February 23rd, 2007

Venezuela update: is anyone surprised by this? Except Jimmy?

Chavez may have rigged the referendum of 2004, according to a statistical study by two Venezuelan scientists.

An isolated study or two wouldn’t mean much. But there’s a lot more evidence that this particular election was rigged.

And is there anyone who doubts Chavez capable of such a thing? In fact, is there anyone who thinks he would think twice about doing such a thing?

And is there anyone who believes that certification of the election results by Jimmy Carter has any meaning whatsoever, except as another example of why he’s the worst ex-President in history (and yes indeed, I voted for him–twice).

From the not-particularly disputed Wiki entry on the Venezuelan referendum 0f 2004:

European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration. The Carter Center “concluded the results were accurate.” However, a Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll showed the opposite result, predicting that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, “I think it was a massive fraud”. US News and World Report offered an analysis of the polls, indicating “very good reason to believe that the (Penn Schoen) exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez’s election officials — and Carter and the American media — got it wrong”.

According to the Center for Security Policy (disclosure: many of those nefarious neoconservatives are affiliated with the group):

“The [Chavez] government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. The outcome was then affirmed and legitimated by ex-President Jimmy Carter’s near-unconditional support.” “Jimmy Carter ignored pleas from the opposition and publicly endorsed the results, despite the fact that the government reneged on its agreement to carry out an audit of the results. Carter’s actions not only gave the Venezuelan regime the legitimacy it craved, but also destroyed the public’s confidence in the voting process and in the effectiveness of international observers.”

Voting fraud allegations have become commonplace–almost required–lately. But in this case they seem only too correct. The evidence is strong, plus Chavez’s later acts leave little doubt in my mind that voter fraud is exactly what he would have done to hold onto his power and allow him to carry out his plans for becoming dictator of Venezuela. And Jimmy Carter was his willing enabler, either a pious dupe or a fraud himself.

Most ex-Presidents adhere to the Hippocratic oath when they are out of power: first, do no harm. Would that Carter would stick to it, as well.

76 Responses to “Venezuela update: is anyone surprised by this? Except Jimmy?”

  1. mark Says:

    Worst, huh? I guess you haven’t heard about what Mr. Carter has achieved in Africa. (or is this just a “troll” comment?–I’m not sure about the terminology).

  2. Lee Says:

    No, Mark, as a matter of fact, I HAVEN’T heard about all the great things Carter did in Africa. Not saying great things didn’t happen there, but shouldn’t the President of The United States have been concentrating on fixing the things we had going wrong in The United States? By the way, my understanding of the definition of “troll” is not someone with a differing opinion, rather, one who constantly resorts to lies, propaganda, obfuscation, and insults(note posters like TC, Wild Rice, justaguy; TROLLS).

  3. Lee Says:

    And yes, one can make the claim that “troll” is insulting, but, in my opinion, people get what they give. I find it disingenuous when people turn up the heat on the oven, then complain about the heat in the kitchen.

  4. stumbley Says:

    While traveling in Europe in 1980, we heard the news of the failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages through a comment from a Frenchman in a campground: “Have you heard what your idiot Carter has done now?”

    Throughout our travels, we never once heard Carter referred to as anything but a buffoon and fool. It was clear the Europeans we met held him in very low esteem indeed.

    I’d clarify your statement, Neo, naming Carter as the “worst President ever”—leaving off the “ex”.

  5. Sergey Says:

    No, Carter is much worse than buffoon and fool. Here you can read about his habitual venality:
    http://www.aish.com/SSI/articleToPrint.asp?PageURL=/societyWork/society/Ex-President_For_Sale.xml&torahportion=&teaser=Carter+is+making+more+money+selling+integrity+than+peanuts%2E

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Someone can do some good things and still be awful. I have no objection to some of Carter’s activities. But the good ones (housebuilding, for example) can’t even begin to make up for the bad ones. He’s a dangerous man–although not when building houses.

