And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani, McCain and Thompson...

And the NBC/ WSJ poll has her winning as well.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Saddam wants a mulligan, too. That was a practice swing.
====================================

Her presidency would be considered a "do over" for Bill's reign. And the country will say no thanks.

Lee Ward:
And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani, McCain and Thompson

I realize you're not very bright but the difference between Giuliani and Clinton on the Qinnipiac University Poll is 1% with a margin of error of +/-2.4%. When the difference is less than the margin of error, it holds no statistical significance.

So, Lee Ward, are you just ignorant or were you just lying (again) ?

An even quicker Update: Again, Lorie looking for just the exact info that she needs to substantiate what she wants to believe.

You overlooked the June 14 NBC/WSJ poll that showed Clinton beating the drag queen by 5%, whereas ain March Giuliani had a 10% lead. Looks like catastrophic leakage to me. The new poll also showed Obama beating the TN Redneck by an even greater margin.

Your Update looks a little dated.

Mike, their rhetoric is degenerate. You see it over and over again. The apparent unselfconsciousness of it either speaks to stupidity or duplicity. You can be paid to be that cynical, but what else would motivate an intellect to so debase itself?
=======================================

Hey kim==, we debase ourselves to believe in most polling. Pay attention to Jay Cost, though.
===============================

underscoreMikeunderscore -- remember also that the trned is your friend (perhaps YOUR only friend you low-IQ putz) and note that Giuliani is dropping like a rock in the national polls.

Chart showing Giuliani dropping like a rock.

But then Lorie is correct for celebrating those little victories (the one poll) that show the Republicans actually have a prayer in this next election, other wise you the immature Republicans like yourself might stay and home and pout on election day.

From the article: "The letter, sent Friday, argues that the 2002 vote for the war, which Clinton backed, is hopelessly out of date." That bet I made on the horse that came in last is hopelessly out of date and I want to reconsider who I picked. gc

Hillary is a classic domanitrix--most dems resemble "The Gimp" is Pulp Fiction. Not a pretty picture.

Lorie is right for posting a poll which suggests you guys actually have a prayer in the 2008 election, underscoreMikeunderscore, otherwise immature Republicans like yourself might stay home and pout on election day...

but unfortunately, reality is leaning against you, underscoreMikeunderscore because Giuliani's popularity is dropping like a rock.

16 1/2 months out, and we are supposed to commit to a hypothetical matchup by polls which do not always even bother to poll registered voters, much make sure they are likely to vote by asking if they voted in the last election?

Really.

16 1/2 months before the General Election, and we are supposed to get excited about what a poll says about a hypothetical match-up, which does not even always make sure to poll registered voters, much less make sure to query registered voters who actually voted in 2006?

Puh-leez.

This isn't a f***ing playground; you don't get "do-overs".

Moronic. And that's being kind.

** chuckle **

You know Lee, we got other choices besides Rudy, should we so choose. And Hurricane Fred just might have something to do with Rudy's relative diminuation.

And besides, assuming that Rudy's relative position among Republicans somehow means they would not support him if he got the nomination, well, that's more than a little silly.

Lee the Liar Czar wants Hillary to be the candidate for their side. I can't wait. If anything will mobilize the republicans and most the independents will be Hillary. She will do more for the republicans then we can do for ourselves. ww

Let's assume that Hillary does win as POTUS. That means that there are more socialist-leaning voters than producer/provider-leaning voters. Consider what that says about the future of America. When a majority of voters can simply vote for the Government giving them goods and services, perhaps our democracy has crossed a turning point to ultimate ruination.

From the article: "The letter, sent Friday, argues that the 2002 vote for the war, which Clinton backed, is hopelessly out of date."
That bet I made on the horse that came in last is hopelessly out of date - I need to place my bet over again. gc

"...Rudy's relative diminuation."

Conservobabble for tanking.

So it's a good thing that you have other choices Dj, because from the looks of things Cutie Rudy doesn't have a prayer.

