Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

So in your mind, since the Mayans in Campeche, for example, are not Aztec, then they are not Mexicans? You do realize that is what you are saying--and how utterly wrong and stupid that makes you? This isn't about what the Spanish called some group. Only you would try to twist in the wind and grasp at that straw. Admit it: you lied, you were wrong, and you were caught. Be a man about it. Or a woman. Even a child. But no, you are being a banana slug about it. Spineless, slimy, and dumb. (And before you ask, yes, the last part of that is another gratuitous insult. You deserve so many more than I possibly have time to post, but at least it shows my heart is in the right place.)

So in your mind, since the Mayans in Campeche, for example, are not Aztec, then they are not Mexicans? You do realize that is what you are saying--and how utterly wrong and stupid that makes you? This isn't about what the Spanish called some group. Only you would try to twist in the wind and grasp at that straw. Admit it: you lied, you were wrong, and you were caught. Be a man about it. Or a woman. Even a child. But no, you are being a banana slug about it. Spineless, slimy, and dumb. (And before you ask, yes, the last part of that is another gratuitous insult. You deserve so many more than I possibly have time to post, but at least it shows my heart is in the right place.) Originally Posted by Old-T

When the fuck did the Aztecs -- the original Mexicans -- cease being Mexicans as you stupidly insinuate in your original post, Old-THUMPER?

Or, jackass, explain when it was that the Mexica subjugated the Mexica, Old-THUMPER.

Or, now that you're stupidly agitating on the subject, answer this question: When the fuck did the Mayans conquer the Mexica, Old-THUMPER?

Where the fuck does Cortes factor into your stupid little theory regarding your "Mexican conquest", Old-THUMPER? Or did you forget about him, Old-THUMPER?

It was Cortes who stole what the Mexica had, Old-THUMPER; so, your original statement is still stupid for obvious reasons, Old-THUMPER.

BTW, Old-THUMPER, the Aztecs in question called themselves "Mexica" before the Spanish arrived; so, it is seriously relevant: they are/were the original "Mexicans".

So in your mind, since the Mayans in Campeche, for example, are not Aztec, then they are not Mexicans? You do realize that is what you are saying--and how utterly wrong and stupid that makes you? This isn't about what the Spanish called some group. Only you would try to twist in the wind and grasp at that straw. Admit it: you lied, you were wrong, and you were caught. Be a man about it. Or a woman. Even a child. But no, you are being a banana slug about it. Spineless, slimy, and dumb. (And before you ask, yes, the last part of that is another gratuitous insult. You deserve so many more than I possibly have time to post, but at least it shows my heart is in the right place.) Originally Posted by Old-T

^^^ fucking pussy ass bitch^^^ LMAO!

^^^ fucking pussy ass bitch^^^ LMAO! Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Who? The Mayans or the Aztecs? Be careful not to get too insulting. They both have no qualms about offing their enemies.

First, how many polls do you think are done door-to-door? The answer is practically none. I guarantee you that all the polls cited in this thread were by telephone or other non face-to-face method. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here let me change it for you, so you won't get confused with your "reality"!

A problem with the underlying data IS ...

.. it is based on "polls" ...... Here's my point.

"RING, RING, RING, RING .... "Hellow"

Pollster: "Hi, I'm Joe Smuck with the National Syndicate Polling Institute doing a survey on how many people have firearms in their homes. Do you have a firearm in your home?"

Person ON PHONE: "Fuck you!" and slams PHONE DOWN.

Pollster: I'll mark that down as a "NO"!

Now do you understand better.

(Oh, have you ever managed a campaign beyond a student council election?"

Involving "bean counting" of votes and "attitudes based on data available, which includes dispersing assets before and during election day to maximize the return on the efforts to obtain a victory .. and achieved victory against THE POLLS?)

With respect to any poll you through up on homeowner gun ownership please provide ... the data base, the methodology used in selecting the base, the raw data collected with ALL RESPONSES, and the mean count of the "yes" or "no" responses along with the "none of your business" or "no comment" responses with the questions in the poll.

Now back to the Aztecs.

A Mexican is also a North American. They can also be a Mayan. And a woman. And a resident of a specific city, whatever that might be. So what is your point?

IB's point was that Aztecs and Mexicans are synonymous. My point was that is stupid. Cutting through your post it seem you agree with my opinion on this. Originally Posted by Old-T

By your own representations ....

An "Aztec" is a "Mexican"? .... By my point "Mexico" did not exist when the Aztecs ruled .... so a person of "Aztec" blood living in the Republic of Mexico would be a "citizen" of the Republic of Mexico, although there are natives of that country who live in "autonomous" regions over which the Mexican government as little, if any authority, and must ask permission to even enter their "domain"!

With all due respect, you want others to be "technically" correct, but you don't impose the same standard on yourself. Does that "sum it up"?

Even most Mexicans and Canadians user "Americans" to refer to US citizens. Originally Posted by Old-T

As for "most" of anyone living in Mexico or Canada (for that matter) and what they "think" I have doubts as to your "credentials" to make such a representation. As for this board ... there is lots of shit on this board that isn't "used" in the general public. But having spent some quality time around folks from South and North of here, when asked where I'm from I refrain from saying "America," because I've noticed our relationship seems to flourish by saying "the United States." Since you portray yourself to be an "international expert" I'm sure you would agree with me. But, of course, it's unnecessary.

Here let me change it for you, so you won't get confused with your "reality"!

A problem with the underlying data IS ...

.. it is based on "polls" ...... Here's my point.

"RING, RING, RING, RING .... "Hellow"

Pollster: "Hi, I'm Joe Smuck with the National Syndicate Polling Institute doing a survey on how many people have firearms in their homes. Do you have a firearm in your home?"