  7. Ymarsakar Says:

    “very good reason to believe that the (Penn Schoen) exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez’s election officials — and Carter and the American media — got it wrong”.

    But Neo… why wouldn’t a strong man be elected democratically like Hitler? Oh wait, Hitler wasn’t elected via popular vote. Never mind.

    Do you get like a sense that a lot of popular preconceptions are just wrong, Neo? That they are just mind pudding to be manipulated by Leftist operators? I do.

    The [Chavez] government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor

    Something about that sounds familiar for a reason… do you have any ideas Neo?

    And Jimmy Carter was his willing enabler, either a pious dupe or a fraud himself.

    The Navy named a submarine after him for a reason, neo. I think it is rather transparent if you consider the job of a submarine. As opposed to a carrier.

    Would that Carter would stick to it, as well.

    Hell is paved with good intentions. We know that. But what the hell is paved with bad intentions?

    Mussolini at least made the trains run on time, Neo, unlike Bush. Extremism is very efficient. Moderation, not so much…

  8. Patrick Chester Says:

    neo-neocon wrote:
    Most ex-Presidents adhere to the Hippocratic oath when they are out of power: first, do no harm. Would that Carter would stick to it, as well.

    Maybe Carter’s following the Hypocrite’s Oath? ;)

  9. Matthew M Says:

    I think coming to terms with Carter boils down to analyzing his allegiance to altruism, which he advocates on behalf of America and is the source of the effects of his policies and actions. Carter would probably take that as a compliment. After all, altuism (literally otherism, doing for others) has been the dominant standard for determining good or bad for about whtwo thousand years.

    Why, then, is there always wreckage in Carter’s wake? Why would Iran seize our embassy when Carter was so conscientious about not throwing America’s weight around? Why would the Soviet communists invade Afghanistan when Carter was so accomodating in arms control talks? Why would Hugo Chavez seize power for life and incessantly denounce the United States after Jimmy Carter endorsed his fishy election? Why do “good” people make bad things happen?

    Because they try to force the square peg of altruism into the round hole of reality. The problem with altruism is precisely that it precludes selfish behavior as the standard of morality. Acting in one’s self-interest alone or in conjunction with other individuals in the form of a nation, the United States for example, is considered something outside the realm of morality, an unseemly necessity or plainly immoral. How dare you spend your money on luxuries for yourself when others are starving?. How dare Americans pursue prosperity when people in other countries lack sustenance? How can you moralize an economic system?

  10. Matthew M Says:

    Going along with the ethical momentum of millenia is easy; it is even avante-garde if you fancy yourself independent or anti-establishment for reacting against the remnants of the selfish ethics and politics of the Enlightenment (which was truly revolutionary) by reasserting the much older morality of selflessness. Don’t ask how the prosperous got that way. Don’t ask if there is something other than your own greed standing between the poor and their “liberation.” Don’t ask why it is moral for others to put their hands out while you are obliged to put something in them. Don’t ask why “progressive” leaders need to become presidents for life. Don’t ask about the cause of the surplus that makes real charity possible. Don’t ask why the altruists whose actions lead to disasters are worthy of a Nobel Prize. Just follow their lead.

    The perversion of morality that permits Carter to successfully masquerade as an ambassador-at-large for human rights is mind boggling. I never liked Carter but the more I learn about him the more I actually hate him for being evil and getting away with it–at least in the MSM/PR/culural zeitgeist sense.

    I probably won’t live long enough to see altruism repudiated by mainstream society, but I will live long enough see the MSM noticeably fail to compare the crowds at Carter’s state funeral to those of his successor, who was only marginally less altruistic.

