NEWS ALERT: President Reagan Has Died

[XXXXX]

Have you and your Kerry cronies begun reading the latest polls to see George's climb back up? Read 'em and weep gentlemen.

I have in fact seen the lastest poll. Here it is:

Kerry: 51
Bush: 44

Kerry: 48
Bush: 42
Nader: 4

People who believe the country is on the wrong track: 60 (The highest number in an LA Times poll since bush became president)

http://www.news24houston.com/content/he ... 26&SecID=2

I'm not weeping yet.

I must admit two things.

• 1) Kerry still has a slight lead, but when Nader is factored in, and especially when you look at the support on the all important electoral map, the race is a dead heat. Take a look at the middle of this Gallup Poll page which looks at support for all candidates in both the red electoral states that Bush won against Gore, and the blue states that Gore won.
  
  This will be another squeaker, but I do believe that as the economy improves, gas prices go down with already agreed to OPEC increased production, and more progress in Iraq, that Bush will keep pulling ahead in polls, and more importantly in the electoral balance. The polls will be close until after the Democratic convention.
  
• 2) I was somewhat concerned seeing your poll, which differed so much from the one I saw....until I saw the source of your poll. You must agree that the LA Times is a liberal newspaper, in a liberal city, in a democratic state. Their polls have never correlated with reputable polling.
  
  The poll I saw was done by the Opinion Dynamics Corporation, which is more respected in terms of fairness than the LA Times. You can see their results at this Fox News webpage. It was done on June 8-9th, and is summarized as:
  
  

  The national registered voter poll finds the Republican incumbent would receive the support of 43 percent to Kerry's 45 percent, if the presidential election were held today. When independent Ralph Nader is included, he receives three percent, Bush 42 percent and Kerry 42 percent.

  
  
  Take the time to read through all the questions that they asked and the poll responses. This is one of the more interesting polls, in terms of details.

[JamieW]

That you consider waiting until information is taken in as "not having balls" is truly indicative of why you are an idiot. If you think that holding a position for the sake of taking a position, even if it is a wrong one, is a sign that you are a man, then you know not what it means to be a man. You only know what it means to be ignorant.

By the way, you have an interesting method of ensuring your man will win. "I don't like you so go vote for Kerry." Yes, that is how you argue.

You also fail to understand my argument. This is obvious because you keep proving it. My point is that you are an uncivilized ass. This may be a difficult concept for you because a man of your meager intelligence is unable to create or understand the idea of introspective self criticism for the purpose of bettering oneself.

[JamieW]

Holy crap, it is stuff like this that makes me wonder why republicans aren't ashamed of their own party.

http://vernonrobinson.com/Illegal%20Alien%20MP3.wma

[XXXXX]

...blah blah blah....You also fail to understand my argument....blah blah blah...

Only a teenage girl going through menarche could make sense of the senseless drivel that you purport to call an argument. If you claim to have the balls to stand up and take a consistent position like a man, then your testicles have not yet descended.

As an example, leg4li2ed0pe is a man. He holds a clear and consistent liberal position, of which he is not ashamed. I not only respect that, but am learning a lot about how liberals think, and about what points he is making.

Your posts on the other hand are like dealing with a young teenage girl from the Valley, who has had her cell phone privileges revoked for a week. I'm sure you think your little audioclip link was really cute, but you should really just hang out with kids your own age on the gradeschool circuit. Leave these discussions to the adults.

[JamieW]

Wow, you couldn't have proven my point better. Thank you. By the way, that sound? That's everyone laughing at you. And that clip? That's one of his actual advertisements. Way to be up to speed on things.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

No, I said to listen to what Gorby himself said about Reagan's impact on the dissolution of the USSR. Just like I told others earlier to actually take the time to read the Declaration and see that only 2 of 30 paragraphs are applicable today. Same with the First Amendment about the separation of Church and State. People think it means a lot more than what it says.

I think you are confusing posts. I was refering to when you told me to look at analysis about terrorism, not gorby.

This will be another squeaker, but I do believe that as the economy improves, gas prices go down with already agreed to OPEC increased production, and more progress in Iraq, that Bush will keep pulling ahead in polls, and more importantly in the electoral balance. The polls will be close until after the Democratic convention.

I'm not at all certain who will win and I know its going to be a close race. However, OPEC agreed to raise production but they are already producing more than there new raised production level. The truth is saudi arabia is the only country not producing at capacity already. I don't think gas prices will be a real issue on either side though.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

# 2) I was somewhat concerned seeing your poll, which differed so much from the one I saw....until I saw the source of your poll. You must agree that the LA Times is a liberal newspaper, in a liberal city, in a democratic state. Their polls have never correlated with reputable polling.

The poll I saw was done by the Opinion Dynamics Corporation, which is more respected in terms of fairness than the LA Times. You can see their results at this Fox News webpage.

