Speaking of amazing - your genocidal hero is trailing Kerry by NINE points in a recent poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4253596/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4253596/
"The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points."
I posted this in case you failed to make it to the second sentance in your selective post.
I'm curious, why didn't you quote the bits about "over 50% of Americans think Bush lied and/or exaggerated evidence to justify war in Iraq" or "half of Americans think that Bush is untrustworthy" or "most Americans feel that Bush is doing a poor job with economy" or, heck, even "6 out of 10 Americans feel their economic situation has worsened since Bush took office."
Again, I am just curious as to if you simply overlooked those paragraphs, ignored them or just couldn't comprehend that America thinks Genocidal George is a failure.
I posted this in case you failed to make it to the second sentance in your selective post.
I'm curious, why didn't you quote the bits about "over 50% of Americans think Bush lied and/or exaggerated evidence to justify war in Iraq" or "half of Americans think that Bush is untrustworthy" or "most Americans feel that Bush is doing a poor job with economy" or, heck, even "6 out of 10 Americans feel their economic situation has worsened since Bush took office."
Again, I am just curious as to if you simply overlooked those paragraphs, ignored them or just couldn't comprehend that America thinks Genocidal George is a failure.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom_Henry:
Polls are almost always meaningless. They can't manipulate, discard, miscount or misread votes in a poll.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, but this also can happen in an election administred under your brother's watch.
Polls are almost always meaningless. They can't manipulate, discard, miscount or misread votes in a poll.
Indeed, but this also can happen in an election administred under your brother's watch.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
11% of Tennessee democrats came out to vote.
11% of Virginia democrats came out to vote.
The Democratic candidates must be really amazing to get a whole 11% of the Democratic voters out to vote.
KMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually if I'm not mistaken, overall there's been a record turnout so far in the democratic primaries/caucuses.
11% of Tennessee democrats came out to vote.
11% of Virginia democrats came out to vote.
The Democratic candidates must be really amazing to get a whole 11% of the Democratic voters out to vote.
KMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually if I'm not mistaken, overall there's been a record turnout so far in the democratic primaries/caucuses.
Alright, alright...let me come in and clean things up...Lander in wonderland let me bring you back to earth with some FACTS and reality...Mike Dukakis had a 17 point lead over Bush I only to lose in not quite a landslide back in '88..Kerrys ultra liberal voting record will "ketchup" with him,once Bush decide to even start spending his money.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
Lander - My point is that you can get a poll to say anything you want. I could poll another 1000 people and get totally different results. I guess we will find out come election time who the public likes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lander's point was that if the poll in question was conducted scientifically the probability of you polling another 1000 people and getting a totally different result is extremely low.
Lander - My point is that you can get a poll to say anything you want. I could poll another 1000 people and get totally different results. I guess we will find out come election time who the public likes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lander's point was that if the poll in question was conducted scientifically the probability of you polling another 1000 people and getting a totally different result is extremely low.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points."
I posted this in case you failed to make it to the second sentance in your selective post.
I'm curious, why didn't you quote the bits about "over 50% of Americans think Bush lied and/or exaggerated evidence to justify war in Iraq" or "half of Americans think that Bush is untrustworthy" or "most Americans feel that Bush is doing a poor job with economy" or, heck, even "6 out of 10 Americans feel their economic situation has worsened since Bush took office."
Again, I am just curious as to if you simply overlooked those paragraphs, ignored them or just couldn't comprehend that America thinks Genocidal George is a failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Slander once again your amateurish attempts with liberal lies works well with idiots and liberals..(sorry for being redundant).
The poll question ask "Americans" not registered voters...a HUGE difference.
I posted this in case you failed to make it to the second sentance in your selective post.
I'm curious, why didn't you quote the bits about "over 50% of Americans think Bush lied and/or exaggerated evidence to justify war in Iraq" or "half of Americans think that Bush is untrustworthy" or "most Americans feel that Bush is doing a poor job with economy" or, heck, even "6 out of 10 Americans feel their economic situation has worsened since Bush took office."
Again, I am just curious as to if you simply overlooked those paragraphs, ignored them or just couldn't comprehend that America thinks Genocidal George is a failure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Slander once again your amateurish attempts with liberal lies works well with idiots and liberals..(sorry for being redundant).
The poll question ask "Americans" not registered voters...a HUGE difference.