    Amazing is the tenacity of the Enlightment ideals in an American public that has been deluged with socialism for a century by its intellectuals; it encourages optimism about the prospects a morality that is compatible with human life. Thankfully, the heavy lifting has been done in the identification of a valid ethics,
    The Virtue of Selfishness

  11. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    I voted for Carter in 76 (Anderson in 80), and didn’t hate the man for the first years of his ex-presidency. I thought him ineffectual, but hardly contemptible. I had long given him credit for his HFH work, and have been a big supporter of that group. We restrict our Habitat support to Romania at this point. Over the past few years it has increasingly become an advocacy group at the expense of house-building. I worry that the trend will continue. Perhaps this is not Carter’s doing, but it is certainly consistent with his own changes.

    I wrote about it a year ago. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/02/osullivans-law-hits-habitat-for.html

    As to the Venezuelan elections, why would the accuracy of the votes make any difference to Carter anymore? Once the Sandanistas lost, Carter’s group has become progressively less rigorous.

  12. 'Tap' Says:

    It took a few years for me to realize Carter was not incompetent but ‘nice’, ‘principled’, etc. This is NOT a good man.

    And though he tries to portray himself as altruistic, he is not that either. Altruism does not explain his actions any better than incompetency does.

  13. 'Tap' Says:

    Matthew M.,
    I appreciate what you are saying. But I would add that part of the problem with altruism is the way it often is current defined.

    The left would have you believe that they are altruistic because they want to take MY money and give it to someone else.

    This is not altruism. This is theft.

    As soon as anyone on the ‘left’ gives up enough of their money to be existing at a standard of living LOWER than that of the people they want to tax (me), then they can talk to me about my money.

  14. Sergey Says:

    Altruist eagerly pocketing Saudi oil money and in return lobbying their political goals in Washington. A strange definition of altruism.

  15. TC Says:

    “The reports concludes by saying “the Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence.”"

    The Venezuelan opposition say the election was rigged?

    Oh boy – stop the press.

    Pure rubbish. Wouldn’t be the first(or last)time they’ve said that.

    Very poor stuff, Neo. That I don’t agree with you on most issues is hardly news – but you usually back up what you say, ast least, with credible sources. Not here – just Horowitz-style, grade-school propaganda.

    And the get Carter thing gets a little old – particularly with the lack of any logical explanations, evidence or merit…

  16. TC Says:

    Carter is one of the most honest, and intelligent Presidents we’ve had – and certainly one of the bravest ex-Pres’- which is where most of the unfounded hate comes from(giving honest and accurate accounts in Venezuela and Israel).

    Not likely to win many friends on the Christian Zionist right or the oil elite – but as I say – accurate and honest…

  17. TC Says:

    “The Virtue of Selfishness”?

    Well doesn’t that just say it all – lol…..

  18. Ymarsakar Says:

    The US needs to STOP proping up dictators like Saddam, Chavez, and Saudi Arabians… who of my comrades on the Left shall stand with me on this?

    How dare you spend your money on luxuries for yourself when others are starving?. How dare Americans pursue prosperity when people in other countries lack sustenance? How can you moralize an economic system?
    Matthew M | 02.23.07 – 9:51 pm | #

    I’ve read several of Ayn Rand’s books and also Terry Goodkind’s (which is the closest fiction analogy given Goodkind’s beliefs in Rand’s philosophy).

    You phrase things quite well in relation to Chavez and Carter.

    Well doesn’t that just say it all – lol…..
    TC | 02.24.07 – 2:10 pm | #

    Those who don’t understand philosophy are only able to see the shallow stream.

    Carter is one of the most honest, and intelligent Presidents we’ve had – and certainly one of the bravest ex-Pres’- which is where most of the unfounded hate comes from(giving honest and accurate accounts in Venezuela and Israel).

    Is he your court jester or something Lady Neo?

  19. TC Says:

    Just the facts, Ymarakar… Just the facts….

