"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:09:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


We'll see. Two successful conservative Supreme Court nominations could
certainly move us to the right.

Uh, no, that would move the Court to the right. Personally, I'm thinking
it's a wash. Rehnquist was already quite conservative. I think Alito
will be comparably right, but I'm also suspecting Roberts is a lot close
to an O'Connor than you would like. Still, Stevens is 85. If he can't
hang on, and Bush gets to appoint yet another Justice, all bets are off.
I'd also point out, if you think the Court is too liberal, you have no one
to blame but Republicans. They have appointed 7 of the 9 Justices.

Just because a President has an (R) after his name, doesn't mean that every
choice
he makes is a good one. That is, unless we're talking about Bush 43.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:09:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


We'll see. Two successful conservative Supreme Court nominations could
certainly move us to the right.

NOYB, with all of this torture talk coming from the VP's office, I'm
starting to see things your way. I'm thinking Cheney might be on to
something. I'm thinking if Fitzgerald put the electrodes to Libby we
might get to the bottom of this Plame mess.



What say you?

Sure. As long as he doesn't turn the thing on, it's not torture.

Maybe not real
"torture", just the fraternity type hazing Rush keeps talking about. You
know, strip Libby naked, hook up some wires, snap some pics and plaster
them all over the world's televisions. I think Libby will sing like a
canary. What say you?

Only the Commander in Chief gets to choose who is lucky enough to receive
such forms
of interrogation. I say Bush hooks Wilson up to the electrodes.

"-rick-" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote ...

" Half the respondents were asked party identification in this location,
the other half were asked at the end of the survey with the

other demographic questions. Results for the respondents who were asked
the question early were 40% Republican, 50%

Democrat. For the respondents asked later in the survey, the results were
39% Republican, 52% Democrat."

(In your opinion, party identification doesn't mean the same thing as
party affiliation? )

Not exactly. Expectations and performance vary over time. "Do your
beliefs tend to lean more toward the Democrats or the Republicans?" is not
equivalent to "what is your party affiliation" or "are you a registered
republican or democrat?" as you seem to imply. That was my point.

I don't mean to unreasonably split hairs but your premise that this
response invalidates the poll isn't obvious to me. If a statistically
significant random sample yields that result why is it not valid within
the probabilities of it's margin of error? Do you have evidence of
non-random sampling?

The sampling may be fine. It's the weighting that I have a problem with.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:28:54 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:09:28 +0000, NOYB wrote:


We'll see. Two successful conservative Supreme Court nominations could
certainly move us to the right.

NOYB, with all of this torture talk coming from the VP's office, I'm
starting to see things your way. I'm thinking Cheney might be on to
something. I'm thinking if Fitzgerald put the electrodes to Libby we
might get to the bottom of this Plame mess. What say you? Maybe not real
"torture", just the fraternity type hazing Rush keeps talking about. You
know, strip Libby naked, hook up some wires, snap some pics and plaster
them all over the world's televisions. I think Libby will sing like a
canary. What say you?

What's Rush been talking about lately?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes