PDA

View Full Version : CNN poll: neocons drop to yet another new low


Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 12:06 AM
Chimpy, the illustrious neocon champion, now has an approval rating of less than 1/3. I'm shocked.... I thought the previous lows were statistical anomolies. But now I'm convinced. These bozos have fugged it up so bad that even the hardcore righties are crapping on them. There are guyz like Bulger and CE that will always believe no matter what evidence they see. And then there are guyz like pateeu who are smart enough to know better but resist admitting that they were wrong. But somebody is obviously jumping ship - praise be upon them!

Bush's approval ratings slide to new low

Poll: Only one-third say he's handling his job well

Monday, April 24, 2006; Posted: 11:09 p.m. EDT (03:09 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.

It was one of four conducted within the past 10 days that have yielded similar results: a Pew Center poll carried out April 7-16 gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll carried out last Tuesday and Wednesday gave him a 33 percent approval rating; and an American Research Group poll carried out Tuesday through Friday gave him a 34 percent approval rating.

Asked whether the term "strong and decisive leader" describes Bush, 46 percent said yes, down from 62 percent who said they felt that way in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey carried out July 22-24, 2005.

Asked whether "honest and trustworthy" describes the president, 40 percent said yes, down from 56 percent in a survey carried out April 1-2 last year.

Americans were evenly split on whether Bush is "competent," with 47 percent saying yes, 47 percent saying no and 6 percent expressing no opinion.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/index.html

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:10 AM
Chimpy, the illustrious neocon champion, now has an approval rating of less than 1/3. I'm shocked.... I thought the previous lows were statistical anomolies. But now I'm convinced. These bozos have fugged it up so bad that even the hardcore righties are crapping on them. There are guyz like Bulger and CE that will always believe no matter what evidence they see. And then there are guyz like pateeu who are smart enough to know better but resist admitting that they were wrong. But somebody is obviously jumping ship - praise be upon them!

Bush's approval ratings slide to new low

Poll: Only one-third say he's handling his job well

Monday, April 24, 2006; Posted: 11:09 p.m. EDT (03:09 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.

It was one of four conducted within the past 10 days that have yielded similar results: a Pew Center poll carried out April 7-16 gave Bush a 35 percent approval rating; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll carried out last Tuesday and Wednesday gave him a 33 percent approval rating; and an American Research Group poll carried out Tuesday through Friday gave him a 34 percent approval rating.

Asked whether the term "strong and decisive leader" describes Bush, 46 percent said yes, down from 62 percent who said they felt that way in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey carried out July 22-24, 2005.

Asked whether "honest and trustworthy" describes the president, 40 percent said yes, down from 56 percent in a survey carried out April 1-2 last year.

Americans were evenly split on whether Bush is "competent," with 47 percent saying yes, 47 percent saying no and 6 percent expressing no opinion.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/index.html

Another set of numbers from your biased sources.

Good job moron.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 12:12 AM
So then your idea of an objective news source is the "National Review", "American Spectator"?? You are ten pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a five pound bag.

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 12:15 AM
Another set of numbers from your biased sources.

Good job moron.Hey - you called me a moron!

Fox News, Pew Center, Opinion Dynamics, American Research Group, CNN, USA Today, Gallup.... these are all biased sources? Maybe you could point us to some unbiased major opinion poll sources....

Dave Lane
04-25-2006, 12:18 AM
Fox had him at 32 and they are as right wing as you can get.

Dave

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 12:20 AM
Fox had him at 32 and they are as right wing as you can get.

DaveFaux News has too much of a left-leaning bias for CE, moron!

(I assume "moron" is a term of endearment).

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:21 AM
So then your idea of an objective news source is the "National Review", "American Spectator"?? You are ten pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a five pound bag.

Well, isn't that special!!

I guess that you guys are not aware that I don't really care about your polls nor the legitimacy of them. I've posted only to keep you spinning.

And Hamasshole, you spin just real nice. Still haven't learned how to function in the real world huh?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 12:23 AM
Well, isn't that special!!

I guess that you guys are not aware that I don't really care about your polls nor the legitimacy of them. I've posted only to keep you spinning.

And Hamasshole, you spin just real nice. Still haven't learned how to function in the real world huh?


So...you've posted to keep us spinning, when of the top six threads on this forum, until this post you have the last post in all of them...and you are wasting our time :spock:???

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:31 AM
So...you've posted to keep us spinning, when of the top six threads on this forum, until this post you have the last post in all of them...and you are wasting our time :spock:???

I'm awake and don't have anywhere to be until 8:00am.

Get used to it Hamasshole.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 12:32 AM
I'm awake and don't have anywhere to be until 8:00am.

Get used to it Hamasshole.

Well, I'm gonna go rub one out and go to bed. I hope that image is burned in your head until 8:00 a.m. :p

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:54 AM
Well, I'm gonna go rub one out and go to bed. I hope that image is burned in your head until 8:00 a.m.

I'd be lying if I let you think I understand wtf you are talking about.

While I can't sleep I'm programming. Program 10 steps, post on the planet, program 10 more steps, post on the planet. At least insomnia is getting me that much ahead for work tomorrow.

You've been sitting and staring at the monitor all evening but it couldn't burn anything to your head, it's empty.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 06:14 AM
This is the danger of being a leader instead of following the polls like many of his predecessors.