So the Senate Dems, having failed to accomplish anything through the democratic process, are back to the position that they can erase the previous authorization by fiat. We'll see about that.

You know Lee, we got other choices besides Rudy, should we so choose. And Hurricane Fred just might have something to do with Rudy's relative diminuation.

Right, more people said they'd vote for Clinton over Giuliani because of Thompson. Wait, what?

What DJ said, albeit 3 times!

I am wholly unconcerned about a poll take 16 months prior to any election, as voters are notoriously fickle. Show me HIllary ahead two months out and I might get worried.

Sorry Langtry, server's got a stutter sometimes.

As for you, Mr. Polls only matter, that's correct. People respond to a question in a poll according to their opinion of the moment. Fred has made folks back off of Rudy, so yes, Hillary would appear to gain as a result, because O-Boy-ma has not done squat to show he understands the questions, so Hildy has the Donk lead uncontested right now.

Lorie started this thread by referencing a poll she felt was encouraging to the I Hate Hillary crowd, so who's concerned? If a cross sample of polls showed her with a double digit lead over all Repubs, would that be a Wiz-worthy topic?

"Hurricane Fred"? More like a (southern) tropical depression.

* chuckle *

Then what are you afraid of, groucho?

And I can smell your fear, even through the internet. You might want to visit here to learn how you might improve your social responsiveness.

heCantFindTheUnderscoreKeyLEEWARD:
And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani,

You didn't answer my question. Were you lying when you posted this or just ignorant of the fact the difference in the results were statistically insignificant ? Here I'll make it easy for you LeeWard:

(A) Lee Ward is ignorant (again)
(B) Lee Ward is lying (again)

Which is it, LeeWard ?

Fred has made folks back off of Rudy, so yes, Hillary would appear to gain as a result, because O-Boy-ma has not done squat to show he understands the questions, so Hildy has the Donk lead uncontested right now.

Reading is fun and educational. You should try it sometime. From the link:

But in a race pitting Mrs. Clinton against Mayor Giuliani, a Republican, the former New York mayor was favored by 10%.

How exactly are they choosing Thompson over Giuliani and Clinton over Obama in a question asking about their preference between only Clinton and Giuliani?

Polls Only Matter When You Understand Statistics, you should take a few Quant courses before you pretend you know what you are talking about. Some Sociology would also be valuable, and maybe an overview of Political Science.

Opinion polling is not a zero-sum game, nor is it a closed pool of respondents. When the poller calls and asks their question, as one example, they only record responses from people willing to be polled. The person who receives the call may not be inclined to respond if they have doubt about their position, especially if that doubt is recent. Thus, the sudden increase in popularity for Fred Thompson does bear a direct impact on the statistical response regarding any potential match-up, because the pool of people willing to answer the Giuliani question is directly impacted by their confidence that he will be the nominee. This is because the number of Republican responders who would take the poll declines, while the Democrat side remains steady, because the Dmeocrats' relative positions have not changed.

It's like the Job Approval numbers. They fluctuate according to the mood of the moment, and as such are not truly indicative of likely election results, especially when taken far from the time of the actual event.

wee wee lee lee wardie is too busy over at bluie replying to the ONE (snicker snort) comment he gets every other day to answer you Mike. As the saying goes, "polls are like Lee lee Wardie". (snort snicker)

Guys,

This is getting silly. The only thing that's fairly certain is that it will be a close election. We don't know who's going to win.

If I can interpret Lorie's post differently than the argument over polling, I think she was saying that the Today Show has nothing on which to base their contention that Mrs. Bill Clinton is "unbeatable". The only basis on which to make such a silly assertion this far out is to look at select polls that support the position while ignoring others. Given that there are polls that show that the Today Show is FOS Lorie's point stands and Lee is, as usual, wrong as wrong can be.

Not only that, polling right now is between 1 maybe 2 Dems vs. about 6 strong Republican contenders. Until the primaries are over, there is NO WAY that anyone can predict what the outcome of the November '08 election.