My guess is that both polls were probobly done equally well and the margin of error makes them very close to one another. I doubt the poll in the LA times was somehow rigged just as I doubt the poll that you can find on the the FOX NEWS webpage is rigged.

[XXXXX]

No, I said to listen to what Gorby himself said about Reagan's impact on the dissolution of the USSR. Just like I told others earlier to actually take the time to read the Declaration and see that only 2 of 30 paragraphs are applicable today. Same with the First Amendment about the separation of Church and State. People think it means a lot more than what it says.

I think you are confusing posts. I was refering to when you told me to look at analysis about terrorism, not gorby.

This will be another squeaker, but I do believe that as the economy improves, gas prices go down with already agreed to OPEC increased production, and more progress in Iraq, that Bush will keep pulling ahead in polls, and more importantly in the electoral balance. The polls will be close until after the Democratic convention.

I'm not at all certain who will win and I know its going to be a close race. However, OPEC agreed to raise production but they are already producing more than there new raised production level. The truth is saudi arabia is the only country not producing at capacity already. I don't think gas prices will be a real issue on either side though.

I was only ever talking about the direct post from Gorby himself, rather than having his words be interpreted by analysis. I'm not sure what the other issue is that you are referring to then.

The oil is only an issue in so far as it directly affects the average consumer's perception of the improvement of the economy. As you would expect, most consumers are ignorant and/or uneducated about relevent world issues, let alone the economy or politics (see above posts as an example)...so an issue like gas during the summer is how they guage the economy.

As the price/gallon reduces which it did today by 6 cents, people will feel better. As more jobs continue getting created, the concern about the economy will improve Bush's poll ratings. He is losing badly on the issue of the economy to Kerry, as I showed you in that Gallup and Opinion Dynamics poll.

LOL....I watched the Netflix DVD "Fidel" today, and it had a promo for the DVD of Power and Terror - Noam Chomsky in Our Times which made me think of you. Maybe one of these days I'll even rent it....but the few comments he made in the Promo seemed designed to fill people with anger and hatred.

[XXXXX]

# 2) I was somewhat concerned seeing your poll, which differed so much from the one I saw....until I saw the source of your poll. You must agree that the LA Times is a liberal newspaper, in a liberal city, in a democratic state. Their polls have never correlated with reputable polling.

The poll I saw was done by the Opinion Dynamics Corporation, which is more respected in terms of fairness than the LA Times. You can see their results at this Fox News webpage.

My guess is that both polls were probobly done equally well and the margin of error makes them very close to one another. I doubt the poll in the LA times was somehow rigged just as I doubt the poll that you can find on the the FOX NEWS webpage is rigged.

But the big difference is who does a poll. They can skew the results by who they contact, and how they ask the questions. The LA Times polls have consistently been falsely skewed against Republicans, and Bush in particular when compared to other national polls.

The one on Fox website was not done by Fox, but rather from a very well respected company headquartered in Mass....and I don't need to remind you who's home state it is.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

Do you have any evidence of what you say about LA Times polls?

[XXXXX]

I could get it by looking up some of their polls and comparing their results to simultaneous polls by reputable sites...but I'm working on a project tonight that is due for presentation in the morning.

You can see some of it on this page which gives a good list of many polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

I'm not even sure about this last site because they are saying Bush was 51%, which I think is Kerry's reading. You can't see the LA Times poll without a subscription, so I'm not sure of their history if this link is not accurate.

[XXXXX]

Here is another Poll Compilation I remembered:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

This one is actually more useful, because it all comes down to electoral votes, not the overall population poll...although it is still a good barometer.
Ohio and Florida are going to be huge in this one.

When you click on the various headings, like this one....this is they type of trend I'm referring to:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html (click on Job Approval & also on "3 Way race" and see where LA Times shows the leads)

[leg4li2ed0pe]

According to one of your sites Opinion Dynamics does their poll with fox news. Not saying this makes it inaccurate but if you are going to say LA Times might be changed by their politics I would say theres a similar chance fox news does the same. Now I don't really believe either are skewed in this way. You may also notice that the LA Times poll is of the highest number of people (though this makes little difference when the poll is up to 1000 people or more). Note that http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html says that Bush has the 3rd highest approval rating of any of those polls.

[XXXXX]

According to one of your sites Opinion Dynamics does their poll with fox news. Not saying this makes it inaccurate but if you are going to say LA Times might be changed by their politics I would say theres a similar chance fox news does the same. Now I don't really believe either are skewed in this way. You may also notice that the LA Times poll is of the highest number of people (though this makes little difference when the poll is up to 1000 people or more). Note that http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html says that Bush has the 3rd highest approval rating of any of those polls.