Enjoy the poll numbers though, because you'll never see this President lose an election and the results of the fall's Congressional elections are still up in the air as far as I can see.

memyselfI
04-25-2006, 06:32 AM
Enjoy the poll numbers though, because you'll never see this President lose an election and the results of the fall's Congressional elections are still up in the air as far as I can see.

Even in your denial you are admitting defeat is possible...

How? I could swear you were one of the few people on this board who up until very recently were convinced there was no way the CONS were going to lose the majority. You have gone from 'no way' to 'up in the air.'

Seeing folks like yourself go soft/softer is likely as much as we'll get from the dug in/entrenched supporters of DUHbya. But folks like yourself are leaving yourself an out in your unwaivering support. Even Rush Limbaugh is now doing it. Just yesterday he proclaimed 'I'm not ready to throw in the towel on losing the Congress yet...I know many others have already.'

Guess it's alittle hard to proclaim it's the MSM or just Libs who are unhappy when the numbers are what DUHbya is polling on nearly ever single poll for many months in a row. At some point reality MUST sink in and denying just doesn't make sense...

even for Rush and Patteeu.

Kraut
04-25-2006, 07:18 AM
Polls can change just like the wind. But there is no doubt that Bush has been doing a less then perfect job the last few years. Really it probably would not take much for his ratings to go up if he was able to handle a major issue the right way. His problem it seems is he is unable to read the pulse of his base. We all know that the left has no time for him but where he is hurting is on his side of the fence. I know, I have been pissed at how he is doing and I voted for him twice. I have been so upset at the Republicans that I changed over to the Constitution Party. I think the most important poll to watch is the one in November. That will tell the tale better then any of them.

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 07:28 AM
This is the danger of being a leader instead of following the polls like many of his predecessors.

Enjoy the poll numbers though, because you'll never see this President lose an election and the results of the fall's Congressional elections are still up in the air as far as I can see.

I have already witnessed him lose one popular vote. He was selected, not elected.

He will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

He is on track to beat Nixon's poll numbers.

Republican gerrymandering might save you the congress, but if it does, repubs will not hold any chamber in 08. My bet is you lose the house in 06.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 07:40 AM
Even in your denial you are admitting defeat is possible...

Sung to the tune of Lloyd's "So you're telling me there's a chance." from Dumb and Dumber. ROFL

How? I could swear you were one of the few people on this board who up until very recently were convinced there was no way the CONS were going to lose the majority. You have gone from 'no way' to 'up in the air.'

Seeing folks like yourself go soft/softer is likely as much as we'll get from the dug in/entrenched supporters of DUHbya. But folks like yourself are leaving yourself an out in your unwaivering support. Even Rush Limbaugh is now doing it. Just yesterday he proclaimed 'I'm not ready to throw in the towel on losing the Congress yet...I know many others have already.'

I'm still confident the Republicans will hold the Senate and I think it's likely that they'll hold the House. But nothing is certain and it's obvious that public opinion is currently shifting away from them, but it ebbs and it flows. The lack of cohesion within the party on Dubai Ports and illegal immigration has been tough on them, but it's not at all clear that these issues will be the issues of the day this November. If that kind of "softening" feels like a victory to you, then enjoy it. Personally, I don't think it is a change on my part but is instead a reflection of changing circumstances. I don't think the polling weakness is due to Jeff Gannon, or pre-war intelligence, or Iraqi casualty rates, or Katrina or NSA surveillance or Fitzgerald indicting Libby or CIA black prisons which are some of the events on which your side based their premature predictions of election troubles. Changing circumstances require changing analysis.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 07:50 AM
I have already witnessed him lose one popular vote. He was selected, not elected.

He will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

He is on track to beat Nixon's poll numbers.

Republican gerrymandering might save you the congress, but if it does, repubs will not hold any chamber in 08. My bet is you lose the house in 06.

Ah, so you are admitting that defeat is possible. [/memyselfi] :p

Seriously,

1) Unfortunately for you and Al Gore, popular votes don't determine Presidential elections, as you know.

2) He isn't even the worst President of this decade and I'm confident that future historians will appreciate him more than his contemporary critics although I'm not as confident that future historians will agree with me about his predecessor.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 08:37 AM
Ah, so you are admitting that defeat is possible. [/memyselfi] :p

Seriously,

1) Unfortunately for you and Al Gore, popular votes don't determine Presidential elections, as you know.

2) He isn't even the worst President of this decade and I'm confident that future historians will appreciate him more than his contemporary critics although I'm not as confident that future historians will agree with me about his predecessor.


Fortunately, objects of mass cannot move at the speed of light, so thankfully your continued acceleration towards intellectual irrelevance will have to stop at some point. You have forfeited any pretence of objective analysis at this point and can only be classified as the most strident and ignorant of Bush apologists.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 08:52 AM
Fortunately, objects of mass cannot move at the speed of light, so thankfully your continued acceleration towards intellectual irrelevance will have to stop at some point. You have forfeited any pretence of objective analysis at this point and can only be classified as the most strident and ignorant of Bush apologists.

The funny thing about acceleration is that it doesn't tell you anything about the direction of motion. Other than that flaw, your substance-less flame is very colorful. Good job. :clap:

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Fortunately, objects of mass cannot move at the speed of light, so thankfully your continued acceleration towards intellectual irrelevance will have to stop at some point. You have forfeited any pretence of objective analysis at this point and can only be classified as the most strident and ignorant of Bush apologists.
Who's the brain dead debate coach who told you that hyperbole and vivid imagery would actually cover the lack of substance?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 09:39 AM
Who's the brain dead debate coach who told you that hyperbole and vivid imagery would actually cover the lack of substance?

A lack of substance...like for example a continued support of a wholly incompetent administration in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to said incompetence??

Pot, kettle, black.

Wow, I am glad I'm not in the need of a hopeless Mormon lawyer anytime soon ;)

Enjoy the delusions of your religious superstitions nonetheless :thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 09:40 AM
The funny thing about acceleration is that it doesn't tell you anything about the direction of motion. Other than that flaw, your substance-less flame is very colorful. Good job. :clap:

The funny thing about your point is that it may have some semblance of meaning if I didn't already indicate the direction of said acceleration in my verbal construction within the same sentence. Nice try, though.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 09:52 AM
A lack of substance...like for example a continued support of a wholly incompetent administration in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to said incompetence??

Pot, kettle, black.

Wow, I am glad I'm not in the need of a hopeless Mormon lawyer anytime soon ;)

Enjoy the delusions of your religious superstitions nonetheless :thumb:
Just so I'm clear, your position is; if you think you have a handle on my political positions, and you disagree with the handle you envision, then it's free range to be a Grade A Dick?

Ad Hominem is evidence sufficient to eviscerate any argument you make, all by itself. Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting.

Thanks also for the insight, I think I have the theorem plotted.

Tom C@sh = yin
Hamas = yang.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 10:07 AM
Just so I'm clear, your position is; if you think you have a handle on my political positions, and you disagree with the handle you envision, then it's free range to be a Grade A Dick?

Thanks for the insight, I think I have the theorem plotted.

Tom C@sh = yin
Hamas = yang.

It's patently obvious what your political positions are. I have free reign to be a dick because you are a preeminent ass yourself. If I had a nickel for every time that you attempted to use latin phrases from your legal career as a feeble attempt to bolster the appearance of your intellect, I might have Lamar's so-called 'cash problem' resolved.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
The funny thing about acceleration is that it doesn't tell you anything about the direction of motion. Other than that flaw, your substance-less flame is very colorful. Good job. :clap:

One more thing regarding acceleration...it's called red shift, ass, so even the most basic element of your rebuttal is in fact well off base. So nice try, but you are still putting up a bagel.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
It's patently obvious what your political positions are. I have free reign to be a dick because you are a preeminent ass yourself. . . . , I might have Lamar's so-called 'cash problem' resolved.
Thanks again for making yourself perfectly clear, 'TomCash' Jenkins.

BTW
If I had a nickel for every time that you attempted to use latin phrases from your legal career as a feeble attempt to bolster the appearance of your intellect
Is not a rebuttal of anything I've said. It is in itself another logical fallacy seeking to drive/create resentment for the messenger when you fail to rebut the message.
I use the words I use because they fit the argument I'm making. Sorry is that is dispiriting to you, with your oh-so sophisticated 'you're not only wrong, you're really really really really big wrong' line of rhetoric.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 10:12 AM
Thanks again for making yourself perfectly clear, 'TomCash' Jenkins.

Such a step down from your original nomenclature for me...hamass :deevee:

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:17 AM
Such a step down from your original nomenclature for me...hamass :deevee:
At least my Latin ain't French!! ROFL ROFL
What was that again about feeble attempts to bolster appearances of intellect? Hows that working for ya? Were you looking for 'appellation,' or perhaps 'epithet,' and just got sidetracked?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 10:22 AM
At least my Latin ain't French!! ROFL ROFL
What was that again about feeble attempts to bolster appearances of intellect? Hows that working for ya? Were you looking for 'appellation,' or perhaps 'epithet,' and just got sidetracked?

Ahh yes, degradation of the French. Would you like some 'freedom' fries with that, sir?? You as well as anyone should know that epithet is one of those words that really only works when combined with the term 'racial'...much like profusely, which is always preceeded by 'bleeding'.

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 10:23 AM
You have forfeited any pretence of objective analysis at this point and can only be classified as the most strident and ignorant of Bush apologists.Non-objective for sure, and none less strident..... but "ignorant?" I'd classify patteeu as one of the most informed Bush apologists on the board. So much so that its a puzzlement to me that he's still a Bush apologist.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:26 AM
Ahh yes, degradation of the French. Would you like some 'freedom' fries with that, sir?? You as well as anyone should know that epithet is one of those words that really only works when combined with the term 'racial'...much like profusely, which is always preceeded by 'bleeding'.
I wasn't 'degrading' the French, I was deriding YOU for b!tching about the precision of my language for it's alleged high-falutin'-ness, then misapplying a $20 word in the very next post, just to look urbane.
And the hits just keep on coming. ROFL ROFL
that's why contemporary christianity is a bastard religion...it bears no resemblance to the teachings of its namesake...it's far more akin to a trope of materialist exclusivism that preaches the benefits of simony and the glory of hate.

