by a huge media conspiracy, obviously

Define "common sense".

tbomachines · #25 03-12-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Define "common sense".

I assume this is re: video thread. So to that:

For example, taking a statistics course before making a big YouTube video about a conspiracy that the media actually control all elections and plan them out prior to them occurring...based solely on the idea that exit polls are somewhat nonrepresentative. Or perhaps, gaining some firsthand knowledge of how media work from a corporate, personal, and political standpoints before commenting. That video made me facepalm.

LaRondo · #26 03-12-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

I assume this is re: video thread. So to that:

For example, taking a statistics course before making a big YouTube video about a conspiracy that the media actually control all elections and plan them out prior to them occurring...based solely on the idea that exit polls are somewhat nonrepresentative. Or perhaps, gaining some firsthand knowledge of how media work from a corporate, personal, and political standpoints before commenting. That video made me facepalm.

I see. Your definition of common sense seems more like a very personal take on the subject, which results in a motivation to decry what you don't like by application of a common demeanor. That, btw. is the only 'common' aspect of your statement.

Ofcourse, now that we know your all-encompassing insight into the corporate media apparatus, we need to bow in awe and accept the forwarded data as true and correct.

Your replies are negatively insinuating, based exclusively on your personal perception.

tbomachines · #27 03-12-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I see. Your definition of common sense seems more like a very personal take on the subject, which results in a motivation to decry what you don't like by application of a common demeanor. That, btw. is the only 'common' aspect of your statement.

Ofcourse, now that we know your all-encompassing insight into the corporate media apparatus, we need to bow in awe and accept the forwarded data as true and correct.

Your replies are negatively insinuating, based exclusively on your personal perception.

Didn't realize my colloquial use of the term "common sense" would be linguistically analyzed. More broadly, I use it to describe the importance that education and knowledge play in debate. Spouting off about something which you know little about does not bode well for your reputation or credibility. Case in point, if you're going to make a youtube video about some vast hoax/conspiracy you better know how statistics work. Common sense would dictate that you learn about statistics before making a 20 minute youtube video and constructing a theory based on such. Same thing goes with media knowledge - understanding those two pretty much negates his points. Perhaps this is "sense" or "connecting the dots" so to speak.

While 1% is low to call an election (that's why they state "projection" everywhere) as soon as their statisticians calculate % variance and number of subjects required for statistical significance (or, since media companies are not academic, whatever it takes for them to feel like they won't make a fool out of themselves) they are going to publish it. If you were CNN and you take 5-12 more hours to rise up to 99.5% certainty, rather than declare a winner based on 75% with a disclaimer as FNC or CBS or whoever might do, what does that show about your reporting? Which channel are your viewers going to be watching?

LaRondo · #28 03-12-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Didn't realize my colloquial use of the term "common sense" would be linguistically analyzed. More broadly, I use it to describe the importance that education and knowledge play in debate. Spouting off about something which you know little about does not bode well for your reputation or credibility. Case in point, if you're going to make a youtube video about some vast hoax/conspiracy you better know how statistics work. Common sense would dictate that you learn about statistics before making a 20 minute youtube video and constructing a theory based on such. Same thing goes with media knowledge - understanding those two pretty much negates his points. Perhaps this is "sense" or "connecting the dots" so to speak.

While 1% is low to call an election (that's why they state "projection" everywhere) as soon as their statisticians calculate % variance and number of subjects required for statistical significance (or, since media companies are not academic, whatever it takes for them to feel like they won't make a fool out of themselves) they are going to publish it. If you were CNN and you take 5-12 more hours to rise up to 99.5% certainty, rather than declare a winner based on 75% with a disclaimer as FNC or CBS or whoever might do, what does that show about your reporting? Which channel are your viewers going to be watching?

Your presentation of "common sense" is indeed very common.
You don't like the video someone made to present possible manipulative involvement of the media in the primary election process. Fine.
Regardless of the video makers commentary, it's a very detailed observation and I am sorry to say, unlike yours.

It is also mentioned, the media is merely relaying the shots (supposedly) already being called.
If you happen to bother looking further, it's already been evidenced and documented since 2000, how vulnerable and easily manipulatable electronic voting devices are. Not withstanding their enormously high default failure rates.

To assume technical development and operational control of such devices has stopped since 2000, is .....

You simply ignore those aspects, to say it in short.

The media's attempt to suppress Ron Paul's campaign has been evident since before the primaries. To argue against it, is hardly common sense, but rather bluntly foolish.

Your counter statement to the video is not convincing. You've got to do better than that.

tbomachines · #29 03-12-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Your presentation of "common sense" is indeed very common.
You don't like the video someone made to present possible manipulative involvement of the media in the primary election process. Fine.
Regardless of the video makers commentary, it's a very detailed observation and I am sorry to say, unlike yours.

It is also mentioned, the media is merely relaying the shots (supposedly) already being called.
If you happen to bother looking further, it's already been evidenced and documented since 2000, how vulnerable and easily manipulatable electronic voting devices are. Not withstanding their enormously high default failure rates.

To assume technical development and operational control of such devices has stopped since 2000, is .....

You simply ignore those aspects, to say it in short.

The media's attempt to suppress Ron Paul's campaign has been evident since before the primaries. To argue against it, is hardly common sense, but rather bluntly foolish.

Your counter statement to the video is not convincing. You've got to do better than that.

Ok I see your game here. My issues (as I've stated, in summary) with the video:
- guys knows very little about statistics - he basically says "1%? That's nuts!" without any substantiation. What he should have done is actually SHOW why 1% is supposedly not sufficient or representative. From a statistical standpoint, it very well can be and often is.
- uses that to base an argument with little working knowledge of media - his questioning of why they report at 1% is "they must know ahead of time!" rather than actually looking at the numbers mathematically and cross examining that with the purpose of media - to report quickly and make a profit (i.e. maintain viewers). Talk about jumping to conclusions. Your retort for these two glaring issues? To tell me that my "common sense is common". Nice.

Did I ever say that computer polling devices were safe and secure? No
Did I ever say Ron Paul hasn't been slighted by the media? No

I don't disagree with those points and never implied it in any way.

So, if you decide to be caustic I will too - mister "detailed observation" perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually stated.

LaRondo · #30 03-13-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Ok I see your game here. My issues (as I've stated, in summary) with the video:
- guys knows very little about statistics - he basically says "1%? That's nuts!" without any substantiation. What he should have done is actually SHOW why 1% is supposedly not sufficient or representative. From a statistical standpoint, it very well can be and often is.
- uses that to base an argument with little working knowledge of media - his questioning of why they report at 1% is "they must know ahead of time!" rather than actually looking at the numbers mathematically and cross examining that with the purpose of media - to report quickly and make a profit (i.e. maintain viewers). Talk about jumping to conclusions. Your retort for these two glaring issues? To tell me that my "common sense is common". Nice.

Did I ever say that computer polling devices were safe and secure? No
Did I ever say Ron Paul hasn't been slighted by the media? No

I don't disagree with those points and never implied it in any way.

So, if you decide to be caustic I will too - mister "detailed observation" perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually stated.

Ok, the media is in for a profit and 1% or less is sufficient for them to call it a day.

Still I am missing the convincing factor to prove the video maker wrong.

I referred to your presentation of common sense, your personal instant response and expression, certainly didn't put any words in your mouth.

To ridicule on subjects of concern leads to the effect of looking ridiculous.