Relax liberals, the Christians didn't do it.

[Epee_Pox]

And it's toeing the line, rather as an aside. Even more as a side, do you know what that phrase refers to?

During the days of sail, in the British Royal Navy, part of each Sunday involved the ritual of "divisions," akin to a formal inspection in modern militaries. At this time, the Royal Marines and each navy officer's division would form up at set locations on deck. As a guide for forming neat straight lines, sailors would stand with their toes along a seam of deck planking, and would thereby "toe the line."

Now there are some sources that say it comes from prize fighting, when the referee would drag his foot in the ground to make a line, and both fighters would stand toe to toe and batter each other until someone quit, died, or couldn't come back to the line after a knockdown. This is not the origin of the phrase "toe the line," however. Instead, the line in the sand was called the "scratch," and thus we get the phrase "up to scratch."

Going back to the seams of deck planking, some decks were caulked after a fashion with hot pitch. This kept them watertight as the boards shrank from drying out. The seam between the planks was called the "devil" or the "divil," and caulking with pitch was called "paying." Thus the phrase "the devil to pay, and no pitch hot," frequently shortened to "the devil to pay," meaning things are going to get real unpleasant real soon, just like a ship that stops being watertight.

But I digress...

[Soldier]

But don't think it ended there. I was told to "toe the line" just yesterday; in my case it was a seam between tiles, for our inspection.

But yes, that's exactly it - just thought I'd check, see if your spelling was accidental or not.

[Inquartata]

I'm rejecting the article because the "facts" were invented, and I've provided non-partisan proof of the invention of facts.

I mean really, you're going to tell me that newly registered evangelical white protestants aren't going to vote for an evangelical/ born again president? Do you want to try to sell me some land in Florida next?

Heh, first you cleave to the principle of relying upon empirical evidence, then you argue on the basis of "It only stands to reason"? This is a very strange dance you are performing!

[Drifter]

Heh, first you cleave to the principle of relying upon empirical evidence, then you argue on the basis of "It only stands to reason"? This is a very strange dance you are performing!

Now Inq do we really need to go through this? I expected more from you. Ok here we go. You seem to deftly do your best to hang on to a principle of only those things which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt can be legitimate. Yet you place such a high standard of reasonable doubt that even Decarte wouldn't be able to use thinking as evidence for existence by your standards.

Simply put using your own self imposed standards please go right ahead and show how the article that originally spurred all this is in fact evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence I have submitted is wrong. Recall your first words of your first post on this subject were, "Don't try to confuse them with facts..."

Now don't get the idea that I'm, "just shifting the responsibility of proof" onto you. I'm suggesting that you take a hard look at your altered levels of reasonable doubt. For things that you believe to be true your level of reasonable doubt is extremely low, for items which you'd like to think are not true you place an impossibly high level of reasonable doubt and then discount, and belittle them as having been invented or lies.

Now as for your point, no I'm using classic deductive reasoning. I'm sure you're familar with it but it seems that when it doesn't satisfy your needs you ignore it. Nonetheless reasoning overlooked is still truth. Let's go through the process together shall we? ( Here's a primer should you think my conclusions unsound. http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin...c/deductiv.htm)

Premise: 94% of all registered Republicans polled by the pollingreport.com exit poll voted for Bush
Premise: Between the periods of 2000 and 2004 the Annenburg poll reported a 6% increase in Evangelical white protestants that changed registered political affiliation to Republican.
Premise: 58.9% of ALL voting eligible population actually voted (Not just those that were regisitered but population that could vote IF they wanted to.)
Conclusion: OF the 6% increase, at a minimum 58.9% voted and of those that did 94% of them voted for Bush. So 58.9% of the 6% increase voted and 94% of them voted Bush.

On a completely different front, it seems that the Moral Majority and Jerry Fallwell disagree with you as well. They are very happy to see the strength of thier voting block and are quite confident that they turned the tide in the election.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41324

[Drifter]

But yes, that's exactly it - just thought I'd check, see if your spelling was accidental or not.

My spelling was accidental, that was someone else that replied with the correct answer. Though something along those lines would probably have been a guess as I am in the middle of reading the Patrick O'Brien series of books right now.

[Inquartata]

Simply put using your own self imposed standards please go right ahead and show how the article that originally spurred all this is in fact evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence I have submitted is wrong.

Pardon, but where did I assert either?

I merely noted that on the one hand you're posting reams of statistics to prove a statement, and immediately thereafter saying "you're going to tell me that newly registered evangelical white protestants aren't going to vote for an evangelical/ born again president? Do you want to try to sell me some land in Florida next?" The wild swing from talking about empirical proof to forwarding intuition as proof just tickled my sense of humor, that's all.
( Hence the jester gremlin. )

Premise: 94% of all registered Republicans polled by the pollingreport.com exit poll voted for Bush
Premise: Between the periods of 2000 and 2004 the Annenburg poll reported a 6% increase in Evangelical white protestants that changed registered political affiliation to Republican.
Premise: 58.9% of ALL voting eligible population actually voted (Not just those that were regisitered but population that could vote IF they wanted to.)
Conclusion: OF the 6% increase, at a minimum 58.9% voted and of those that did 94% of them voted for Bush. So 58.9% of the 6% increase voted and 94% of them voted Bush.

Some largish holes in that, I'm afraid. This part, for example

OF the 6% increase, at a minimum 58.9% voted

is not demonstrable. The numbers are all aggregated, and one cannot assume that every sector of the electorate behaved the way the whole of it did.
( Fallacy of division. )

Also, your first two premises do not, as you seem to be saying, imply that a 6% increase in evangelicals joining the Republican Party means that the total of evangelicals in the Party rose by 6%, or that they comprise 6% of the Party...

On a completely different front, it seems that the Moral Majority and Jerry Fallwell disagree with you as well.

Oh, well, I guess that settles it, then...

They are very happy to see the strength of thier voting block and are quite confident that they turned the tide in the election.

Are you adducing them as experts on the polling statistics? ( Argumentum ad verecundiam, I'd say. ) Or are you just saying that we should accept their opinions because they agree with yours, without any further evidence that their opinions are correct?

[telkanuru]

Argumentum ad verecundiam, I'd say

I prefer the argumentum cum baculo, myself.

[Inquartata]

What, Scott Baculo's grandfather?