NewChief
04-25-2006, 10:30 AM
Wow. I feel like I'm back in grad. school watching two fellow Lit. dorks argue in the office.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 10:32 AM
Wow. I feel like I'm back in grad. school watching two fellow Lit. dorks argue in the office.
Lot of derision of [wrongly assumed] religious beliefs going on there? Sorry to hear it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 11:22 AM
I wasn't 'degrading' the French, I was deriding YOU for b!tching about the precision of my language for it's alleged high-falutin'-ness, then misapplying a $20 word in the very next post, just to look urbane.
And the hits just keep on coming. ROFL ROFL

The sad thing is that such words are actually a part of my lexicon...and btw, here is a definition (of which I am sure you are completely unaware) of nomenclature

The procedure of assigning names---i.e. Hamas becomes hamass, or Tom Cash Jenkins.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 11:31 AM
The sad thing is that such words are actually a part of my lexicon...
1. Now I'm confused. Who's the one referencing vocabulary to bolster his esteem?
Ooohh, such a quandry. 'Lexicon' sounds arcane, but 'Vocabulary' has more syllillables.
and btw, here is a definition (of which I am sure you are completely unaware) of nomenclature

The procedure of assigning names---i.e. Hamas becomes hamass, or - ahem, shut your mouth - Jenkins.
2. No, you're right. I truly am unaware of dictionary.com
3. But even if I were to make my way through my weak-minded fog to look it up, I surely would notice that the full definition was;

The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification.

Though the thought of regarding you and TomCash as the same SPECIES is intriguing, that was not my intent.
I wasn't setting about to generate a taxonomy, just an analogy between a couple of weak-minded, ill-tempered, poorly regarded, posters.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 11:38 AM
I have already witnessed him lose one popular vote. He was selected, not elected.

He will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

He is on track to beat Nixon's poll numbers.

Republican gerrymandering might save you the congress, but if it does, repubs will not hold any chamber in 08. My bet is you lose the house in 06.

There is no way that Bush II will be considered worse than Jimmy Carter, no way.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 11:41 AM
The sad thing is that such words are actually a part of my lexicon...

http://www.johnderosa.com/films_images/fredo.jpg
It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 11:43 AM
1. Now I'm confused. Who's the one referencing vocabulary to bolster his esteem?
Ooohh, such a quandry. 'Lexicon' sounds arcane, but 'Vocabulary' has more syllillables.

2. No, you're right. I truly am unaware of dictionary.com
3. But even if I were to make my way through my weak-minded fog to look it up, I surely would notice that the full definition was;

The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification.

Though the thought of regarding you and TomCash as the same SPECIES is intriguing, that was not my intent.
I wasn't setting about to generate a taxonomy, just an analogy between a couple of weak-minded, ill-tempered, poorly regarded, posters.

Unaware, eh?? So sure are you of your own correctness that you looked it up on a site you had no prior knowledge of??? Hmm...

It is still a procedure of assigning names, (Hamas becomes hamass, or hamasshole if you are of the TC ilk, which I believe you are) nevertheless nice deflection attempt. Perhaps I should care more about my regard on here as I know it is of such foundational importance to my own self-worth...:spock:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 11:44 AM
http://www.johnderosa.com/films_images/fredo.jpg
It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!


Feel the hate, let it flow through you. Feel it make you POWERFUL...ROFL...you are nothing if not sad..

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 11:45 AM
Perhaps I should care more about my regard on here as I know it is of such foundational importance to my own self-worth...:spock:
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are now entering TomCash, stage 2. Keep your arms inside the vehicle.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 11:46 AM
Feel the hate, let it flow through you. Feel it make you POWERFUL...ROFL...you are nothing if not sad..
Someone wanna take this guy fishing?

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 12:12 PM
Unaware, eh?? So sure are you of your own correctness that you looked it up on a site you had no prior knowledge of??? Hmm...

It is still a procedure of assigning names, (Hamas becomes hamass, or hamasshole if you are of the TC ilk, which I believe you are) nevertheless nice deflection attempt. Perhaps I should care more about my regard on here as I know it is of such foundational importance to my own self-worth...:spock:

Well, at least you’re not just argue’n to hear your pea rattle. :rolleyes:

go bowe
04-25-2006, 12:59 PM
Another set of numbers from your biased sources.

Good job moron.well, it's good of you to admit that foxnews is a biased source... ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
04-25-2006, 01:01 PM
So then your idea of an objective news source is the "National Review", "American Spectator"?? You are ten pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a five pound bag.out-fricking-standing!!

rep for that... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

go bowe
04-25-2006, 01:04 PM
So...you've posted to keep us spinning, when of the top six threads on this forum, until this post you have the last post in all of them...and you are wasting our time :spock:???hey...

don't tell him that...

you'll spoil all the fun...

banyon
04-25-2006, 01:07 PM
I understand your disagreement with Hamas, BL.

But comparing him to CE? I don't buy it. Nobody else is on that level.

go bowe
04-25-2006, 01:11 PM
A lack of substance...like for example a continued support of a wholly incompetent administration in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to said incompetence??

Pot, kettle, black.

Wow, I am glad I'm not in the need of a hopeless Mormon lawyer anytime soon ;)

Enjoy the delusions of your religious superstitions nonetheless :thumb:you say mormon like it's a bad thing...

might there be a little prejudice showing here?

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 01:56 PM
I understand your disagreement with Hamas, BL.

But comparing him to CE? I don't buy it. Nobody else is on that level.
Maybe the degree is different, and my view is skewed b/c Jenkins is on my tip personally, while TC is attacking others [and vice versa for your POV ;)], but I see a parallel where they've both stopped debating and descending into poo-slinging 24/7.
'You're dumb' and 'you're really dumb' and '[my misapprehension of what] your religion [is] sucks' may be fun to sling around, but they are never, ever, rebuttals of any issue presented.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 03:33 PM
Maybe the degree is different, and my view is skewed b/c Jenkins is on my tip personally, while TC is attacking others [and vice versa for your POV ;)], but I see a parallel where they've both stopped debating and descending into poo-slinging 24/7.
'You're dumb' and 'you're really dumb' and '[my misapprehension of what] your religion [is] sucks' may be fun to sling around, but they are never, ever, rebuttals of any issue presented.