  20. Sally Says:

    Here’s a tiny bit of free, unsolicited advice, TC: try, once in while, to stop just a moment or two to think before you type. Your problem isn’t spelling, it’s quite literally incoherence. You seem to be under the impression that if you can just type enough you won’t have to think, and then you can just key in things like “rubbish” or “lol” and you’ve actually “answered” anything. Instead, your dogged repetition of inane, blanket, baseless, and increasingly meaningless assertions not only looks simple-minded, but it just wastes the time of everyone who has to scroll past them.

  21. Lee Says:

    Not to mention, TC, the Nazi in you always slips out.

  22. Lee Says:

    You would think after all these years of Zionist manipulation over the centuries, they could easily find and round up people like TC and Carter who have the “bravery” to speak out against it. Rather than have the “truth” exposed, why haven’t you guys been disappeared by now? You and Carter are just Jew hating Southern crackers.

  23. TC Says:

    Fine come back Sally – really convincing.

    Not blanket assertions – facts.

    Not that you would know any different, Sally.

    You don’t really know anything about Venezuela, Chavez or the 20004 referendum anyway.

    But clearly your not scrolling down anyway, lol….

  24. TC Says:

    By the way – was that ‘advice’ Sally?

    Not to clever, girl…

  25. TC Says:

    1)Fact. The Venezuelan opposition claim fraud(baselessly as it has repeatedly turned out – no evidence)after every election and referendum.

    2)Fact. The poll Neo refers to was only poll that had the opposition leader ahead – contrary to Zogby and the associated press – among others.

    3)Fact. It wasn’t only Carter who verified the results – it was also the OAS. Further the Bush administration accepted and acknowledged that Chavez legimately won.

    4)Fact. Sally thinks if she types a really clever, insulting rebuttle it will cover up just how little she knows about the topic(and generally any topic).

    It doesn’t.

    But notice how often she resorts to this?

    Poor Sally… taking such pride from being the board attack hound… sad really…

  26. Lee Says:

    Actually, TC, I’ve noticed that YOU are the one who constantly resorts to insulting rebuttal(learn to spell, boy) and never-ending monologue when YOU have no facts to back up YOUR assertions or “majority opinion”. Sounds like you’ve grasped the Goebbelsesque tactic of “projection”(probably your mentor) like a good little Bund.

  27. Lee Says:

    Poor little Hitler Youth TC. Sad really…..

  28. Ymarsakar Says:

    Further the Bush administration accepted and acknowledged that Chavez legimately won.

    Bush also did that for Gore when he phoned him to admit defeat.

    You aren’t incoherent, TC, you just seem to confuse facts with interpretations of facts. For example, how can Carter be honest when he doesn’t even recognize the evil that he sees face to face everyday? He can’t be honest with folks if he isn’t honest with himself.

  29. Ymarsakar Says:

    No, it isn’t a fact, which is why your interpretation of the events in Carter’s life is just that, an interpretation that he is honest. It is not a fact that he is honest, therefore why I told you that you confuse the two.

  30. TC Says:

    You might notice if you were to look, that I didn’t claim that my opinion of Carter being honest and intelligent is a ‘fact’. Which would go without saying.

    I’m taking about Chavez’s democratic victory in every referendum and election since he’s been in power…

  31. Lee Says:

    Aw, wassa matta, TC? Shut me up, as long as you now have reduced your debate to threats. Shut up? Or what, nazi boy?

  32. Lee Says:

    Learned how to defend myself in school. Nazis have ALWAYS been the easiest to beat. Which is why it’s so easy to debate you, loser.

  33. TC Says:

    “Bush also did that for Gore when he phoned him to admit defeat.”

    Bush accepted the election of Al Gore? Offically? No kidding – that I didn’t know.

    Gee, I wonder if Al ever forgave Bush for supporting a CIA-sponsered coup against the Academy award nominee?

    That crazy Bush….

  34. TC Says:

    Is that what your’re doing, Lee?

    Debating?

    Go away little boy.

    “Or what”??

    What.

    What a moron…..

  35. Lee Says:

    Mr. Lee to you, nazi punk.

