G_j
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:23 AM
Original message |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-06-04 11:42 AM by G_j
the info I had posted came from an unreliable source.. deleted
|
Jack_Dawson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-06-04 11:25 AM by Jack_Dawson
and so true. We need to start our own country. Like Bill Maher said, "South, we're reconsidered. You can go your own way after all."
:toast:
|
CBGLuthier
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:28 AM
Response to Original message |
2. what an outright crock of shit |
|
from the bottom of the page
"As a regular reader of the "Economist" I can confirm that this table (for the 2000 election) was indeed published in the 'Economist". However, a few issues later on, the 'Economist' published a retraction, saying the data was unable to be verified and possibly a hoax."
This data is pure-d-bullshit.
|
G_j
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
to point out disclaimer points at link.
|
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:35 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Yeah, read the righties analysis of this data |
|
http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139He's a righty, but that data can not be confirmed and may have been fabricated.
|
G_j
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-06-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. thanks, I decided to delete the whole post n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 12:01 AM
Response to Original message |