54% of Wisconsin Voters against Recall

[Jarhead]

In New Hampshire, 68% of voters are against repealing the gay marriage law. So who's doing the bullying there?

Not the same.
In NH politicians are doing what they deem is best for the state yet against the will of the voter...
That is what elections are for. They will boot those that vote to repeal the law.

In the case of this thread, NON elected officials are using the power of rhetoric AND numbers to force the state to do something that the majority of the voters do not want done.

And in the end it will cost the state millions and the union memebers millions....for absolutely no reason at all.

Maybe you didn't realize this, but recall elections happen because a statutorily designated number of voters petition their government. I'm amazed that you think it's somehow wrong that the state is being "forced" to abide by its own laws, or to honor a petition of its citizens. If the majority of voters don't want Walker to be removed from office, all they have to do is vote for him at the recall election. Simple as that.

gee...

Your response is ingenious.

No shit asshole.....

Debating you is like deabting a child.

Go back to your crayons. My debate style is too advanced for you.

 

[drsmith1072]

Nobody was claiming your 0ssiah should be indicted for his association with Wright... Epic fail on your part, dipshit...

AND, that's NOT what the other poster said, dumbass...

The other poster said that Walker would be indicted for campaign violations and fraud. It wasn't intimated, it was stated...

You fail again, smithie... Something you're actually good at...

Hey moron guilt by association is guilt by association and no one is claiming that walker should be indicted merely because he was associated with those people who worked for him as milwaukee county executer who were campaiging for him on the county's dime either. The guilt by association argument came from you and your less than honest interpretation of what the other poster said.

Dumbbest of fucks...

The poster claimed Walker would be indicted... You can spin it as much as you want, but thats what he/she said... If a fuckstain like you wants to play word games, have at it, but don't be shocked when you are called on your stupidity...


I never accused anyone of claiming "guilt by association"... More fail from Dr. Smith... Oh, the pain, the pain...

"could"... "if"....

And you wonder why people here laugh at your idiocy...?? You are spinning like a fucking top... I'm sure the poster appreciates you taking one for the team, but the words were exact...

The Rs voted Grey out in California (recall) - who are they to complain - The same results are more than likely for Walker, especially when he is indicted for campaign violations and fraud.

Epic fail, smithie... Keep it coming, boy...

It appears that the failure is on your part not mine.

LOL

Typical smithie - always seeing what isn't there...

OK moron. the poster gave his OPINON that walker would be indicted and you asked

Please cite the law that Walker personally violated that would necessitate his indictment...

and the poster gave you an investigation into campaign finance that could lead to walker's indictment if he is involved.

You asked a question and got a valid answer to the question that you asked.

Later you even asked

Anything Walker personally did that you feel is indictable?

This was answered by the previous post and if he violated campaign laws then he should be indicted so why is it that you have such a hard time following the reality of what was actually said??

BTW "could" and "if" do NOT show that I am claiming walker is guilty by association. The investigation is still ongoing and as of yet we do not know whether he is involved or not. However, that still does not change that fact that IF he was involved then he should be indicted.
That is the answer to your question now IF only you were intelligent enough to understand it.

P.S. despite your warped interpretation of the english language that last "IF" does not mean that you are intelligent enough to understand it. LOL

 

[Conservative]

 

[drsmith1072]

It's obvious that Dr. Smith knows nothing about the recall other than the snippets he's read on HuffyPuffy....

Don't read huffington post but thank you for showing that you can only troll and fall flat on your face when you actually try to debate a topic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

My debate style is too advanced for you.

There's nothing "advanced" about saying stupid things and getting called out on it.

 

[Dr.House]

Dr. Smith, you dipshit...

There is no evidence, nor even investigations into, any violations by Walker himself of any law... You are spinning and chasing windmills... We laugh at your foolishness and idiocy... If you had an IQ over room temperature I would try to explain that investigations directed at aides are not investigations directed at Walker... In fact, if you look into the details of this "most grevious act" by said Walker aide, you would laugh your ass off... But, alas, you are a partisan hack dumbass and want to deflect the recall onto some actions by an aide years ago...

You are a joke, Dr. Smith....

 

[drsmith1072]

Polls go up. Polls go down.

Personally I don't hold much faith in em at all but since you brought up a poll. I brought up a poll. Funny how that works.

You might want to ask Reid about that engine room dude.