Person ON PHONE: "Fuck you!" and slams PHONE DOWN.

Pollster: I'll mark that down as a "NO"!

Now do you understand better.

(Oh, have you ever managed a campaign beyond a student council election?"

Involving "bean counting" of votes and "attitudes based on data available, which includes dispersing assets before and during election day to maximize the return on the efforts to obtain a victory .. and achieved victory against THE POLLS?)

With respect to any poll you throw up on homeowner gun ownership please provide ... the data base, the methodology used in selecting the base, the raw data collected with ALL RESPONSES, and the mean count of the "yes" or "no" responses along with the "none of your business" or "no comment" responses with the questions in the poll.

Now back to the Aztecs. Originally Posted by LexusLover

FYI: You do hold "Princeton" with some regard don't you?

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...deviation.html

Technical in scope but I'm sure no problem for your analytical mind.

Here let me change it for you, so you won't get confused with your "reality"!

A problem with the underlying data IS ...

.. it is based on "polls" ...... Here's my point.

"RING, RING, RING, RING .... "Hellow"

Pollster: "Hi, I'm Joe Smuck with the National Syndicate Polling Institute doing a survey on how many people have firearms in their homes. Do you have a firearm in your home?"

Person ON PHONE: "Fuck you!" and slams PHONE DOWN.

Pollster: I'll mark that down as a "NO"!

Now do you understand better.

(Oh, have you ever managed a campaign beyond a student council election?"

Involving "bean counting" of votes and "attitudes based on data available, which includes dispersing assets before and during election day to maximize the return on the efforts to obtain a victory .. and achieved victory against THE POLLS?)

With respect to any poll you through up on homeowner gun ownership please provide ... the data base, the methodology used in selecting the base, the raw data collected with ALL RESPONSES, and the mean count of the "yes" or "no" responses along with the "none of your business" or "no comment" responses with the questions in the poll.

Now back to the Aztecs. Originally Posted by LexusLover

First, that is NOT how polls work. Educate yourself then come on back. Seems like they work great when one is able to validate the polls, such as in Presidential elections. Pretty accurate in 2008 and 2012. Most within the plus/minus 3%.

Also, seems like almost everyone on this forum at one time or another has cited poll results to substantiate their points of view. It is only when the poll results differ from their POVs that they have issue with them. IB is doing exactly that. He cites one poll (Gallup) that comes closest to supporting his POV and disregards every other poll that does not.

I am not going to go into how the polls are conducted. I'm fairly certain that pollsters such as Pew Research, Gallup, NBC news, CNN, etc. know how to conduct polls.

You didn't answer my rather simple question. If you wanted to accurately find out the percentage of homes with handguns, how would you go about doing so? Got no answer? Or is there no effective way to do it. Come on. You are the first person who will tell us you know everything. But then again you don't think Nau's is in the Clarksville section of Austin and you think Cedar Park was named in 1973. Maybe you really aren't that smart.

Who? The Mayans or the Aztecs? Be careful not to get too insulting. They both have no qualms about offing their enemies. Originally Posted by Old-T

We are overloaded with ignorance..

First, that is NOT how polls work. Educate yourself then come on back. Seems like they work great when one is able to validate the polls, such as in Presidential elections. Pretty accurate in 2008 and 2012. Most within the plus/minus 3%.

Also, seems like almost everyone on this forum at one time or another has cited poll results to substantiate their points of view. It is only when the poll results differ from their POVs that they have issue with them. IB is doing exactly that. He cites one poll (Gallup) that comes closest to supporting his POV and disregards every other poll that does not.

I am not going to go into how the polls are conducted. I'm fairly certain that pollsters such as Pew Research, Gallup, NBC news, CNN, etc. know how to conduct polls.

You didn't answer my rather simple question. If you wanted to accurately find out the percentage of homes with handguns, how would you go about doing so? Got no answer? Come on. You are the first person who will tell us you know everything. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It was very noticeable how the authors of the article you cited went out of their way to ignore the data in the Galllup poll, speedy, data that differed from and didn't substantiate their -- and your -- point of view.

Like Gallup is the torchbearer for accuracy in polling. Doesn't TheBlaze have a poll you prefer?

Like Gallup is the torchbearer for accuracy in polling. Doesn't TheBlaze have a poll you prefer?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Venimous slug !

It was very noticeable how the authors of the article you cited went out of their way to ignore the data in the Galllup poll, speedy, data that differed from and didn't substantiate their -- and your -- point of view. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't have a POV on the subject. I personally have no idea what percentage of homeowners have handguns in their homes. Neither do you. I presented data from several polls. The Gallup poll also ignores other polls also, as it should. The article I cited did not use ANY polls other than the General Social Survey. They hardly went "out of their way" in "ignoring" the Gallup poll. It is one of many sources that I cited, all of which shows gun ownership in less than 50% of homes. Most of the polls had the percentage at around 40% or under.

I don't have a POV on the subject. I personally have no idea what percentage of homeowners have handguns in their homes. Neither do you. I presented data from several polls. The Gallup poll also ignores other polls also, as it should. The article I cited did not use ANY polls other than the General Social Survey. They hardly went "out of their way" in "ignoring" the Gallup poll. It is one of many sources that I cited, all of which shows gun ownership in less than 50% of homes. Most of the polls had the percentage at around 40% or under. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your claim that you have no "POV on the subject" is a blatant lie, speedy. Your posts and your selection of articles and polls state and/or reflect your POV, speedy, and neither your articles nor you cited the data in the Gallup poll until I posted it.

Your claim that you have no "POV on the subject" is a blatant lie, speedy. Your posts and your selection of articles and polls state and/or reflect your POV, speedy, and neither your articles nor you cited the data in the Gallup poll until I posted it. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wow. You don't beat around the BUSH do you, IBIdiot?