Read the first page of the very thread on which you call me to task for not debating...Christ.

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 03:36 PM
Read the first page of the very thread on which you call me to task for not debating...Christ.
In which post were you debating, the one where you were stuffing monkey sh!t in a bag, or the one where you announced your masturbatory intentions for yang's visual edification?

patteeu
04-25-2006, 04:40 PM
The funny thing about your point is that it may have some semblance of meaning if I didn't already indicate the direction of said acceleration in my verbal construction within the same sentence. Nice try, though.

Yes, you indicated the direction of acceleration which is different than the direction of motion. Your post could mean that my movement away from irrelevance has slowed down a bit just as much as it could mean what you apparently tried to say. Better luck next time.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 04:44 PM
One more thing regarding acceleration...it's called red shift, ass, so even the most basic element of your rebuttal is in fact well off base. So nice try, but you are still putting up a bagel.

This doesn't even make any sense. Red shift is not related to acceleration. Try using simpler concepts in your attacks and you might have better luck.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 04:51 PM
you say mormon like it's a bad thing...

might there be a little prejudice showing here?

According to 'Hamas' Jenkins, "mormon" explains a lot. Unfortunately, he never did adequately explain what it explains though.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 05:07 PM
Maybe the degree is different, and my view is skewed b/c Jenkins is on my tip personally, while TC is attacking others [and vice versa for your POV ;)], but I see a parallel where they've both stopped debating and descending into poo-slinging 24/7.
'You're dumb' and 'you're really dumb' and '[my misapprehension of what] your religion [is] sucks' may be fun to sling around, but they are never, ever, rebuttals of any issue presented.


Heh. Baby Lee, if my lawyer ever retires (do the undead retire?), I'm hiring you (if I can afford the retainer). Nicely done. This thread is one of your better dismantelings. :thumb:

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 05:13 PM
I understand your disagreement with Hamas, BL.

But comparing him to CE? I don't buy it. Nobody else is on that level.

None of could ever be on the same level as I am. I'm so far above and ahead of you all that you just wouldn't believe it.


Maybe some day banyon will grow up and find out that he is just like the rest of us and just a grain of sand on any beach you might want to pick. In other words, in the whole scheme of things he is just as irrelevant as ther rest of the world.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 07:50 PM
This doesn't even make any sense. Red shift is not related to acceleration. Try using simpler concepts in your attacks and you might have better luck.

THe faster that an object is moving away from you, the greater its red shift...if it is moving towards you you see a blue shift.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 07:52 PM
Yes, you indicated the direction of acceleration which is different than the direction of motion. Your post could mean that my movement away from irrelevance has slowed down a bit just as much as it could mean what you apparently tried to say. Better luck next time.

ROFL that's quite a semantic weave you had to spin in order to get yourself out of the jam that your original idiotic post and subsequent off-base put downs placed you in.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 07:54 PM
Since physics is now a part of the put down process I think that I will become a pacifist.

If math is ever involved with complementing someone I will have no choice but to become a hermit.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:00 PM
Since physics is now a part of the put down process I think that I will become a pacifist.

If math is ever involved with complementing someone I will have no choice but to become a hermit.

Now you are probably doomed.

2 + 2 = what 4?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 08:07 PM
According to 'Hamas' Jenkins, "mormon" explains a lot. Unfortunately, he never did adequately explain what it explains though.

It explains his ridiculously conservative bent, why he doesn't drink, the fact that he blindly supports Republicans with no concept of debate, among others...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 08:15 PM
In which post were you debating, the one where you were stuffing monkey sh!t in a bag, or the one where you announced your masturbatory intentions for yang's visual edification?

Perhaps the one in which I shot down your political parallel's ideals as to what constitutes an actual biased news source after he attacked the thread starter for allegations of alleged bias. I see that your penchant for revisionist history has not dulled.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 08:21 PM
THe faster that an object is moving away from you, the greater its red shift...if it is moving towards you you see a blue shift.

I know what red shift means. It didn't make sense because red shift isn't related to acceleration. It is dependent on velocity. You finally get it right in this post. Did you google it? :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 08:25 PM
I know what red shift means. It didn't make sense because red shift isn't related to acceleration. It is dependent on velocity. You finally get it right in this post. Did you google it? :rolleyes:

Go back and read the original post :rolleyes: If you continually accelerate, at some point you will approach, but never of course reach, the speed of light. It's a matter of simple mathematics. How much work does it require to be so hopelessly obtuse. Moreover, how vapid are the merits of your political beliefs if you must reduce every thread to a semantic argument to make up for a lack of argumentative weight.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 09:19 PM
Go back and read the original post :rolleyes: If you continually accelerate, at some point you will approach, but never of course reach, the speed of light. It's a matter of simple mathematics. How much work does it require to be so hopelessly obtuse. Moreover, how vapid are the merits of your political beliefs if you must reduce every thread to a semantic argument to make up for a lack of argumentative weight.

:LOL: I followed YOU down this path substance-less nonsense. If you are going to try to incorporate physics into your nonsense, at least try to get it right. I'm still not sure you understand what your mistakes were.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 09:23 PM
:LOL: I followed YOU down this path substance-less nonsense. If you are going to try to incorporate physics into your nonsense, at least try to get it right. I'm still not sure you understand what your mistakes were.

