Impeach Bush

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Well it seems that the majority of politically conscious people do want better answers for the war upon Saddam then what has so far been provided to the public by White House sources, and it seems that impeachment hearings where they must speak under oath is the only way to gain the real facts that we should expect and should deserve.

Are there people that "dumb" and unable to figure it out on their own ?
If "yes", then that is those people business and they should not stick their noses into unknown or unfamiliar business.
Also, it may appear that after exhuasted explanations, those people would not understand it, or even get "dumber".

One needs to distunguish "what" can be told openely to the public. Otherwise people like spies do not need to search for some data, but get it all for free with a "power" button pushed on a TV-set.

[crayola]

IF the map says anything at all, it might show victory for Kerry's campaign of anti-war. How many Democrats and Independents will gladly enlist to serve under a lying commander n chief? Truly this is a religious war of the Republican party who has shown itself to be probably 99% Right Wing Religious Fundamentalists. These are eager to follow Bush anywhere.

How many of those significant others will refuse to send their sons and daughters to die for the extreme fundamentalism of Dubya's ethnic cleansing to rid the world of Islamists?

The Republican politicians stated many times over "you can expect YOUR children to die" for the Dubya doctrine. Were they speaking of the Democrats and Independents? Surely they were not speaking of their own kind. Were they?

[Technosoul]

Maps are fine but zones can be re-designed by political means, and the boarderline between constituational rights and moralistic objectives can be tampered with on the roadmap for "peace". People get sick.

[tusaki]

Originally posted by macnpat,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (macnpat,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, you are wrong. Bush won. That's all there is to it here in America.[/b]

Where did I say that Bush hasn't won? I never questioned that. All I said is that the map you showed doesn't tell the whole story. That it [the map]is a classic example of how statistics are used, and in this case the visualization of statistics, to give a false impression of the underlying data. In this case, it shows a black and white view of where bush won per county. But these are not the only dimensions in the underlying data, and it skews it further by not taking into account population size/area size. In the following text I have highlighted some of the issues I have with that map.

http://wwwcs.upb.de/fachbereich/AG/agdomik...af/presgrf2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-Presentation Graphics: Graphical Integrity

Presentation Graphics: Graphical Integrity
We must ensure that the graphics do not lie or mislead. This is done by avoiding visual distortion, i.e., ensure that the visual representation of the data is consistent with the numerical representation. This is in terms or area, volume, etc.

We must take into account human perception as well as actual changes. For example, people perceive the area of a circle decreasing less rapidly than the actual area, i.e., the perceived area = (actual area)x with x = 0.8 +/- 0.3.

Different people have differing perceptions. Perception changes with experience and perception is context - sensitive.

Two principles:

1. The representation of the data should be proportional to the magnitude of the data.

2. Clear and detailed labeling (annotation) should be used. The data should be explained on the graphic and important data points should be labeled.

We can define a "lie factor" = (size of the effect shown on the graphic)/(size of the effect in the data)

Any value for the lie factor other than one indicates a distortion. This is a particular problem in using visual area, or even volume, to represent 1D data. In general, the number of variable dimensions depicted should equal the number of dimensions in the data.

Another way to distort is through design and data variation. Observers assume that a scale will be regular, so variations can be used to distort the data. Changes in the design can cause observers to confuse this change with actual data change. So in general, we should show data variation rather than variation in design.

When plotting money versus something, be sure to take into account inflation, population growth, etc.

Context is important, i.e. do not quote data out of context. Graphics can distort by leaving out information. [/quote]

[macnpat]

Originally posted by tusaki,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tusaki,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-macnpat, No, you are wrong.  Bush won. That's all there is to it here in America.

Where did I say that Bush hasn't won? I never questioned that. All I said is that the map you showed doesn't tell the whole story. [/b][/quote]

Bush won. My map is representative. You are beating a dead horse.

I know you have an agenda, but I can't imagine what it could be. :(

[gr8fuldaniel]

(click pic to enlarge)

This shows large support for Bush in areas populated by salamanders, hoot owls, wolves and other wildlife. However the more populated areas are blue.

[tusaki]

Originally posted by macnpat Bush won. My map is representative. You are beating a dead horse. I know you have an agenda, but I can't imagine what it could be

Is the map graphically representative of how many people actually voted for bush? no. The same map, after almost any election would have looked almost exactly the same, even if democrats win 70/30. This is due to large, low-population, 'heartland' rural areas always voting republican. Therefore your map is not representative. Yet you keep denying it even after the mountain of evidence and examples of maps which ARE representative, as well as thorough scientific explanation on how to build representative maps. You may attack me on every one of the points I made through solid argumentation, but all you do is dismiss it by saying I have an agenda.
I consider that very weak.

[Gorgo]

I think the American people have spoken. I hereby proclaim that Bush is out of a job.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Gorgo, I think the American people have spoken. I hereby proclaim that Bush is out of a job.

ROFL...you're funny.

[gr8fuldaniel]

We should all listen closely to the only ones hit on 911:

Election Results:
Washington DC 90% Kerry
Manhatten 82% Kerry

[gr8fuldaniel]

Hey coincidentally, Democrats were the only targets of Bio-Terroism (Anthrax) after 911. Small world? or Republican connection? These are questions, not statements.