No one polls conservatives because we're working - not sitting at home watching Jerry Springer and two homosexual transvestite cross dressers fighting....

"Do over" on the Iraq vote . . .

That however is telling on the mind of some of our elected officials who are Democrats.

There is no way in hell Hillary can win a national election.

Therefore I hope she continues to do well in the polls. This is good news indeed.

two homosexual transvestite cross dressers fighting....

Posted by: steak111111 at June 18, 2007 03:18 PM

I hope you're not implying that there is something wrong with fighting.

Dallas we had a mayoral runoff on Saturday. A day or so before they had a poll that made the front headline showing the race very tight (45% - 47%) with the conservative just slightly ahead.

Election night the results came in with the conservative won by something like 12-15 points.

So let the LeeWards of the nation get all excited. It just makes it that much more fun when they get defeated. (i.e. 2004 election)

Snicker.

"Do over" on the Iraq vote . . .

It's her way of being:

1) ...against the war before she was for it.
2) ...for the war before she was against Bush.
3) ...after Bush before the war.
4) ...for the war after she was against Bush.
5) ...against the war before the polling.
6) ...for the polling after the war.
7) ...against the war until we win (then for it).
8) ...against the war before an amended congressional record.
9) ...against the war and the congressional record will prove it after amended.
10) ...for AND/OR against the war depending on which group she's talking to AND/OR depending on whether the press is present.
11) ...on the right side, because she can't be wrong, just ask her. and
12) ...right based on what the word "for" means....

It's not that she wants to actually change policy for the war or that it has anything to do with the nation.

She wants the Senate to use the time to take this vote, only so that she could now say that she voted against the war.

Good point Nehemiah (@3:49) and most likely correct. Not only will she be able to say that, but the press will repeat it over and over.

The left and the press think the pro-defeat stance will be a winner, but I wonder...

Everyone wants the war to end. Only leftists, terrorists, and ignorant people want the US to loose.

"...Only leftists, terrorists and ignorant people want the US to lose." Redundant.

Good point Nikkolai.

Actually, it may be an insult to terrorists and ignorant people.

Ward do you think the people of this nation are ready to elect a female shrew the likes of H. Clinton to the White House? I know democrats that won't vote for her. She will motivate the Republicans. Any opposition candidate need only cause her to reveal her vile temper and she is finished. I would just ask her what she plans to do to protect the female White House staff from Bill? Or better yet, what they plan to rent a night in the Lincoln bedroom for this time around? Either of those questions should fix her wagon. Cannot wait to see her debate Mitt or Fred.

LeeWard, have you run away or are you going to admit that you lied ?

He ran away.

I told you wardie was "covered up" over at bluie. snicker snort

Rest assured, Lee will be back. I am sure it is not as much fun lying to fellow liars as it is to those who know the truth and dispute the lies told by the liars on the left. Anyone catch Bernstein making the claim that Hillary is religious. I guess she is if you consider Marxism a religion.

"I told you wardie was "covered up" over at bluie. snicker snort
Posted by: jhow66 at June 18, 2007 10:36 PM"

jhow, please hurry back to the Old Snitches' Home. If you're locked out for the night you may end up on the undercard at Bum Fights.

Your friend and idol, bryanD

ZRag,

Make no mistake. Marxism is a religion that demands total blind commitment from followers.

I haven't run away, underscoreMikeunderscore. I'm just ignoring the trolls like you and jhow -- who act like grade school punks.

LeeWard:

I haven't run away, underscoreMikeunderscore. I'm just ignoring the trolls like you...

You lie, then when called on it refuse to own up to it, and then revert to name calling ... and I'm the 'grade school punk' ? Uh huh. Anyone order large bucket of hypocrisy ?

When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging, LeeWard. Run, run away!

No lies, Mike. You're ignoring the fact the margin of error swings both ways. It's a plus and minus thing, underscoreMikeunderscore -- so Clinton's winning margin could be higher instead of lower

-- which is why I ignored you're trollish little stalking efforts. Your point is nothing more than a meaningless troll. Your repeated childish rants, as a result, are truly, truly pointless, but for some odd reason you don't recognize that.