Ok, so let me get this straight...you follow me down this substance-less path because you are trying to split the hairs of each one of my sentence structures and theoretical assertions (all of which, are correct) When I respond in kind and debunk your assertions of I'm wrong because of 'x', I disprove your x and yet I don't understand what my mistakes were :spock:

Your only argumentative life raft at this point is a semantic dissemination of individual sentences, which of course is a feeble attempt in and of itself. Moreover, your own attempts are laced with fallacies and ignorance, yet you claim that I am the one who is wrong.

The train to reality is still not sold out. Perhaps a wormhole may actually transport you back even sooner. Would you like to debate the quantum implications of such theoretical structures such as this as well??

But perhaps I've misjudged you. You may indeed be a two trick pony since you can always fall back on your standard "I'm not sure YOU understand" when it is patently obvious that you are the one who is lacking in fundamental understanding.

I'm sorry, but the "Who's on First" strategy just doesn't cut it with me.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 09:51 PM
Ok, so let me get this straight...you follow me down this substance-less path because you are trying to split the hairs of each one of my sentence structures and theoretical assertions (all of which, are correct) When I respond in kind and debunk your assertions of I'm wrong because of 'x', I disprove your x and yet I don't understand what my mistakes were :spock:

Your only argumentative life raft at this point is a semantic dissemination of individual sentences, which of course is a feeble attempt in and of itself. Moreover, your own attempts are laced with fallacies and ignorance, yet you claim that I am the one who is wrong.

The train to reality is still not sold out. Perhaps a wormhole may actually transport you back even sooner. Would you like to debate the quantum implications of such theoretical structures such as this as well??

But perhaps I've misjudged you. You may indeed be a two trick pony since you can always fall back on your standard "I'm not sure YOU understand" when it is patently obvious that you are the one who is lacking in fundamental understanding.

I'm sorry, but the "Who's on First" strategy just doesn't cut it with me.

How have I failed to understand anything you've said in this thread (other than the things that just don't make sense like red shift being related to acceleration)? Every criticism I've made of your posts has been accurate. You apparently have a superficial understanding of physics concepts but you equally apparently can't use them in your messages without screwing up.

Another thing I'm failing to understand because it doesn't make sense is your "a semantic dissemination of individual sentences." WTF does that mean? Is that what you really meant to say? Is "dissemination" the word you meant to use?

DanT
04-25-2006, 10:01 PM
Go back and read the original post :rolleyes: If you continually accelerate, at some point you will approach, but never of course reach, the speed of light. It's a matter of simple mathematics. How much work does it require to be so hopelessly obtuse. Moreover, how vapid are the merits of your political beliefs if you must reduce every thread to a semantic argument to make up for a lack of argumentative weight.

It is not true that positive acceleration will eventually result in a velocity that approaches the speed of light. In fact, you can pick any positive number P, however tiny, and easily create a situation in which there is positive acceleration and yet the velocity P is never attained at any finite time.

Simply take the initial velocity at time 0 to be zero and let the acceleration
at time t>0 be equal to exp{-t/P}. Then, using elementary integral calculus, one can show that the velocity at any time t>0 is

v(t) = P * ( 1 - exp{-t/P} ).

Note that the velocity is an increasing function of time that approaches P from below but never attains it in finite time.

If you don't like the idea that the initial velocity at time 0 is zero, simply start time at t=1, where the initial velocity is P * ( 1 - exp{-1/P} ), a positive number.

Dave Lane
04-25-2006, 10:17 PM
Now you are probably doomed.

2 + 2 = what 4?

Hiring a good accountant

An interviewer calls in 3 accountants to hire for a job and asks the first one "What do two plus two equal?" The first accountant replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The accountant looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the next accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The accountant looks at the interviewer oddly and says "Yes"

Then the interviewer calls in the next accountant and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The third accountant gets up, locks the door, closes the shades, takes the phone off the hook sits down next to the interviewer and whispers "What do you want it to equal?"

Dave

~one of my favorites...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-26-2006, 06:58 AM
It is not true that positive acceleration will eventually result in a velocity that approaches the speed of light. In fact, you can pick any positive number P, however tiny, and easily create a situation in which there is positive acceleration and yet the velocity P is never attained at any finite time.

Simply take the initial velocity at time 0 to be zero and let the acceleration
at time t>0 be equal to exp{-t/P}. Then, using elementary integral calculus, one can show that the velocity at any time t>0 is

v(t) = P * ( 1 - exp{-t/P} ).

Note that the velocity is an increasing function of time that approaches P from below but never attains it in finite time.

If you don't like the idea that the initial velocity at time 0 is zero, simply start time at t=1, where the initial velocity is P * ( 1 - exp{-1/P} ), a positive number.

This statement is also untrue. It is contigent upon the degree of acceleration being shorter than the cumulative amount of time. It also assumes that time is in fact not a human construct (which it is). So even if it is infintessimally slow (and granted I know this is a reductio ad absurdum argument on your behalf to prove your still invalid point) at some point it will in fact reach the speed of light.

Your point is akin to me saying that a Dodge Viper can't go 60 mph when the entire premise of said assertion is based on a clock that stops in 3 seconds.

Nice try, but no. And furthermore, any truly objective person would realize the tone inherent in the first point about said acceleration on behalf of patteeu, which was both measurable and quantifiably 'large' by human standards.

But this is probably just me 'slinging poo' according to BL.