  36. Lee Says:

    800,000+ popular votes ahead, and Gore still lost. Awwww… Gee, I guess that means the President is elected by the STATES as opposed to the people. Guess we’re not supposed to be a democracy after all. Guess we’re supposed to be a Constitutional Republic as our founding fathers intended.

  37. Ymarsakar Says:

    You might notice if you were to look, that I didn’t claim that my opinion of Carter being honest and intelligent is a ‘fact’. Which would go without saying.

    It goes without saying that when you are talking about the facts, you aren’t talking about the facts? Really.

    I’m taking about Chavez’s democratic victory in every referendum and election since he’s been in power…

    Since democratic victory is an opinion and not a factual event, are you again talking about the “facts” and confusing them with your opinionated interpretations and conclusions?

    Your opinion that a democracy has one guy winning always is… not a fact, it is confusion over what is fact and what is fiction.

    ***
    Neo isn’t a kindergarten teacher, people. What is this pre-school?

    oh wait. Did you know that kinder in german means child? So that would make kindergarten, garden of children. Neo has a garden, but not that kind of garden.

  38. TC Says:

    “Since democratic victory is an opinion and not a factual event, are you again talking about the “facts” and confusing them with your opinionated interpretations and conclusions?”

    Actually, no.

    The fact is that Venezuelan elections are democratic – and have been approved of by various international monitors, organziations and governments(including the U.S). There has been – another fact – various claims by the opposition(including U.S leaders)that these elections have not been democratic. And yet another fact is that all such claims have been rejected from a lack of evidence. So some can say Chavez isn’t the democratically elected leader of Venezuela – just as they can say the moon is made of swiss cheese. However , both suffer from a lack of evidence and so we call them unproven, and unsubstantiated claims.

    “Your opinion that a democracy has one guy winning always is… not a fact, it is confusion over what is fact and what is fiction.”

    No sir. That isn’t my opinion at all – which is a fact. Nor is there anything in my writing that indicates that. So your claim about my opinion would, of course, be fiction.

    But I’m sure, being that you are so very clever, that is what you meant to say…

  39. TC Says:

    For someone who likes their news “straight” Neo has no problem, apparently, in unreservedly accepting unsubstantiated claims from groups that have been shown in the past to repeatedly make absurd accusations as well as claiming ‘victory’ even before the results were in (in the 2004 referendum.)

    Which she must be aware of since she provided the link for the Wikipedia entry on the 2004 referendum, which explains the claims I’ve made and many more that provide more than enough to call into question the “straight” accusations being levied at Chavez…

  40. Lee Says:

    Incredible. Apparently, the only “illegitimate” government in existence is the Bush Administration. Ahmadinijhad, Hamas, Chavez, et al., they’re the “good guys” huh? Well, if you truly believe that, have the courage of your convictions and start the revolution, or go live where “the will of the people” is still respected. But, I’m sure you’re just like Ward Churchill. You’re not going to lead by example, you incite others to risk their lives for your nazi ideals. So take your soapbox and go to Idaho. I’m sure Aryan Nations will protect you from the repressive “illegitimate” government.

  41. Lee Says:

    BTW, insisting your “opinion” is “fact” does not make it fact. Are we now going to have to read some tired old screed about some other guys opinion conforming with your opinion therefore making your opinion “fact”?

  42. Gary Rosen Says:

    “Christian Zionist right”

    I must say, that was good for a laugh, TC. I can just imagine what I’ll generously call the “thought” process going through your so-called mind:

    “Let’s see, I’m relentlessly demonizing a small Jewish state in the midst of brutal corrupt thugocracies calling for its destruction, but I don’t want people to think I’m antisemitic … GOT IT! I’ll blame it on the ‘Christian right’, that way I get a twofer! I gratuitously slam Christians while I still get everyone with an IQ under 65 to think that Jews don’t support Israel, therefore I’m not an antisemite! Haha.”

