NationStates Jolt Archive

From the latest poll (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/afp/20040916/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll)


According to the latest Harris Interactive poll posted on The Wall Street Journal's website Thursday, Kerry secured 48 percent of the intended vote, compared with 47 percent for Bush.


Independent candidate Ralph Nader garnered two percent of the hypothetical vote.


It will be interesting to see how the next few come in to find out if the bounce has stabilized itself again.

I think the debates ar going to be very interesting, however I find it very odd that GW is refusing to do a town-hall.

Why is he so afraid of what the people might ask him?

From the latest poll (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/afp/20040916/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll)



It will be interesting to see how the next few come in to find out if the bounce has stabilized itself again.

I think the debates ar going to be very interesting, however I find it very odd that GW is refusing to do a town-hall.

Why is he so afraid of what the people might ask him?

If my brain was eroded from years of drug-abuse and there were several books out about how I can't speak well and say moronic things I would be afraid to say anythign that wasn't scripted for me.

If my brain was eroded from years of drug-abuse and there were several books out about how I can't speak well and say moronic things I would be afraid to say anythign that wasn't scripted for me.
Sure, weve all heard it before, our president takes drugs and he is retarted and he cant speak.

I don't put much faith in the polls.

I didn't think you were much for faith at all. ;)

Edit: My post ended up being placed before Myrth's...we really need to find a way to fix this bug that has been cropping up lately.

I don't put much faith in the polls.

Why is he so afraid of what the people might ask him?

Isn't this what you Americans (I may be tarring you with the wrong brush here) call a No Brainer?

Isn't this what you Americans (I may be tarring you with the wrong brush here) call a No Brainer?

Zep is Canadian. Yes, No Brainer is the correct American colloquial term.

I guess you forgot who has the job. Bill Clinton only did two debates but was scheduled for 3. When you are the boss why do you need to agree to what the challenger asks for. Town hall meetings are always full of planted question. A real debate makes more sense, both sides get fair and ballanced questions. not some off the wall planted question.

Isn't this what you Americans

Ahem, my husband is no American, we are Canadians, thus completely objective. Zeppistan is my husband IRL.

Sure, weve all heard it before, our president takes drugs and he is retarted and he cant speak.

I think it's a pretty good description. By the way, since Bush didn't even make it halfway to Vietnam when he signed up, doesn't that mean that he is a 'surrender monkey' by definition? ;)

From the latest poll (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/afp/20040916/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll)



It will be interesting to see how the next few come in to find out if the bounce has stabilized itself again.

I think the debates ar going to be very interesting, however I find it very odd that GW is refusing to do a town-hall.

Why is he so afraid of what the people might ask him?


I find it more interesting that tom ridge decided to come out with several-years-old information about terrorists just after kerry was about to get a bounce. surprising how nothing similar happened to bush's 'bounce'...

I doubt the debates are going to be overly interesting. If they go as the rest of the election has gone so far, it will just be a bunch of name-calling, labelling, and attempts to frame the other guy as either weak or weak-minded.

concerning his refusal to do town-hall meetings, bush is one of those people who would prefer to hear people agree with him rather than have anything intellectually stimulating that might force him to show weakness. besides, as mentioned by others, town-halls are usually packed with loaded questions that can't really be answered appropriately in the alotted time. (and we all already know that bush isnt too skilled at thinking on his feet-or thinking at all for that matter. to him, the world is black and white, good vs evil, with no gray areas. what would you expect from a child of priveledge who actually thinks he earned his wealth?)

I think it's a pretty good description. By the way, since Bush didn't even make it halfway to Vietnam when he signed up, doesn't that mean that he is a 'surrender monkey' by definition? ;)

Did you sign up for any service? I guess not. judge not less you be judged. Also, Since his father was in the CIA wouldn't it be against public policy to send over a son of someone who would be influenced in a hostage situation?

concerning his refusal to do town-hall meetings, bush is one of those people who would prefer to hear people agree with him rather than have anything intellectually stimulating that might force him to show weakness. besides, as mentioned by others, town-halls are usually packed with loaded questions that can't really be answered appropriately in the alotted time. (and we all already know that bush isnt too skilled at thinking on his feet-or thinking at all for that matter. to him, the world is black and white, good vs evil, with no gray areas. what would you expect from a child of priveledge who actually thinks he earned his wealth?)[/QUOTE]

i guess that mean that you are against anyone with wealth. I guess that all those people in tx that voted for him on his second term were also wealthy and came from priveledge. I know people who started off as driveway sealers in S. Florida and are now very wealthy. it all comes with hard work and drive. not government handouts and food stamps.