I was hoping you'd come to realize that you're repeated snarks were ignoring that fact, but I guess you just aren't very smart.

LeeWard:
No lies, Mike. You're ignoring the fact the margin of error swings both ways. It's a plus and minus thing, underscoreMikeunderscore -- so Clinton's winning margin could be higher instead of lower

And you're ignoring the FACT the conclusion you posted was a LIE. The poll did not show what you stated it showed which was Clinton ahead in the poll. It showed Clinton and Giuliani statistically tied. Any difference less than the margin of error is meaningless. You're either ignorant of how to interpret the data or your intentionally misrepresenting the facts (i.e. lying). Which is it, LeeWard, ignorant or lying ? Why don't you own up to your actions ?

but I guess you just aren't very smart.

'grade school punk' ? Are you capable of anything other than lying and then reverting to ad hominem attacks when someone points out your lies ? Of course, you can do what you typically do when someone points out your lies - run away!

Let's expand on your dishonesty, LeeWard.

Here's what you posted:
And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani,

Here's the facts:
+ the difference between Clinton and Giuliani was 1%
+ the margin of error was +/- 2.4%

So again, are you ignorant of how to interpret the data or are you intentionally misrepresenting the facts (i.e. lying) ? You've repeatedly lied here and never own up to it when your caught. You just run away.

Thanks for proving me right, underscoreIditounderscore. What I said is absolutely 100% correct, isnt it.

"And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani,"

and it does, doesn't it?

So let's check out your intergrity here underscoreMikeunderscore, the right wing's standard bearer of honesty and anti-hypocrisy from the left...

Three's a post by Jim Addison on Wizbang Politics that shows Fred Thompson leading McCain by 4 points in South Carolina, and the poll he cites has a margin of error of 5.5%.

So in your simpleton mind, underscoreFatheadunderscore, Jim Addison is a liar.

Are you going to go over there and post a comment showing Jim that his poll is bogus, and that he's a liar?

Of course you aren't underscoreMikeunderscore, because you are just a meaningless little noisemaking troll who isn't smart enough make a point of his own, so he follows others around throwing stones.

Well, here's the link and we're all waiting to see what you do.... well?

lol!

You're not going to "run away" from this challenge are you?

lol!

sorry - the margin of error for the Republican poll was 4.8%, the amrgin for the Democratic poll was 5.5%.

The 4.8% margin is still greater than the 4 point lead, so according to you Addison is a liar --- and my challenge still stands, Mike...

LeeWard:
Thanks for proving me right, underscoreIditounderscore. What I said is absolutely 100% correct, isnt it.

Actually, no, you're 100% wrong. Focus for a second..

The polls shows the difference between Clinton and Giuliani to be less than half the margin of error. For the statistically illiterate, this means that there's no statistical difference in the two numbers... which is to say, the numbers are the same. So, when you said:

And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani,

The statement has been demonstrated to be false. So either you're ignorant of how to interpret the data or your misrepresenting the FACTS (i.e. you're LYING).

And what Jim Addison said or another poll said has nothing to bearing on your LIE. It's not surprising you attempt to deflect. It seems you'd rather do everything but own up to your lie when you're caught.

You may now run away, LeeWard. You've been caught LYING, again! Run run, LeeWard!

And let's recap... so far LeeWard has lied and then when called on it gone to his 'goto' method - name calling ('grade school punk', 'idiot', 'fathead', etc - and those are just from his last few posts) and finally is attempting to deflect the issue of his lie.

If you were only capable of realizing how foolish you make yourself look...

Now, run away little LeeWard... but don't admit your lies. Run! Your lies might catch up with you. Run! ROFL!

There goes underscoreMikeunderscore - making a fool of himself again. Mike declares it statistically insignificant anf that makes it so, even though he's ignoring that the margin of error swing is plus and minus.

Just keep repeating the same old lies, Mike, you're no different that the rest, in fact, you're a little less than average, just a sad little troll...