I actually don't put much faith in them either considering how they can phrase questions in a way to lead those answering them to give a response that the pollster would like to get. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the right wingers spoke of polls as the will of the people when it suited them to do so.

However, polls are the core of this thread and right wingers are touting a poll. I merely pointed out how they tend to ignore the ones that run counter to their positions. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them.

Reid only controls one part of the "engine room" so why do you refuse to hold the right accountable for their lack of movement?? Oh and passing partisan bills in the house that you know have no chance of passing the senate is not movement so you can leave that trash at the curb.

Doesn't negate the fact that the House has sent bills up and Reid isn't moving on any of them.

Oh wait I forgot He already said that any bills from the House are DOA. Never mind.

Talk about trash that needs to go to the curb. Reid.

LOL so the house "sends" bill that it knows will never pass and you consider that movement? LOL Sending partisan bills that easilly pass the majority rules of the house when compared to the supermjority rules cuurently in place by republicans in the senate is not what any honest person would defend.

Oh and can i get a quote of reid saying exactly what you claim he did??

P.S. thanks for the trash but it was supposed to be left at the curb. LOL

 

[Dr.House]

It's obvious that Dr. Smith knows nothing about the recall other than the snippets he's read on HuffyPuffy....

Don't read huffington post but thank you for showing that you can only troll and fall flat on your face when you actually try to debate a topic.

 

[Provocateur]

Who is more likely to show up though? Walker supporters or people that want government to take care of them?

 

[drsmith1072]

I actually don't put much faith in them either considering how they can phrase questions in a way to lead those answering them to give a response that the pollster would like to get. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the right wingers spoke of polls as the will of the people when it suited them to do so.

However, polls are the core of this thread and right wingers are touting a poll. I merely pointed out how they tend to ignore the ones that run counter to their positions. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them.

Say what you want about polls -you're probably right- at least Rasmussen is the only one out there that screens for likely voters, rather than merely registered voters or adults who may or may not vote at all.

Reid only controls one part of the "engine room" so why do you refuse to hold the right accountable for their lack of movement?? Oh and passing partisan bills in the house that you know have no chance of passing the senate is not movement so you can leave that trash at the curb.

If the bills have no chance, why not put them up for a vote or veto?...Oh yeah, that would wreck the bogus "do nothing congress" narrative that the dems and their media toadies are going to try and drum up.

WOW you really buy into that rasmussen bs don't you? How do they determine "likely" voters??
According to their own site they use a robo caller and ask the questions the way they want to ask them. So how many total calls do they make and get responses from?? How many do they discard and why? If they call and get responses from 2000 people and discard 1000 based on how they choose to define "likely voter" or any number of other reasons then how do you know that you actually have a random sample??

 

[drsmith1072]

Dr. Smith, you dipshit...

There is no evidence, nor even investigations into, any violations by Walker himself of any law... You are spinning and chasing windmills... We laugh at your foolishness and idiocy... If you had an IQ over room temperature I would try to explain that investigations directed at aides are not investigations directed at Walker... In fact, if you look into the details of this "most grevious act" by said Walker aide, you would laugh your ass off... But, alas, you are a partisan hack dumbass and want to deflect the recall onto some actions by an aide years ago...

You are a joke, Dr. Smith....

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

BTW calling me names and insulting me as you troll does nothing to change the fact that you look ridiculous when you tried to criticize me for daring to argue that IF he is found to have been involved then he should be indicted as you argued that is the same as claiming that he is guilty.

Funny how you make the claims to have all of this knowledge and then provide NOTHING of substance to support said claims. LOL

Thanks for nothing.

 

[drsmith1072]

It's obvious that Dr. Smith knows nothing about the recall other than the snippets he's read on HuffyPuffy....

Don't read huffington post but thank you for showing that you can only troll and fall flat on your face when you actually try to debate a topic.

Ok so care to prove that I do read it as a source for my info?

Come on troll, put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Conservative]

 

[Dr.House]

Don't read huffington post but thank you for showing that you can only troll and fall flat on your face when you actually try to debate a topic.

Ok so care to prove that I do read it as a source for my info?

Come on troll, put your money where your mouth is.

It is my opinion, asswipe, that you are full of shit...

There you have it...

Now fuck off like a good little 0bama drone...

 

[drsmith1072]

My debate style is too advanced for you.