    One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are always such a bunch of nitwits, losers and misf*cks.

  43. Lee Says:

    As I’ve said many times, Gary, the nazi in TC is always slipping out.

  44. Sergey Says:

    I still believe that one thoroughly trained man with a high-powered rifle can solve the problem of Chaves for much less cost than any other policy.

  45. Lee Says:

    I’m sure his(TC’s) response will be just as predictable. “So, if I disagree with you, that makes me a nazi, huh?” No, typing like a nazi makes you a nazi. I’ve offered this challenge before: Go to American(or Canadian) Free Press, infowars, ziopedia, etc. and see if there’s ANY difference in what they say and the crap that flows from TC’s keyboard.

  46. TC Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

  47. TC Says:

    “One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are always such a bunch of nitwits, losers and misf*cks.”

    No kidding? Boy, almost makes me wish I was jewish, Gary.

    No sh**t….

  48. Lee Says:

    “almost makes me wish I was jewish,” So, you admit you PREFER to be a nitwit, loser, et.al., huh, nazi boy?

  49. TC Says:

    And no, Gary I didn’t think of that to avoid the charge of ‘anti-semitism’. It just happened to be on my mind, to be honest.

    But your right – the Israel lobby – those right wing jews – certainly are the one’s demonizing Carter with false accusations and even more false premises about Israel.

    The one’s who were petitioning members of congress to remove “apartheid” from the title of Carter’s book.

    Or the one’s who view him as ‘dangerous’. Why, they don’t say…but the old peanut farmer is ‘dangerous’ apparently….

  50. Lee Says:

    Does seem to be some difference there between wiki’s “definition” of Christian Zionism and your “nefarious implication” of it. By the way, is there a “Christian Zionist left”?

  51. Lee Says:

    And yes, Gary, he can’t help it if his thoughts just so happen to “coincide” with anti-semitism

  52. Lee Says:

    Honest.

  53. Lee Says:

    No one is saying that Carter is dangerous. We just recognize that he hates Jews, like you, TC.

  54. Ymarsakar Says:

    So, I see. Something is a fact for you if it is backed up by the interpretations of various organizations. Or specifically, your interpretation that it is a democracy because it is “sponsored” by other people, resulting in the “fact” that you sponsored.

  55. Lee Says:

    Pretty much, ymar. Just like his “anti-semitic” rantings aren’t really anti-semitic, just a coincidence.

  56. Ymarsakar Says:

    The observations of the elections that it was democratic is an event, TC’s interpretation that it was accurate is not a fact.

    So in the end, Hugo was democratically elected because of TC”s interpretation of the facts.

    To cut through all the logic chains.

  57. Gary Rosen Says:

    Well, how can you argue with TC now? After all, he cites Wikipedia – the final, absolutely infallible authority on everything, especially controversial religious and political matters.

  58. Sally Says:

    From International Statistical Review (2006), 74, 3, 379–389:

    A Statistical Approach to Assess Referendum
    Results: the Venezuelan Recall Referendum 2004

    Maria M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo M´arquez
    Independent Consultants, CCS 6854, Miami, FL33172-5032, USA. E-mail: fecodelco@yahoo.com,
    bb marquezz@yahoo.es

    Summary
    This article presents a statistical approach to assess the coherence of official results of referendum
    processes. The statistical analysis described is divided in four phases, according to the methodology used
    and the corresponding results:
    (1) Initial Study, (2) Quantification of irregular certificates of election, (3) Identification of irregular
    voting centers and (4) Estimation of recall referendum results.
    The technique of cluster analysis is applied to address the issue of heterogeneity of the parishes with
    respect to their political preferences.
    The Venezuelan recall referendum 2004 is the case study we used to apply the proposed methodology,
    based on the data published by the “Consejo Nacional Electoral” (CNE-National Electoral Council).
    Finally, we present the conclusions of the study which we summarize as follows: The percentage of
    irregular certificates of election is between 22.2% and 26.5% of the total; 18% of the voting centers show
    an irregular voting pattern in their certificates of election, the votes corresponding to this irregularity are
    around 2,550,000; The result estimate, using the unbiased votes as representative of the population for
    the percentage of YES votes against President Ch´avez is 56.4% as opposed to the official result of 41%.