Checking the link Mike, everyone can see that you still haven't "corrected" Addison.

That's what I thought... You are precisely the hypocrite you claim others to be.

I'll check back later to see if you've grown the huevos to post your lies over there too - but my guess is that you won't. He'd probably ban a punk troll like you.

LeeWard:

Mike declares it statistically insignificant anf that makes it so

Thanks for repeatedly demonstrating that you have no concept of statistical significance. Actually, the statistically literate world would define a difference less than the margin of error as statistically insignificant. That's what makes it so. The fact that you can't grasp this very basic concept proves your ignorance and/or dishonesty - repeatedly.

, even though he's ignoring that the margin of error swing is plus and minus.

See above. You're obviously illiterate. You don't need to keep proving it. I suggest you trouble yourself to actual learn the meaning of the data which you attempt to draw conclusions from rather than making a fool of yourself, lying, and whining when called out for it. Perhaps look into 'The Complete Idiots Guide to Statistics' - it seems fitting for you.

Checking the link Mike, everyone can see that you still haven't "corrected" Addison.

I actually don't visit the other Wizbang sites. We're here talking about your lie. Why do you try to keep deflecting away from your lie ? Why don't you own up to your lies ?

And why do you keep resorting to name calling ('grade school punk', 'idiot', 'fathead' - what are you 6?, 'punk troll') ? I've found that when people repeatedly resort to personal attacks it's because they know they've been busted.

So, you still can't bring yourself to own up to your lie ? At very least, admit your ignorance.

I fully expect you to either run away or attempt to deflect. Now, don't let me down, LeeWard! Run! Deflect! I'm sure you'll never do the honorable thing and admit lies and/or ignorance.

I see you still haven't called Addison on his "lying" yet Mike -- you're just a frightened little hypocritical troll after all.

LeeWard:
I see you still haven't called Addison on his "lying" yet Mike -- you're just a frightened little hypocritical troll after all.

I see that you've chosen to attempt to deflect criticism to someone else rather than directly deal with your own actions. How predictable.

Why won't you admit your lie that you've posted here ? Are you going to run now, LeeWard ? Or will you simply continue with your attempt to deflect ? Run ? Deflect ?

You lied. I've called you out on it. Why not own up to what you've done ?

By the way, I can't help but find rather funny that you don't see that I'm using your, LeeWard's, very definition of the word 'lie'. What's even funnier is that you're now using quotes around it when applying it.

Don't like adhering to your own standards, eh ? That, LeeWard, is what it means to be a hypocrite.

So here we are. In one thread, you, LeeWard, have proven yourself a 'liar' (by your own standards), childish (via your name calling), and a hypocrite to boot.

You should have simply run away like you typically do when caught. The best thing you can do when you find yourself up to your chin in your own crap is to shut your mouth.

I'm just calling you on your hypocrisy, Mike.

As Addison's article shows, and any news report on these polls show, what I said is sop - no "lies" - just standard stuff, Mike.

LeeWard

I'm just calling you on your hypocrisy, Mike.

For the record, we're currently discussing your lies that you've posted here. What anyone else has done doesn't affect what you've done here.

I've called you on you're lying, childishness, and hypocrisy, but you've yet to do anything but deflect and resort to name calling... which is very typical of you.

Again, thanks for proving, who you truly are - a small lying, childish, hypocrite who refuses to own up to his actions.

For the record, Mike I've pointed out what what I've said is not any different than what Addison said, and what every newspaper in the country would say, Mikey, and that makes you a sad little troll.

By the way, LeeWard

While you were here deflecting, I took a look at what Addison posted. From the quote,

While Thompson's one-point edge is statistically insignificant

OMG! That article actually noted that the difference what statistically insignificant.

Here's what the demonstrably ignorant LeeWard said previously:

Mike declares it statistically insignificant anf that makes it so, even though he's ignoring that the margin of error swing is plus and minus.

Why do you keep posting only to prove more conclusively how ignorant you are ? I suggest you spend less time trolling and more time actually educating yourself. Perhaps then you won't look so foolish.