You have to look at a variety of questions, compare them when done on the same day(s), and cannot just look at the approval rating for example. You need to review the numbers over a longer time frame than just one snapshot reading, then you see which polls are out of the mainstream of reputable results. CBS polls are also skewed liberal...surprise, surprise. And I'm not saying that Fox is always reputable, only that it is consistently more in tune with the mainstream than is the LA Times poll, or CBS poll.

Let's look a bit more closely at the LA poll which shows that Bush trails Senator Kerry with Ralph Nader by 6 points, 48-42. You take Nader out, it's Kerry at 51, Bush 44, 6 points apart.

But, in the same poll, Bush carries independents 49-46 and Republicans by a 92-4 margin.

If Bush carries independents 49-46 and Republicans by 92-4, how does Kerry have a six-point lead, when in the same poll, Kerry leads among Democrats by 86-7, not 92-4.

With Bush carrying independents by 3 points in this poll, and holding more of his own party than Kerry, the LA Times' sampling, in order to give Kerry this lead, has to contain far more Democrats than Republicans!

In other words, it has to be an unfairly weighted survey, with them talking to a much larger number of Democrats compared to Republicans and Independents in this poll.

It is important to note that the US Population is not skewed in this over-representation of Democrats. In the Gallup study, 40,000 interviews in 2003 finds a 45.5 to 45.2 Republican-Democrat split.

In an ABC News study of 22 surveys in 2003 with over a thousand interviews, each find partisan identification evenly split 31-31. The Pew study of its 2003 survey finds Republicans trailing Democrats by one point, 30-31.

This is another way to see how the LA Times engineers it's skewing of results.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

OK in light of that I will give you that this particular poll is somewhat off due to sampling error. I will NOT however give you that this is because of the newspaper's bias. This is what a margin of error is. No poll that doesn't survey everyone in the country is perfect. All this poll says is that 19 out of 20 times the actual percentage will be + or - 3 percent. Taking what you said into account the poll still probobly fits into that.

[XXXXX]

I could buy that if CBS and LA Times were not consistently the ones with results on the liberal side of the mainstream polls. If your assessment is correct, there would be times where their polls would be slanted on the more conservative side, which is not the case.

The reason is that they intentionally sample more democrats/liberals than is represented in the country. Hence, those two pollings are not reliable, and dismissing their consistent liberal positions as "sampling errors" is not realistic.

Why do you have such a hard time realizing that liberal newspapers in a liberal town, in a liberal state is not likely to not realize they are biased. If you ask most liberals if they think the mainstream network TV media is liberal biased, they would unanimously answer "No!" But of course it is, and even the major staff admits that it is because 70-75% of them are liberal. When has 60 Minutes ran a bad story about Kerry this year? Never. When has 60 Minutes ran a bad story exposing their sugar daddy, George Soros? Never.

It is pointless to discuss this any further, as anyone who believes that all the TV media except Fox News is liberal biased is not willing to read the facts. The whole point of this is that it fully justifies Bush's negative advertising, since it is the only balance he can get (by paying for it), and for the investment, negative ads give a larger return to neutralize the liberal bias.

[aviationwiz]

The whole point of this is that it fully justifies Bush's negative advertising, since it is the only balance he can get (by paying for it), and for the investment, negative ads give a larger return to neutralize the liberal bias.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nothing can justify the war that Bush has started. He has started not a Presidential campaign, but a war campaign. As per neutralizing the liberal bias, you've already heard what I've had to say about your "liberal bias." Bush's negative ad's/war campaign has been so far ineffective. I'm sick of the negative ads on our side, and I'm sick of the negative ads on your side.

It's time for each candidate to throw out to the people what they will do as President, and for the people to decide.

Attacks of the sort rarely work, and I'd like to go back to the year 1990, the Minnesota Senatorial Elections, it was between Rudy Boshwitz, and Paul Wellstone. The night before election day, Boshwitz put out an attack on Wellstone, aimed at particularly at the jewish community. He published a letter stating that Wellstone was "a bad jew" for marrying a christian. It is believed that that is what cost Boshwitz the election. It would not surprise me if Bush attempted such a stunt. Also, you note that it is not Bush directly attacking Kerry, but rather his campaign. Maybe he didn't write the ads, but he approved them, look at one of Bush's, or Kerry's ads, they all say "I'm ___ and I approve this message" It shows to the American people that the President approved the ad, and is approving of the negative campaign he is in.

[XXXXX]

The whole point of this is that it fully justifies Bush's negative advertising, since it is the only balance he can get (by paying for it), and for the investment, negative ads give a larger return to neutralize the liberal bias.

Blah blah blah....I'm sick of the negative ads on our side, and I'm sick of the negative ads on your side....blah blah blah.

The night before election day, Boshwitz put out an attack on Wellstone, aimed at particularly at the jewish community. He published a letter stating that Wellstone was "a bad jew" for marrying a christian. It is believed that that is what cost Boshwitz the election. It would not surprise me if Bush attempted such a stunt.