I think it's a pretty good description. By the way, since Bush didn't even make it halfway to Vietnam when he signed up, doesn't that mean that he is a 'surrender monkey' by definition? ;)


I find it fascinating that all of Clinton's lies and REAL draft dodging were irrelevant old news that nobody cares about. "Why, that is ancient history..can't we talk about today's issues?" was the battle cry in 1992.

What double standard?

I don't put much faith in the polls.
i suppose you wouldnt right now..

it all comes down to what party can you trust. As you can see the double standards of the left. As pointed out in a previous post. why did Bill get a pass on the dodge and the lies "I did not have sexual relations with that women" but we on the right get the cross every time. Think about all the past passes for the left. Why the double standard. And think about what the left would be saying now if the right had forged documents about kerry's service record. my God, the election would be called off and kerry would be declared the winner. Can anyone explain the double standard. most likely not since the left will do anything to win including telling lies.

is the swing states. We know that Cali and New York, for instance, are overwhelmingly in Kerry's corner, but the rest of the country is sharply divided, mostly....another 50/50 vote can still be a boon for Bush, as he only has to win the swing states by a little margin, electoral college shakes things up....even if the votes are relatively even, which they most liekly will be, a lot of those votes are in the populous states like the previous mentioned....and i say this honestly believing either one would be a disaster...we know bush isn;t very good, but i can;t shake the feeling Kerry might be worse.....wish Tony Blair or McCain was running, dammit, lol....

i guess that mean that you are against anyone with wealth. I guess that all those people in tx that voted for him on his second term were also wealthy and came from priveledge. I know people who started off as driveway sealers in S. Florida and are now very wealthy. it all comes with hard work and drive. not government handouts and food stamps.

Well, if you look, bush didnt really get his wealth off of much hard work or drive. He acquired it off of his daddy's political influence and money. im not against everybody with wealth and i have a lot of respect for those who use their money for the betterment of humanity or even for the increasing of their own wealth. However, i have low tolerance for children of priveledge like georgie, paris hilton (although she is getting so she makes a lot of money on her own now, although she clearly benefited from her daddy's last name and influence. i mainly dislike how she thinks she was destined to be in her position as if she earned it in a previous life), etc who waste their money and influence on partying their minds away into oblivion without doing much of anything for the people who didn't happen to be born rich.

im not much a fan of govt handouts and food stamps either. one of the best things to happen during the clinton administration was the welfare reform (i recognize that it came from a republican congress) that as i understand it basically cuts the program significantly. (i havent looked at the welfare reform bill or whatever it was closely, i have just heard positive things about it curtailing the number of govt handouts).

as far as the people voting for him for his second term in tx, there are several things to say about that. our 'democracy' is no where near perfect:
- it boils down to only having 2 people running for a post (at least with any realistic chances of winning).
-his opponent must have been less-inspiring, and possibly even worse.
-there isnt really enough time devoted to election-coverage, so it basically boils down to the exchange of labels, marketing/propaganda blitzs, and an utter lack of intelligent conversation about issues.
-things are set up to rig the elections in favor of incumbancy, although that is usually mostly based on jerrymandering and congressional races.
-bush and friends tend to use dirty politics when running for election (there are plenty of examples of that, ill just mention McCain)

when do we get to remove the label claiming that we live in a 'democracy'?

it all comes down to what party can you trust. As you can see the double standards of the left. As pointed out in a previous post. why did Bill get a pass on the dodge and the lies "I did not have sexual relations with that women" but we on the right get the cross every time. Think about all the past passes for the left. Why the double standard. And think about what the left would be saying now if the right had forged documents about kerry's service record. my God, the election would be called off and kerry would be declared the winner. Can anyone explain the double standard. most likely not since the left will do anything to win including telling lies.

There is no such thing as a 'liberal media' especially after 9/11.

I don't trust either party, or any entity to have a clear hold over the govt.

The double standards abound on both sides of the political spectrum.

the people on the right certainly do not get the cross every time they have an affair. plus, the people on the left get plenty of bad attention when they do such things. then there is always the NJ governor who comes out of the closet and steps down (that was just all over the place where i live, but thats probably bc i live in eastern PA)

+As I recall Bill didn't get much of a 'pass' on his relationship with monica. I clearly remember it being all over the media, and looking back on it, it devastated his ability to pursue osama bin laden (who then pulled off 9/11 under the watch of Bush, who ignored the advice concerning terrorism given to him by the previous administration).
+the right obsesses with using dirty-politics and saying lies too. For instance, think about Bush's campaign against McCain in South Carolina where Bush friends started up the rumor of McCain having an illegitimate black child (closest thing to that being true was his adopted child from cambodia)
+what about the lack of anti-war coverage on the lead up to the Iraq war? Why did the media just go with Bush 100% without questioning it one little bit? Clearly there weren't really any WMD. Clearly there were no significant ties between Saddam and Osama. If the world works out so well for the left, why hasn't anyone in the 'left wing' media really questioned bush whenever he stretches the truth in a large number of instances, contradicts himself in the past (yet he doesn't get called a flip-flopper, he gets pardoned because its a 'new era', even when the flip-flopping happens after 9/11), abandons the war on terror in order to pursue a family vendetta on saddam, insists on giving out huge gifts to the corporations who support him, lets enron and haliburton write our new energy and environmental laws, give away no-bid contracts to Cheney's previous company Halliburton, ... ok im tired of listing and im sure you get the point.