DanT
04-26-2006, 08:10 AM
This statement is also untrue. It is contigent upon the degree of acceleration being shorter than the cumulative amount of time. It also assumes that time is in fact not a human construct (which it is). So even if it is infintessimally slow (and granted I know this is a reductio ad absurdum argument on your behalf to prove your still invalid point) at some point it will in fact reach the speed of light.

Your point is akin to me saying that a Dodge Viper can't go 60 mph when the entire premise of said assertion is based on a clock that stops in 3 seconds.

Nice try, but no. And furthermore, any truly objective person would realize the tone inherent in the first point about said acceleration on behalf of patteeu, which was both measurable and quantifiably 'large' by human standards.

But this is probably just me 'slinging poo' according to BL.

There is nothing in my previous post that is untrue, although I admit that its use of calculus might be perplexing to some. Here's a simpler way to demonstrate the same notion. Get a sheet of paper and draw horizontal and vertical axes on it. Label the horizontal axis "Time" and label the vertical axis "Velocity". Pick a positive value P (less than the speed of light, of course) and draw a horizontal line through the point P on the vertical axis. Call that "the asymptote". Now, all you have to do to show that it is possible to have continuous positive acceleration and yet also keep the velocity from exceeding P is to draw a graph in the first quadrant that starts at the origin, continuously increases and approaches the asymptote without exceeding it. It is the continuous increase in the graph of velocity that represents the concept of continuous positive acceleration. The graph of the velocity function I provided in my earlier post satisfies these conditions, as do an infinite number of other graphs.

Your original statement,

If you continually accelerate, at some point you will approach, but never of course reach, the speed of light.
is simply wrong, as my counterexamples demonstrate. If you revise your statement so that there is a time T such that the acceleration function a(t) is bounded from below at a positive number for all times t>T, then you could salvage it.

patteeu's criticism of your argument was that you were talking about acceleration when you should have been talking about velocity. Acceleration is a derivative of velocity. If you are supposed to be talking about velocity, then that's what you should be talking about, not acceleration, a derivative that can't be used to describe velocity unless additional information (i.e. boundary conditions) are specified.

Chief Henry
04-26-2006, 09:02 AM
There is nothing in my previous post that is untrue, although I admit that its use of calculus might be perplexing to some. Here's a simpler way to demonstrate the same notion. Get a sheet of paper and draw horizontal and vertical axes on it. Label the horizontal axis "Time" and label the vertical axis "Velocity". Pick a positive value P (less than the speed of light, of course) and draw a horizontal line through the point P on the vertical axis. Call that "the asymptote". Now, all you have to do to show that it is possible to have continuous positive acceleration and yet also keep the velocity from exceeding P is to draw a graph in the first quadrant that starts at the origin, continuously increases and approaches the asymptote without exceeding it. It is the continuous increase in the graph of velocity that represents the concept of continuous positive acceleration. The graph of the velocity function I provided in my earlier post satisfies these conditions, as do an infinite number of other graphs.

Your original statement,

is simply wrong, as my counterexamples demonstrate. If you revise your statement so that there is a time T such that the acceleration function a(t) is bounded from below at a positive number for all times t>T, then you could salvage it.

patteeu's criticism of your argument was that you were talking about acceleration when you should have been talking about velocity. Acceleration is a derivative of velocity. If you are supposed to be talking about velocity, then that's what you should be talking about, not acceleration, a derivative that can't be used to describe velocity unless additional information (i.e. boundary conditions) are specified.


:wayne:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-26-2006, 09:03 AM
There is nothing in my previous post that is untrue, although I admit that its use of calculus might be perplexing to some. Here's a simpler way to demonstrate the same notion. Get a sheet of paper and draw horizontal and vertical axes on it. Label the horizontal axis "Time" and label the vertical axis "Velocity". Pick a positive value P (less than the speed of light, of course) and draw a horizontal line through the point P on the vertical axis. Call that "the asymptote". Now, all you have to do to show that it is possible to have continuous positive acceleration and yet also keep the velocity from exceeding P is to draw a graph in the first quadrant that starts at the origin, continuously increases and approaches the asymptote without exceeding it. It is the continuous increase in the graph of velocity that represents the concept of continuous positive acceleration. The graph of the velocity function I provided in my earlier post satisfies these conditions, as do an infinite number of other graphs.

Your original statement,

is simply wrong, as my counterexamples demonstrate. If you revise your statement so that there is a time T such that the acceleration function a(t) is bounded from below at a positive number for all times t>T, then you could salvage it.

patteeu's criticism of your argument was that you were talking about acceleration when you should have been talking about velocity. Acceleration is a derivative of velocity. If you are supposed to be talking about velocity, then that's what you should be talking about, not acceleration, a derivative that can't be used to describe velocity unless additional information (i.e. boundary conditions) are specified.

Having actually taken calculus classes, I am well aware of your criticism. The use of the word acceleration was to prove how he was falling even further down the slippery slope of irrelevance due to the increasingly extreme nature of his views. I didn't need to talk about velocity, because it could be clearly gleaned from the example that I was referring to an already GREAT velocity. Your attempts to split hairs are not getting you anywhere.

IF you wish to play the semantic game, then you've lost before you've even begun. I never said he had REACHED the speed of light, I said that he was APPROACHING the speed of light, and therefore any such positive acceleration, which any sane person could garner, is therefore an approach towards said speed. Your deflection attempts are weak and ineffective.

Furthermore, your desire to reduce this to the minutiae of mathematics, while ineffective, also shows how true it is that said party has in fact accelerated greatly TOWARDS IRRELEVANCE.