    Emphasis added.

    This is the fraud Carter “certified”.

  59. TC Says:

    Sally – read the wikipedia entry on the 2004 referendum.

    You don’t even have the slightest clue what the above means let alone any knowledge of Venezuela politics.

    No – wiki isn’t the definite source on any topic – but it does give you a good general outline of the major issues on a topic. And you go from there.

    So Gary -cut the crap. You aren’t impressing anybody….

  60. TC Says:

    Ymar.

    Chavez was democratically elected. The best evidence, the majority of educated analysis – indicates he was fairly and democratically elected.

    That IS a fact.

  61. Lee Says:

    Actually, Gary Rosen impressed me quite a bit. It took me nearly two weeks of reading your(TC) tripe to figure out you are really a nazi posing as a leftie, and he spotted you in one setting. Pretty impressive. So, TC, cut the crap. Come on out of the closet, because everybody knows anyway. Embrace the nazi within you.

  62. Lee Says:

    Yeah, Sally. Your source isn’t the truth. TC’s is. BAAAH…HA…HA…HA! TC, you are as transparent as SARAN WRAP!

  63. Jungle Mom Says:

    Everyone here knows it was a fraud. The Chavez supporters went to bed knowing they had lost, and woke up to be told they had to take to the streets to celebrate their win.

  64. Sally Says:

    You don’t even have the slightest clue what the above means….

    Having become as predictable as any other robot troll, TC really isn’t worth bothering with any more. But it is kind of funny/sad to see him trying to transfer his own bewilderment to others.

  65. TC Says:

    Not nearly as funny/sad as observing your predictable descent into posting things that you clearly have no understanding of.

    If you did you’d be able to paraphrase it’s meaning and explain how it shows the referendum was ‘fixed’.

    It’s funny how ‘everyone’ here has such a strong opinion of things they don’t know about…

    B

  66. TC Says:

    Though I agree with you Sally – there really isn’t any point debating me because you always lose…..

  67. Sergey Says:

    In the end, Chavez will get his bullet. As Allende did.

  68. Lee Says:

    TC, is a dumbass. I win every debate you ever have with ME, so why do YOU bother, loser.

  69. Lee Says:

    One thing ‘everyone’ knows is you’re a nazi.

  70. Lee Says:

    Sally’s post didn’t NEED intrepting for most of us. Pretty straightforward and self-explanitory. Now, since YOU(TC) can’t figure out what it means, you try children’s debating points to goad her into explaining it FOR you. Prove me wrong. Since YOU’RE the “only one” who has figured it out, explain it to us dim-bulbs. But you CAN’T, so you WON’T! (let me guess, your next post will be something along the lines of: “If you’re that stupid, I can’t help you”)

  71. Lee Says:

    so try me….

  72. Lee Says:

    Uh-huh! Just what I thought. Thanks for proving my point by your “silence”, TC.

  73. Lee Says:

    Sally wins again.

  74. DeShawn Q. Williams Says:

    Very odd… I went to the actual article. Both the “scientist” authors are listed as “independent consultants” — i.e. they are not affiliated with any scientific institution or university. Also, both of them are listed with a Miami address. Coincidence?

  75. Lee Says:

    In fact, I like the fact that they are “independent”, as opposed to “affiliated”, which can mean “bias”, like Carter.

  76. Sergey Says:

    In fact, most of statistic analysis specialists are business consultants, not academicians, so they are not affiliated with any parties, think tanks or universities. Statistics is “hard science”, if adequately done, and always can be reexamined for correctness.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge