Eric Cantor set to lose primary: Update - Lost

[TerryMathews]

Take your lumps and admit you were clueless on said topic. DW is an "inflation-adjusted" measure of political choice/positions, making your prior analogy total bullshit. Show you're an adult, and evolve a little.

We will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

Also, take your sanctimonious attitude and insert it in your anus sideways. You can find posts of mine where I have admitted my mistakes. Have you ever?

Dial it back.
admin allidolm

 

[fskimospy]

If the views of the party are not adequately represented by the score. Then clearly representing the score as a way to measure the liberal/conservativeness of a party is retarded.

Of course using the scores to measure party ideology isn't retarded. DW-NOMINATE uses multiple dimensions and if you look at the literature discussion on the topic you could learn a lot about it.

While you're just stupid enough to think that you know something that the political science community doesn't, you're wrong. Furthermore, I doubt you even care about the answer as you are arguing for its own sake and to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths.

Your complaints about the system show extremely clearly that you don't understand what you're talking about. I won't be responding to you any more on this issue as it is pointless. Educate yourself.

 

[First]

We will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

Also, take your sanctimonious attitude and insert it in your anus sideways. You can find posts of mine where I have admitted my mistakes. Have you ever?

Yup I have, and I'll quote mine if you quote yours.

And it's not sanctimonious; just don't start fights you can't finish.

 

[fskimospy]

We will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

Also, take your sanctimonious attitude and insert it in your anus sideways. You can find posts of mine where I have admitted my mistakes. Have you ever?

There's no 'agreeing to disagree'. You said something about the system that was wrong, and then you characterized an article in a way that you claimed it said literally the exact opposite of what it really said.

There is simply no way to read that article and say that it 'clearly states that DW-NOMINATE can't be used to compare across time'. Just admit it and move on.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course using the scores to measure party ideology isn't retarded. DW-NOMINATE uses multiple dimensions and if you look at the literature discussion on the topic you could learn a lot about it.

While you're just stupid enough to think that you know something that the political science community doesn't, you're wrong. Furthermore, I doubt you even care about the answer as you are arguing for its own sake and to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths.

Your complaints about the system show extremely clearly that you don't understand what you're talking about. I won't be responding to you any more on this issue as it is pointless. Educate yourself.

LOL

A score that says the most liberal party and most conservative party have incredibly similar views on important issues is worthless or wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL

A score that says the most liberal party and most conservative party have incredibly similar views on important issues is worthless or wrong.

Or you don't understand it.

Guess which one it is here, dumbass.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yup I have, and I'll quote mine if you quote yours.

And it's not sanctimonious; just don't start fights you can't finish.

I was done, I said my piece yesterday. It's all pointless anyway, no one will ever understand DW-NOMINATE as well as Eskimo pie so I'm done with it.

There's no 'agreeing to disagree'. You said something about the system that was wrong, and then you characterized an article in a way that you claimed it said literally the exact opposite of what it really said.

There is simply no way to read that article and say that it 'clearly states that DW-NOMINATE can't be used to compare across time'. Just admit it and move on.

In your opinion, I said something that was wrong. That is the very literal definition of agreeing to disagree.

 

[nehalem256]

Or you don't understand it.

Guess which one it is here, dumbass.

Well for a person that is such an expert at what it REALLY means. I would think it would be easier to explain it. Then to just mindlessly repeat that I don't understand what it means.

The fact you don't is pretty elucidating.

 

[fskimospy]

I was done, I said my piece yesterday. It's all pointless anyway, no one will ever understand DW-NOMINATE as well as Eskimo pie so I'm done with it.

In your opinion, I said something that was wrong. That is the very literal definition of agreeing to disagree.

This is one of those times where that quote "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts" is most apt. Agreeing to disagree generally involves both parties accepting that while they think the other person is wrong, that their position is at least reasonable and deserving of respect. That's simply not possible here because a statement as easily disproven as what you wrote and something that is so blatantly false isn't reasonable or deserving of respect.

This is not a case of opinion. The piece is extraordinarily clear, it meant the opposite of what you wrote. There is simply no possible way to read that in English and come to your conclusion. The fact that you tried to call me dumb for pointing that out is just the icing on the cake.

 

[thraashman]

This is one of those times where that quote "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts" is most apt. Agreeing to disagree generally involves both parties accepting that while they think the other person is wrong, that their position is at least reasonable and deserving of respect. That's simply not possible here because a statement as easily disproven as what you wrote and something that is so blatantly false isn't reasonable or deserving of respect.

This is not a case of opinion. The piece is extraordinarily clear, it meant the opposite of what you wrote. There is simply no possible way to read that in English and come to your conclusion. The fact that you tried to call me dumb for pointing that out is just the icing on the cake.

You do realize you're arguing with what might be the stupidest person to ever post on these forums and then Terry who seems to be trying his hardest to catch up. You can't teach someone like nehalem because he's too fucking retarded to learn.