His red shift indicates his great VELOCITY away from relevance, which is surprising given that he was once sane. In order to reach said velocity so quickly, he would require great acceleration, as it has happened in a manner of weeks. We all know this. I doesn't need to be spelled out.. Anyone approaching consciousness already knows this, it goes without saying. The fact that you feel the need to say it and then endlessly disseminate it only proves how vapid your point is.

The logical extension of your point makes basic communication impossible, because it would require us all to fully explicate all underlying assumptions of common knowledge behind each and every statement that we make. Such a desire is asinine and pointless. Your reductive attempts at diverting from the subject at hand are pathetic.

Baby Lee
04-26-2006, 09:07 AM
granted I know this is a reductio ad absurdum argument . . .

But this is probably just me 'slinging poo' according to BL.
Why would I say that, when it's so clearly more an 'attempt to use latin phrases as a feeble attempt to bolster the appearance of your intellect?'

FTR, I never said you only sling poo. I said you only sling poo when you are responding to me. Ever since you discovered I was a reasonable person who disagrees with you on some issues in a manner you can't rebut with debate, your only remarks are your self-evident conclusions that I'm 'stoopid,' 'really really really stoopid,' a 'doody-head,' and taking jibes about my personal religious beliefs, and what they're supposed to portend for my whole outlook on life, that are so off-base as to be self-evidently false on their face.
Though I did enjoy the chuckle reviewing your post about how I didn't drink as I was sipping my Maker's Mark nightcap.

Baby Lee
04-26-2006, 09:11 AM
Having actually taken calculus classes, I am well aware of your criticism. . . . Your attempts to split hairs are not getting you anywhere.
"Hey, trust me. I know what I'm talking about. And you pointing out that I have the fundamentals wrong is pathetic, because in math and physics, the details aren't all that important."
"You got that? Science is an inexact science, pretty much like horseshoes, so there."

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 09:14 AM
Your reductive attempts at diverting from the subject at hand are pathetic.

:LOL: Says the guy that constructed this little straw man to begin with. ROFL

DanT
04-26-2006, 11:20 AM
Having actually taken calculus classes, I am well aware of your criticism. The use of the word acceleration was to prove how he was falling even further down the slippery slope of irrelevance due to the increasingly extreme nature of his views. I didn't need to talk about velocity, because it could be clearly gleaned from the example that I was referring to an already GREAT velocity. Your attempts to split hairs are not getting you anywhere.

IF you wish to play the semantic game, then you've lost before you've even begun. I never said he had REACHED the speed of light, I said that he was APPROACHING the speed of light, and therefore any such positive acceleration, which any sane person could garner, is therefore an approach towards said speed. Your deflection attempts are weak and ineffective.

Furthermore, your desire to reduce this to the minutiae of mathematics, while ineffective, also shows how true it is that said party has in fact accelerated greatly TOWARDS IRRELEVANCE.

His red shift indicates his great VELOCITY away from relevance, which is surprising given that he was once sane. In order to reach said velocity so quickly, he would require great acceleration, as it has happened in a manner of weeks. We all know this. I doesn't need to be spelled out.. Anyone approaching consciousness already knows this, it goes without saying. The fact that you feel the need to say it and then endlessly disseminate it only proves how vapid your point is.

The logical extension of your point makes basic communication impossible, because it would require us all to fully explicate all underlying assumptions of common knowledge behind each and every statement that we make. Such a desire is asinine and pointless. Your reductive attempts at diverting from the subject at hand are pathetic.

Thanks for the reply, 'Hamas' Jenkins. I misunderstood your use of the term "approaches''. We math-y types tend to use the more restrictive sense of approach that means to approximate as well as one pleases. It hadn't occured to me that you meant approach in the sense that Willie Mays Aikens (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aikenwi01.shtml) used to approach the speed the light when he put the ball in play and left the batter's box for first base.


I haven't noticed any deviation on patteeu's part from where he's always been--topical and intelligent on the issues he addresses.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
[QUOTE=Baby Lee]'

FTR, I never said you only sling poo. I said you only sling poo when you are responding to me. QUOTE]

I hope that you enjoyed your vacation at the Michael Jackson Fantasy Ranch.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
Maybe the degree is different, and my view is skewed b/c Jenkins is on my tip personally, while TC is attacking others [and vice versa for your POV ], but I see a parallel where they've both stopped debating and descending into poo-slinging 24/7.
'You're dumb' and 'you're really dumb' and '[my misapprehension of what] your religion [is] sucks' may be fun to sling around, but they are never, ever, rebuttals of any issue presented.

Baby Lee
04-26-2006, 12:37 PM
I hope that you enjoyed your vacation at the Michael Jackson Fantasy Ranch.

Maybe the degree is different, and my view is skewed b/c Jenkins is on my tip personally, while TC is attacking others [and vice versa for your POV ], but I see a parallel where they've both stopped debating and descending into poo-slinging 24/7.
'You're dumb' and 'you're really dumb' and '[my misapprehension of what] your religion [is] sucks' may be fun to sling around, but they are never, ever, rebuttals of any issue presented.

go bowe
04-26-2006, 11:45 PM
. . .I haven't noticed any deviation on patteeu's part from where he's always been--topical and intelligent on the issues he addresses.a bit heartlessly conservative at times, perhaps, but a person with immense intellectual integrity and an amazingly well-informed point of view that is always interesting and persuasive...'

other than that, he sucks... :p :p :p