Here's exactly what Addison quote, Mike. Show me the quote that you lied about in the comment above.

Thompson leads in SC as McCain fades

The latest Mason-Dixon poll of likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina show the almost-declared Fred Thompson surging to a lead among those with a preference with 25%, while Giuliani remains steady in second with 21%, Romney holds third with 11%, McCain slips to 4th with 7% just ahead of Huckabee's 5%, and 28% remain undecided. The full report is HERE.

McCain is clearly reeling from the prospect of Thompson's entry. Fred appeals to much of McCain's constituency without alienating the rest of the party base. If the McCain campaign can't show some impressive 2nd-quarter fundraising numbers, they may as well pack it in.

Thanks to Patrick Ruffini and the gang at Race42008.com for pointing out this poll.

So did you call him on his "lie" Mike? Addison said that the poll showed "Fred Thompson surging to a lead" Did you troll him and call him a liar - pointing out that he was "lying" about Thompson being in the lead?

of course you didn't, Mike. You're just a trolling little hypocrite.

LeeWard, why do continue to make a fool of yourself. Reading apparently isn't your strong suit either.

Here you said:
Here's exactly what Addison quote, Mike. Show me the quote that you lied about in the comment above.

From here you fool,
politics.wizbangblog.com/2007/06/19/poll-fred-thompson-takes-gop-lead.php

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson earning support from 28% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani attracts support from 27%. While Thompson's one-point edge is statistically insignificant, it is the first time all year that anybody but Giuliani has been on top in Rasmussen Reports polling. A week ago, Thompson and Giuliani were tied at 24%.

Once again, you demonstrate your incompetence. Are you intentionally trying to make yourself look this foolish ?

Now, back were you lying or just ignorant when you claimed that Clinton led Giuliani in the poll you cited ? Of course, you'll choose the cowardly path and deflect (or fLee) rather than own up... but that's what LeeWard does.

That's the wrong post, you idiot, and not the one I pointed you to here, and here, and here, and here, which proves what total moron you are, Mike.

No wonder you're a troll, you aren't bright enough to do anything else.

Actually, if you were capable of reading, you'd note that Addision posted the piece that I mentioned.

Yet, again, LeeWard you've shown what a dishonest coward you are. Why won't you admit you lied ? Or that you simply showed your ignorance ? Do you still contend that a difference of less than the margin of error is meaningful or have you at least learned that much today ? Why do you always choose distort and deflect rather than own up? Typical, LeeWard.

Another question:
In opening the Lorie's latest piece, I've noted that you're frequently quick to troll Kim and Lorie's posts. Is it jealously because you're kept as a second-rate blogger on an off-main site ? Or is it simply because you're a sexist bigot ?

wizbangblog.com/2007/06/19/bernie-goldberg-interview.php#595633
wizbangblog.com/2007/06/18/quick-hillary-update.php#594644
wizbangblog.com/2007/06/14/senators-to-resurrect-the-immigration-bill.php#591418
wizbangblog.com/2007/05/29/more-should-see-this-story.php#576903
wizbangblog.com/2007/05/29/more-should-see-this-story.php#576921

Nice cover for your stupidness, Mike.

As to your question about posting first or early -- It's because trolls like you have chased all of the intelligent conservatives off the site, Mike, and as a consequence the trolls all sit under the bridge, waiting for a liberal to post a remark so guys like you can post repeated attacks.

You'll notice that liberals almost always frame the discussion on Wizbang threads, and they are then followed and hounded by underscoreMikeunderscore, Jo, veeshir, kim, marc, Zeldorf raghsaft III, nehemiah, and the other trolls - who never really argue their points -- just follow with ad hominem attacks, name calling, and insightful poins such as BHWWWAHAHAHA.

Look at his post, underscoreClownunderscore -- I posted 40 minnutes after Lorie made her post -- which means the trolls didn't know what to do until I posted a comment. Sometimes I just get there first, but usually the trolls are just waiting for a lib to post a comment so you can attack - you've fully illustrated the troll mentality here on this thread Mike.

