Oh, and for the record, you called me a "Moronic Idiot" before I called you Sugartits. So there's that. Plus I wound up making Hossy throw up, which I regret.

I'm skeptical but if that is what the new study shows then it is possible the other studies were wrong. We will see what future studies say.

For the fourth time - please, read slowly and carefully:

I said that Obama will win Florida. Why? The trending in Florida is Romney falling, Obama rising. Multiple polls. I even used your Rasmussen poll that shows this trend is true over the past five days (which I linked to).

There are obviously plenty of acquaintances of mine whose charitable habits I know nothing about. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of acquaintances that I talk about that kind of stuff with. I know which of my friends give away a lot of money and which ones don't. I know which ones give to political parties and candidates too.

No, you didn't. You said that Obama was most likely based on the 538 or whatever the NYT guy said. I disputed that by presenting the 538 data.

Then you brought out the gmu.edu site which only represented 50,000 votes in in the most left county in the state.

And you got called out.

And you can't respond. You misrepresented yourself. I understand. passion can run wild at times. I don't hold it against you.

Trends cover the data over time - not one day. Yes, all polls have Obama trending up in Florida 538 is a "poll of polls", an aggregator. TPM is an aggregator. You linked Rasmussen, one of the polls the aggregators use.

All polls show Obama trending up in Florida, and Romney down. Yes - even though in a snapshot of today Romney may be ahead by a half a point to a point.

:D Uh, no. You falsely accused me of somehow secretly getting my hands on voters data (I never said that). I then told you that you clearly do not know how the results data on early voting is made available to the public, and linked to the site so you can learn.

You refused to even move down to the applicable part of the site, instead choosing to link to various other information media links at the top and railing on about Huffington Post.

Yeah - big difference in understanding about polls and websites between you and I.

Now - you say Romney will win Florida. Do you have anything other than a one-day snapshot poll of him being barely ahead to support your contention? Because the trends all have Obama overcoming him and winning the state.

I call bullsh.it. First off, I've never had a discussion with my friends about how much they donate to charity. I don't care. It's none of my business.

Secondly, you just have no idea unless you actually see the donations and/or their checking accounts.

You're talking out of your ass here. It's obvious. You started with "most liberals" and now you're kind of admitting you really have no idea.

Again, not true. Your NYT poll disguised as some "patriarch of election virtue" proved your assertions false.

I then waded through the propaganda link you provided (again disputing you ridiculous claim above) to expose the fact that your analysis was based on early results of only .05% of the population of the state, in ONE county, that has been historically left leaning.


You, in turn, called me a liar, drunk, idiot etc. for pointing that fact out.

Hysterically funny, since anyone who actually knows me is laughing their guts out at this.

Hope you feel better about yourself, if that's what gets you through the day.

Here is a different analysis of the data:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...-the-landslide

:zz: How? You are now confusing two different things. Yes, 538 has always had Obama above 270 votes (I gave the link, you never looked at it).

Yes, 538 aggregate trending has Obama moving up in Florida, Romney down. As does TPM. As does your Rasmussen poll. As does several other polls.

BTW, your Rasmussen poll you posted gives Obama a massive victory - even bigger than 538.

And 538/Nate Silver is extremely well-respected and accurate in polling, even if you've never heard of him and want to dismiss him out of hand (which is laughable)

Dude - you just posted an opinion article by Karl Rove. Talk about "not objective" ! LOL !

Dude - you are just not following along :zz: You are confusing electoral votes nationally with Florida win.

No, I asked if you were drunk because you are clearly not following the conversation. And you called me liar - you might look back at your posts.

I ask friends to donate to charities that I'm involved with. They will sometimes ask me to donate to charities that they are involved with. What is surprising or unusual about that?

hmmmm

I give up.

Let's start again: I say Obama is going to easily win the electoral college, and the popular vote. And I say Obama will win Florida.

I use your Rasmussen polling info for the Florida win. And 538 and TPM aggegators.
And the early voting data on turnout and party.

And yes, I use 538, TPM, and even your Rasmussen polling company, for the national win.

:D

That's a lot different than knowing amounts, no?

Either way, this whole thing gave you a chance to crowbar in that you are involved with charities. We're all impressed. :rolleyes:

If I'm on a charity committee or if I'm just raising money for a charity I will usually know the exact amount that a person gives.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. There are plenty of people out there that do a million times more than me. I could certainly do a lot more than I do.

You like to keep moving the goalposts, huh? I guess when you're trying to squirm out of a series of dumb posts it works.

Here's the bottomline....nothing you have said tonight is factual. You have absolutely NO idea the amount your "friends" or anyone else donates unless you have access to their finances. And we both know you don't.

You don't know approximately how much money most of your friends make? I don't know the exact amount that people make but I usually know the ballpark figure.

I will often times know the exact amount that they give to a specific charity. I may not know about other charities they give to. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

FTFY

I am telling you, the people who are constantly yelling how evil the republicans are, are usually not very charitable people or nice people. I'm not talking about your average democrat. I'm talking about the people who are extremely vocal. The ones that I refer to as "angry liberals".

It's not shocking when you think about it. If a person was a really kind and caring person, they would do what they could to help others. They wouldn't be constantly screaming about how evil the other party is. They wouldn't be screaming that George Bush is a war criminal. I'm not saying that they wouldn't prefer the democrats. I'm just saying that they wouldn't be constantly trying to vilify the other party. That is just a defense mechanism.

Am I talking in generalities? Yes, I admit that. But I think that in general it is the truth.

Fascinating. By this logic, does that mean that there is a group of "angry conservatives" at the other end of the spectrum that are feeding a third of the starving babies in Africa? Was bush more personally charitable than Clinton?

I don't know about Clinton. But I remember when Bush was running against Gore, the media checked on their charitable contributions. It wasn't even close. In the year they checked, Bush gave tens of thousands to charity and Gore gave like $350.

I think there are certainly some "angry conservatives" out there. But I don't think they claim to be the party whose hearts bleed for everyone. So I don't think you have the same type of hypocrisy as you do with the angry liberals. The conservatives may be hypocrites about other stuff.

There was actually a book about this stuff. It was called "Do As I Say, Not As I Do: The Hypocrisy of Liberals". Here is what the book is about:

"Members of the liberal/left exude an air of moral certitude. They pride themselves on being committed and selfless and seem particularly confident of the purity of their motives and the evil nature of their opponents. To correct economic and social injustice, liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and more."

"But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate in depth the private lives of prominent liberals. Politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers or philanthropists Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using everything from real estate records, IRS records, court depositions, and their own statements, he sought to examine whether they lived by the principles they so forcefully advocate."

"What he found was a long list of contradictions. All these proponents of organized labor had developed various methods to sidestep paying union wages or avoid employing unions altogether. They were adept at avoiding taxes; invested heavily in corporations they had denounced; took advantage of foreign tax credits to use non-American labor overseas; espoused environmental causes while opposing those that might affect their own property rights; hid their investments in trusts to avoid paying estate tax; denounced oil companies but quietly owned them. The same applied to causes like affirmative action, civil liberties for accused criminals, and expanded rights for minor children."

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=IsKz-Y3nEbUC

Biden is extremely charitable. He gives $369 a year to charity. That is unbelievable.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...inancial_N.htm

I don't know why I come down here :zz:


Charity should be measured in intent not amount.

dala...

you should change your signature.

Eagles got lucky to back into the playoffs and then lose immediately in 2010. Since then Vick has shown he is a below average quarterback.