[Nono]

Originally posted by tusaki You may attack me on every one of the points I made through solid argumentation, but all you do is dismiss it by saying I have an agenda.

Mac is steeped in Republican tactics after all: Argumentation Deficiency Syndrome? Hey, no problem! Just go on the offensive. Make nasty allegations and question your debating partner's moral fibre. That'll make a whole new discussion and you can slip through the cracks.

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, We should all listen closely to the only ones hit on 911: Election Results: Washington DC 90% Kerry Manhatten 82% Kerry

The only ones hit, how do you figure that? Are you suggesting all the victims came from NY, Jersey and DC? If so, guess again slick.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-tusaki You may attack me on every one of the points I made through solid argumentation, but all you do is dismiss it by saying I have an agenda.

Mac is steeped in Republican tactics after all: Argumentation Deficiency Syndrome? Hey, no problem! Just go on the offensive. Make nasty allegations and question your debating partner's moral fibre. That'll make a whole new discussion and you can slip through the cracks.[/b][/quote]

Okay, my point is Bush won above and beyond any disputes.

What is your point? That my map is incorrect? That it is contrived? And why? You are going to have to get over this loss.

Just repeat after me. "Yep,. Bush sure won alright".

[macnpat]

Originally posted by tusaki,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tusaki,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-macnpat Bush won. My map is representative. You are beating a dead horse. I know you have an agenda, but I can't imagine what it could be

Is the map graphically representative of how many people actually voted for bush? no. The same map, after almost any election would have looked almost exactly the same, even if democrats win 70/30. This is due to large, low-population, 'heartland' rural areas always voting republican. Therefore your map is not representative. Yet you keep denying it even after the mountain of evidence and examples of maps which ARE representative, as well as thorough scientific explanation on how to build representative maps. You may attack me on every one of the points I made through solid argumentation, but all you do is dismiss it by saying I have an agenda.
I consider that very weak.[/b][/quote]

I think you need to go to Washington D.C. Take a peek in the Oval Office and see who is sitting there at the big desk and then move on to more timely political issues. At least my map shows the election is over.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-tusaki You may attack me on every one of the points I made through solid argumentation, but all you do is dismiss it by saying I have an agenda.

Mac is steeped in Republican tactics after all: Argumentation Deficiency Syndrome? Hey, no problem! Just go on the offensive. Make nasty allegations and question your debating partner's moral fibre. That'll make a whole new discussion and you can slip through the cracks.[/b][/quote]

gezzus. I'm not steeped in anything. That's an attack. I showed a map. It's accurate. I'm not being offensive, I just showed a map.

I'm not making any nasty allegations. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that tusaki's unwillingness to admit my map is correct, no matter what it indicates shows he is on the attack, not I.

I just showed everyone a map. Since he is unable to demonstrate that my map is incorrect, he comes back with three of his own but it doesn't change the fact that Bush won hands down.

All I see here is sore losers.

[bullshitdetector]

Bush won, there are sore losers, just pat them on the head and go "uh huh, thats nice" and ignore it.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by bullshitdetector, Bush won, there are sore losers, just pat them on the head and go "uh huh, thats nice" and ignore it.

Yep, and when he is impeached we can pat you on the head and say "uh huh, everything is better now". :)

[tusaki]

Originally posted by macnpat, gezzus. I'm not steeped in anything. That's an attack. I showed a map. It's accurate. I'm not being offensive, I just showed a map. I'm not making any nasty allegations. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that tusaki's unwillingness to admit my map is correct, no matter what it indicates shows he is on the attack, not I. I just showed everyone a map. Since he is unable to demonstrate that my map is incorrect, he comes back with three of his own but it doesn't change the fact that Bush won hands down. All I see here is sore losers.

Where did I say Bush didn't win?

Please explain how the points I gave are not "able to demonstrate that your map is incorrect".

I'm not attacking you, I'm just attacking the map you provide, since I feel it does not reflect truth well enough for the reasons I stated earlier. So far I have presented my reasoning, now I would like to hear your reasoning as to how you think your map is correct. Just stating "bush has won" has nothing to do with the correctness of the map. The maps I gave say the same thing. However, I feel they reflect the situation more truthfully since they take into account more aspects of the underlying data. I feel this has nothing to do with 'agendas', but more with honest and scientifically correct statistical visualization. So far I haven't heard any argumentation from you at all. But please, explain it to me.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by tusaki, I feel this has nothing to do with 'agendas', but more with honest and scientifically correct statistical visualization. So far I haven't heard any argumentation from you at all. But please, explain it to me.

Okay, let's take it from the top.

Your comment about my map was:

"Because it gives the impression that 98% of america voted Bush,".

If you are such an avid map reader then you should know better than to believe first impressions. The map is based on a valid representation no matter how it looks. The 'point' of the map is that Bush won, and the election was not close.

Any further demographic break down becomes a sociological discussion regarding the cultural, ethnic, age, party and industrial, and agricultural groupings which is notable in a country as diverse as ours.

If you would like to use your maps to break the votes down and discuss the diversity of population and how and why they would vote a certain way, I would be willing to do that.

I grew up in various demographic regions of America from Alaska to the deep South, to New England where I finished my education at a private New England College. So, I could probably contribute somewhat to that also.

In the meantime, there ain't a thing wrong with my map. It says Bush is the undisputable winner.