Thanks for asking Mike - now why don't you do something about this problem the next chance you get, and stop being such an idiot.

Hey, find a point you can argue besides minutiae with Mike and you might not get a second try. You want Libby? Global Warming? Maybe the Swifties? Or is that your problem, already?

OK, your topic; or else go insult me where I don't read.
=====================

"waiting for a liberal to post a remark so guys like you can post repeated attacks."

You got it all wrong as usual you POS. Is this all you brain dead democrat slaves can come up with? Transference, accuse others of what you are in fact doing? Is this all the super-intellectual bed wetting party of perpetual fraud can bring to the plate?

Yes it is all democrat party can muster up because they are criminal frauds. They can only think of ways in which they are going to swindle and deceive their way through life. Democrats are nothing but hot air and lies. You people need this and by the way , your going to pay for it. We will just sit in the middle and fill our greedy bottomless pockets as your hard earned dollars flow by.

The democrat criminal leadership can stand in front of the cameras and lie to our face thanks to shit for brains stupid numbskulls like LEE WARD BARNEY and the rest. You know who are. Go to hell you pack of lying jackals and piss off.

The view from under your bridge must be so much more inspiring, Rob, than that from under mine. Such eloquence is indeed inspired; I do admire the consistency of your style, and the underlying rigor of thought is often obvious, sometimes, covert.
=====================

R, it's the transference part you mention that gets me. Is it conscious, and corrupt, or is it unconscious, and merely ignorant and ironic? It takes a while, but I can usually figure out which. When corrupt, it's harder to figure out if they are whores or fools. They can fake it so well.
========================

Let's end with a summary of LeeWard's actions here:

1. LeeWard lies (or perhaps out of ignorance) that Clinton is beating Giuliani in a specific poll

And the Quinnipiac University Poll conducted June 5-11, 2007 shows Clinton beating Giuliani,

2. I call him on it. By pointing out that the difference is less than half the margin of error and hence statistically insignificant.

3. Instead of simply stating that he made a mistake or admitting he lied, LeeWard begins with name calling (how childish) and deflection. ("Uh.. but it's about the trend", "low-IQ putz", etc).

4. LeeWard then demonstrates he lacks a basic understanding of statistics.

You're ignoring the fact the margin of error swings both ways. It's a plus and minus thing, underscoreMikeunderscore -- so Clinton's winning margin could be higher instead of lower

5. And apparently, LeeWard thought he hadn't made a big enough fool of himself so he again demonstrated his ignorance of statistics (along with more childish name calling - 'fathead'. ROFL!)

Mike declares it statistically insignificant anf that makes it so, even though he's ignoring that the margin of error swing is plus and minus.

Instead of troubling himself to understand that which he comments on, LeeWard seems to believe faking competence and lying are sufficient to replace understanding and integrity.

6. Having sensed that he's been caught lying and repeatedly showing his ignorance LeeWard attempts to deflect the matter away from his ignorance and lies rather than address them. "Hey, look over there!"

Three's a post by Jim Addison on Wizbang Politics ...

Now if LeeWard had simply been honest enough to admit his ignorance or his lie, he might have earned a little respect instead of revealing himself to be ignorant and cowardly.

Of course, LeeWard knows he's been made of fool of (by himself) and will simply complain that I'm trolling... but whether I am or not doesn't change LeeWard's lies and demonstrated ignorance.

Look, it's a troll convention!

Your stupidity speaks for itself undercoreIma totalfoolunderscore, so I'll stop beating you over the head with it. See you later...

Well, talking with Lee has its pluses and minuses.

So, little Johny wasn't doing well in school so his Mama(not Yo Mama, Lee) took him out and put him in to parochial school. His grades didn't improve, except in math, so she asked him why. His reply: "Mama, I saw what the nuns did to that man on the plus sign".
=================================================

Lee, you're a coward.
==============

You are a cow, Ward.
=============