Ahem, my husband is no American, we are Canadians, thus completely objective. Zeppistan is my husband IRL.

Yes....completely objective. Objective in Canada means the same as "oblivious" here in the US.

Yes....completely objective. Objective in Canada means the same as "oblivious" here in the US.

Don't mind hime Steph. He is libeterian so he can't help himself..... ;)

What was that thing about Liberals can only argue with insults?

Don't mind hime Steph. He is libeterian so he can't help himself..... ;)

What was that thing about Liberals can only argue with insults?

That was an insult? I thought it was a compliment.

That was an insult? I thought it was a compliment.

Opps I forgot. I don't know anything! ;)

Opps I forgot. I don't know anything! ;)

No, you know plenty. Just not enough about the UN or the workings of international terrorism.

Sarcasm my friend.

Hmph. Maybe that thread of americans and sarcasm has some validity. ;)

Sarcasm my friend.

Hmph. Maybe that thread of americans and sarcasm has some validity. ;)

No, I understand sarcasm plenty.... ;) Trust me on that score....

No, you know plenty. Just not enough about the UN or the workings of international terrorism.

I really don't want to get into this debate. mostly because it's an issue that most do not understand. International terrorism is quite different then per se "Hamas" who is as stated in a regional conflict with Israel. Now, while I certainly don't personally approve of their tactics, we must realize that in any conflict innocents die. While I mean no disrespect, Israel is considered an American ally, thus the innocents they kill while not with bombs attached to their body, they instead use precision missiles that kill just as many innocents. The Palestinian don't have the benefit of American aid and support. Israel does. Israel also has one of the largest lobbies in the United States, perhaps only second to the NRA. Killing innocents is killing innocents, whether you do it with a missile or you do it with a bomb attached to your body. Their acts to us are acts of terrorism. Our acts to us and Israel is what is know as "Collateral damage" There is a risk assessment that is done before these "missiles" are sent into places like the Gaza Strip.. they know they will kill xyz amount of innocent civilians and accept that as collateral damage.

In WWII, the Nazi's after the war were tried for their war crimes, in my opinion rightfully so. However the allies committed war crimes as well, the ones of us who did were not tried but yet seen as hero's. This is not uncommon for the victor to do.

If you think I don't understand.. that is your right and your opinion , to which you're entitled. Just don't be so sure. ;)

As to the UN, if I've said it once I've said it 1000 times, the UN is only as effective as the sum of it's parts. The "UN" is only a name, it is up to member states to act, not the UN as it's not an entity onto it's self. Lets not forget, if we remove ourselves from the SC, we could learn that the UN has been quite successful in other endeavors that have most certainly benefited the world. Such as disaster relief funds and peacekeeping missions. The UN is not an army or force, the UN is and has always been simple a venue for diplomacy. Their mandate is not to help nations go to war, in fact it is to try and stop them.

The UN is not an army or force, the UN is and has always been simple a venue for diplomacy. Their mandate is not to help nations go to war, in fact it is to try and stop them.

Cuz we all know how good a job the UN did with Rwanda and the GREAT job they are doing with Sudan.

[sarcasm]If you didn't catch it, then I'm very sad for you :D

I find it fascinating that all of Clinton's lies and REAL draft dodging were irrelevant old news that nobody cares about. "Why, that is ancient history..can't we talk about today's issues?" was the battle cry in 1992.

What double standard?
Yes, but as the right is so fond of telling us, a lot of things have changed since then. Now, as a country at war, doesn't it seem more important that in 1992, 1996 or 2000 that there is a president at the helm who understands the nature of war and has the kind of experience at it that you really need if you're sending off soldiers to fight and die for America?

From the latest poll (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/afp/20040916/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll)



It will be interesting to see how the next few come in to find out if the bounce has stabilized itself again.

I think the debates ar going to be very interesting, however I find it very odd that GW is refusing to do a town-hall.

Why is he so afraid of what the people might ask him?
Well Zep, Bush does have a lot to hide or accounting to do?

I liked the little blurb at the end of that web site you posted:

In the Harris Interactive poll, 51 percent said they do not believe Bush "deserves to be re-elected for another four years," compared with 45 percent who said they do, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Hopefully, Kerry will stayed focused on Bush's 4 years in office. There is enough there to suggest a different kind of "regime" change. :D