There's nothing "advanced" about saying stupid things and getting called out on it.

Yeah he does that quite regularly. I am still waiting on him to show how obama lied about ayers and provide proof that the aide in walkers office as county exectutor acted alone and was a "rogue aide"

 

[Provocateur]

I actually don't put much faith in them either considering how they can phrase questions in a way to lead those answering them to give a response that the pollster would like to get. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the right wingers spoke of polls as the will of the people when it suited them to do so.

However, polls are the core of this thread and right wingers are touting a poll. I merely pointed out how they tend to ignore the ones that run counter to their positions. If you have a problem with that then take it up with them.

Say what you want about polls -you're probably right- at least Rasmussen is the only one out there that screens for likely voters, rather than merely registered voters or adults who may or may not vote at all.

Reid only controls one part of the "engine room" so why do you refuse to hold the right accountable for their lack of movement?? Oh and passing partisan bills in the house that you know have no chance of passing the senate is not movement so you can leave that trash at the curb.

If the bills have no chance, why not put them up for a vote or veto?...Oh yeah, that would wreck the bogus "do nothing congress" narrative that the dems and their media toadies are going to try and drum up.

WOW you really buy into that rasmussen bs don't you? How do they determine "likely" voters??
According to their own site they use a robo caller and ask the questions the way they want to ask them. So how many total calls do they make and get responses from?? How many do they discard and why? If they call and get responses from 2000 people and discard 1000 based on how they choose to define "likely voter" or any number of other reasons then how do you know that you actually have a random sample??

google is useful.

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[drsmith1072]

Ok so care to prove that I do read it as a source for my info?

Come on troll, put your money where your mouth is.

It is my opinion, asswipe, that you are full of shit...

There you have it...

Now fuck off like a good little 0bama drone...

Pretty much everything you spew out is nothing but your baseless opinions so it's really not a surprise that this is no diffrent. LOL

I am still waiting on the info that you claimed to have in a previous post. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Say what you want about polls -you're probably right- at least Rasmussen is the only one out there that screens for likely voters, rather than merely registered voters or adults who may or may not vote at all.


If the bills have no chance, why not put them up for a vote or veto?...Oh yeah, that would wreck the bogus "do nothing congress" narrative that the dems and their media toadies are going to try and drum up.

WOW you really buy into that rasmussen bs don't you? How do they determine "likely" voters??
According to their own site they use a robo caller and ask the questions the way they want to ask them. So how many total calls do they make and get responses from?? How many do they discard and why? If they call and get responses from 2000 people and discard 1000 based on how they choose to define "likely voter" or any number of other reasons then how do you know that you actually have a random sample??

google is useful.

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

So it's basically as I said and they determine the parameters for deciding whose responses to keep and whose to discard.

Thank you.

 

[Provocateur]

WOW you really buy into that rasmussen bs don't you? How do they determine "likely" voters??
According to their own site they use a robo caller and ask the questions the way they want to ask them. So how many total calls do they make and get responses from?? How many do they discard and why? If they call and get responses from 2000 people and discard 1000 based on how they choose to define "likely voter" or any number of other reasons then how do you know that you actually have a random sample??

google is useful.

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Methodology - Rasmussen Reports™

So it's basically as I said and they determine the parameters for deciding whose responses to keep and whose to discard.

Thank you.

If that is what you want to read, then that is your limited view/scope.


Have fun with it. However, Rasmussen is right more often than others, because of his methodology, so you might consider coming down off your high horse.


Or don't.


It matters not to me.

 

[Dr.House]

Dr. Smith, you dipshit...

There is no evidence, nor even investigations into, any violations by Walker himself of any law... You are spinning and chasing windmills... We laugh at your foolishness and idiocy... If you had an IQ over room temperature I would try to explain that investigations directed at aides are not investigations directed at Walker... In fact, if you look into the details of this "most grevious act" by said Walker aide, you would laugh your ass off... But, alas, you are a partisan hack dumbass and want to deflect the recall onto some actions by an aide years ago...

You are a joke, Dr. Smith....

funny but the john doe investigation currently under way appears to disagree with your OPINIONS. LOL

Nothing in the article posted states Walker himself is under investigation...

Walker to meet with prosecutors in John Doe investigation - m.JSOnline.com

You are just swimming in the fail today, Dr. Smith....