The only polls that have any validity are polls of "Likely Voters" (people who are (1)registered to vote, (2) usually vote and (3) intend to vote).
Polls of Registered voters are less reliable and polls that list respondents merely as "Americans" or 'Adults" are notoriously unreliable.
Most current polls of Likely Voters show a very close race with Bush slightly ahead or a near dead heat.
Check http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ or http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10558
Polls of Registered voters are less reliable and polls that list respondents merely as "Americans" or 'Adults" are notoriously unreliable.
Most current polls of Likely Voters show a very close race with Bush slightly ahead or a near dead heat.
Check http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ or http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10558
I don't have any piercings, but thanks for you concern about my anatomy and whether or not any portions of it have been penetrated with foreign objects ... you sick fuk
Mr NJ,
I couldn't agree more. I heard Bush had 130M in one report and over 200M in another - regardless of which report is right we all know that (unfortunately) a big part of politics is flat out smearing & 130-200M buys a whole lot of smearing.
Plus, if WMD ever turn up (or are planted) this race will swing in a heartbeat.
It will be interesting.
Mr NJ,
I couldn't agree more. I heard Bush had 130M in one report and over 200M in another - regardless of which report is right we all know that (unfortunately) a big part of politics is flat out smearing & 130-200M buys a whole lot of smearing.
Plus, if WMD ever turn up (or are planted) this race will swing in a heartbeat.
It will be interesting.
Lander,
Just out of curiousity, why wouldn't we have already planted Weapons of Mass Destruction? George Bush could have saved himself nearly a year of bad publicity by planting false evidence, so it wouldn't make any sense to do it as a "last minute" election week surprise. So why haven't the weapons been planted? It's awfully convenient for you to have a position where if weapons are not found, Bush lied and you win, and if weapons ARE found, Bush lied and you win. I wish I could be that self-delusional.
Just out of curiousity, why wouldn't we have already planted Weapons of Mass Destruction? George Bush could have saved himself nearly a year of bad publicity by planting false evidence, so it wouldn't make any sense to do it as a "last minute" election week surprise. So why haven't the weapons been planted? It's awfully convenient for you to have a position where if weapons are not found, Bush lied and you win, and if weapons ARE found, Bush lied and you win. I wish I could be that self-delusional.
I don't think they will plant WMD for the simple reason that it's against human nature to "keep quiet." Is it possible? Sure, but I doubt it will happen.
Since you asked a hypothetical - I will answer hypothetically. If Bush's camp (I doubt he would directly order something of this magnitude) were to consider the planting of WMD it certainly would be a "last resort." SJ, surely you realize that until recently Bush had enormous and overwhelming support in the approval polls (despite Floyd and Patriot inaccurately insisting that polls are useless), so it would be inconceivable that any politician (mind you a president with a staff of masterminds) would risk something that could destroy their re-election bid to merely "increase support." If WMD were too be planted it would be only if Bush desperately needed a boost to contend (which is unlikely given the polarity of American politics) and relitively soon before the election (enough time to swing votes, but not to risk being exposed).
That is the only scenario that makes any sense, but like I said - it seems very unlikely that this could be pulled off and certainly the Bush camp must realize this.
Put it this way - as much as I distrust Bush, I would believe that discoved WMD were Saddam's until clearly proven otherwise.
And even if WMD were planted, it would be shock the hell out of me if Bush was proven to have been directly involved in the conspiracy.
Since you asked a hypothetical - I will answer hypothetically. If Bush's camp (I doubt he would directly order something of this magnitude) were to consider the planting of WMD it certainly would be a "last resort." SJ, surely you realize that until recently Bush had enormous and overwhelming support in the approval polls (despite Floyd and Patriot inaccurately insisting that polls are useless), so it would be inconceivable that any politician (mind you a president with a staff of masterminds) would risk something that could destroy their re-election bid to merely "increase support." If WMD were too be planted it would be only if Bush desperately needed a boost to contend (which is unlikely given the polarity of American politics) and relitively soon before the election (enough time to swing votes, but not to risk being exposed).
That is the only scenario that makes any sense, but like I said - it seems very unlikely that this could be pulled off and certainly the Bush camp must realize this.
Put it this way - as much as I distrust Bush, I would believe that discoved WMD were Saddam's until clearly proven otherwise.
And even if WMD were planted, it would be shock the hell out of me if Bush was proven to have been directly involved in the conspiracy.