First of all you should focus on your high school grades, and leave the politics to those of us who are old enough to vote.

Secondly, that is not why Wellstone won, even if your story is the least bit accurate.

Thirdly, your hormones are raging again, because in one breath you say you are sick of the negative ads on both sides, then you proceed to accuse Bush of very likely accusing someone of being a bad Jew for marrying a Christian.

At least learn how to not contradict yourself in the very same post. Once you have learned how to do that, go and tell John Kerry what you learned, so he can also not look like such a wishy-washy depressed, Al Gore robot clone....which is why he is going to lose this election.

Fourthly, you should just shut up and watch how the adults conduct calm, and interesting discussions back and forth. Once you finish ascending through puberty, it will come in handy for you.

[aviationwiz]

First of all you should focus on your high school grades, and leave the politics to those of us who are old enough to vote.

I'm not going to sit down idle while my country is becoming a worse & worse place to live. Most high school students don't care about politics, but rather care how they look, or what people think of them, well, I'm not an average high school student, I *DO* care about my country, I *DO* care about the world I am living in, and I intend on making it better for all of us, in whatever ways I can.

Secondly, that is not why Wellstone won, even if your story is the least bit accurate.

I never said that is why he won definitive, I said it is common belief as to why he won, I never said I believed that.

because in one breath you say you are sick of the negative ads on both sides, then you proceed to accuse Bush of very likely accusing someone of being a bad Jew for marrying a Christian.

I never said that Bush would call someone a "bad jew" I said that it wouldn't surprise *ME* if he tried a similar attack stunt. Then, well, he did in 2000 vs Senator McCain.

Fourthly, you should just shut up and watch how the adults conduct calm, and interesting discussions back and forth. Once you finish ascending through puberty, it will come in handy for you.

I love it, your using the "you can't do (blank) because your too young" while it sure isn't as funny when you do it on me as when you did it on JamieW earlier in this thread,

[XXXXX]

First, I will give you honest credit for at least being interested in politics, and how the country is running....however misguided your efforts may be.

Second, if you didn't believe the ridiculous story about Wellstone, then why mention it, and say "it is believed...." like it was true. If something is full of shit, then don't mention it, because it makes you look like you are full of shit for saying it.

Third, the point of my posting about your accusation that Bush would very likely accuse someone of being a "bad Jew" is a clear cut negative and childish (well you are a child...so ok) attack, of the sort you just said you were sick of. So STFU with your infantile attacks, or have the balls to make them and don't attack yourself for doing it. That is why Kerry is going to lose.

Fourth, John McCain is Irish. Irish people are nearly 100% Catholic. I know that McCain is not a jew, so this did not happen in 2000, nor was there any other Bush attack on McCain's religious faithfulness that would be "similar" to this dumbass example.

Fifth, you are a child who does not vote, does not have the maturity of a goldfish, and like Jaime would be better off just focussing on your high school studies. No wonder you are not doing good in school....you are wasting your life at this forum instead of studying.

[aviationwiz]

1. I never said I didn't believe it, and I never said I did believe it, I simply through it out into the open to say that that is common belief as to why Boshwitz lost.

2. I never said that he would accuse someone of being a "bad Jew." I said I would not be surprised if he tried a similar stunt. Meaning attacking someone's religion, race, etc.

3. I never said Sen. McCain was jewish, in the 2000 primaries, Bush had his supporters call in the southern states to remind them that "McCain has a black baby" in an effort to get them to not fill out thier presidential prefrence ballots for Sen. McCain.

4. I am not a child, Jamie is not a child, and we both care about what direction the world is going into. I'm doing quite well in school, thank you very much. I was simply asking in the other thread if my teacher could do that, and she ended up not doing that.

[JamieW]

If it makes one a child to not like you, then I am a fetus amongst a throng of embryos. That analogy aside, I am much more man than you could ever understand or even hope to be. The sheer strength of testosterone would cause your undropped testicles to creep up even further into your empty torso near the spot where your once human soul used to be. You may confuse them for ovaries, but that will only be because you are attempting to justify being a whiny bitch. I pity any woman who has ever had the raw stupidity to consider you as a partner in a pseudo-lesbian relationship (as it would require you to be a man for anything else) for that surely was a relationship of abject misery. Your communicative and disagreeing skills are nearly non-existent. And I'm nearly positive at this point that you have no other skills. You have mildly been capable of regurgitating republican party platform and providing information from others. Beyond that you have failed in wit, humor, logic, reading comprehension, or even mounting a reasonable defense against criticisms except to use an insult as old as time itself. I dub you a complete failure.

[XXXXX]

Let me know when you two reach puberty.

[JamieW]

Failure. Try again.

[XXXXX]

Isn't it time for your milk, cookies, and nap?