| Author |
Message |
    
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 726
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 9:19 am: |     |
Both are good debaters.
Heard that James Baker will lead the Presidents' debate negotiation team, another example of the President’s great leadership, his team is powerful, experienced and smart.
Wonder who will negotiate for Kerry?
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
single: So sorry to make your life so miserable.
Danke schoen (sp?) for giving me a challenge. I don't think Dr. Molokovich can help me, though. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
As of September 1, Kerry and Bush are in a tie, nationally, according to Rasmussen, a highly respected polling source. Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio are considered by them to be in the "toss up" category. No responsible pollster would do otherwise, with the numbers being so close.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 243
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Bush's approval rating is now where Clinton's was during his mid-term election.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=aF4Mq Ljw9HIk |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
singlemalt: Not exactly. Clinton was way ahead of Dole, almost ten percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/011296.shtml#3way |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 244
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
There you go again Tulip.
I was talking about JOB APPROVAL RATING. In the 1996 campaign against Bob Dole, Clinton had a 53% rating. The same as what Bush has now.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/082596.shtml
Clinton won by a landslide.... while Bush will not win by a landslide, the incumbent has a history of doing well when:
1. Approval ratings are above 50%
2. They are leading in the polls before going into their convention. Taking out the margin of error, Bush was leading or tied in almost every new poll released the week before the election.
Expect Bush to take a 5-6 point lead when the post convention polls come out next week or this weekend. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Right, single. The job approval ratings may have been comparable, but projected voting decisions (Who will you vote for? Much more important than How's he doing?_)showed a much wider discrepancy than Kerry/Bush do now.
PS. I'm glad you said that he was leading in "almost every" pre-convention poll, because there were some in which he was not leading.
Actually, the "leads" you mention are really not far from the margin of error, if at all, which is what you said, I believe. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2289
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Wow. It's cosmic. Bush has the same unemployment rate Clinton had, and there are more people in this country to boot.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
"Rate," cjc, "rate." That takes into account increases in numbers.
What it doesn't take into account are how many people have given up looking for jobs, and are past their final unemployment check. They are not in these statistics. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
Neither are all the household employment numbers taken into account (except by Greenspan), which make 5.5% seem high. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
Get real, cjc. I have nothing more to say to you. You wouldn't see an economic depression if it up and hit you in the face. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
So, now we're in a depression? What hit you? |
mapletop
Citizen
Username: Mapletop
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
I know I said I wouldn't, but here goes....
Why would anyone ever try and have a logical discussion with Tulip?
Is it entertainment? Is it just see what you might get her ( I am assuming) to say?
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 259
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Tulip has been out of work until recently (it's Bush's fault, just ask her). So in her personal world she has been in an economic depression. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2297
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
I think she convinced more people to vote for Bush than I ever could. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 579
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Sorry, but I am still an anyone but Bush voter, and here is why. Far from the moderate slant of the podium, the President's Men set up a closed, invitation-only bible-thumping rally for Christian conservatives. Supported by several top Bush aides, Senator Brownback called for a strong Christian agenda that you do not hear during the convention proper. He said that George Bush is their man, a man who rules with the conservative Christian agenda in mind. Meanwhile, for the general public, Babs and Jenna looked marvy and made nice little in-jokes about Granny and Grampa.
I am just not comfortable with the Christian right running America, or at least having such a strong voice in policy. And I am even more uncomfortable with the President so blatantly pandering to moderates AND the Christian right at the same time--when it seems that it is the latter who he identifies with. At least Pat Buchanan is up-front about where he is coming from.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
I'm not really into religous bigotry, myself, but I think I agree with you that those Bible thumpers are all the same. I heard they handled snakes at that invite-only event too. I drove through a Christian neighborhood once, and I just didn't feel safe. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 581
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
CJC, I have researched the radical right for over 20 years, gone to their meetings, interviewed their activists, broken bread with them. I count many as friends, and know more about the movement than most people do, both personally and politically.
I could care less if they were Hasidic Jews or Moslems or right wing atheists--I am saying it from pure politics. I do not agree with their vision for America. I do not agree with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Sam Brownback. George Bush does agree with them. I will vote for Kerry. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
I'm not really into religous bigotry, myself, but I think I agree with you that those Bible thumpers are all the same. I heard they handled snakes at that invite-only event too. I drove through a Christian neighborhood once, and I just didn't feel safe.
That's true. There is no difference between Christians and the Christian Right. Also, there's no difference between Muslims and al Qaeda. [/sarcasm] |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
The radical right is to be feared, as they are far more dangerous than the radical left. Can we all agree on that? And when they're religous....well...come on!
I find it quite interesting that in the few articles about the Left trying to reach out to the religous community that have been written, that the religous don't feel welcome at all in party discussions.
Where could they possibly have gotten that impression?
If the godless became powerful within an existing party, would that be anything to fear? What do the moderates think about that? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 136
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
The radical right is to be feared, as they are far more dangerous than the radical left. Can we all agree on that?
I think so. The radical left doesn't blow stuff up anymore. The radical left don't have stockpiles of weapons in anti-government compounds. Timothy McVeigh was not a radical lefty.
I find it quite interesting that in the few articles about the Left trying to reach out to the religous community that have been written, that the religous don't feel welcome at all in party discussions.
Where could they possibly have gotten that impression?
Certainly not from the radical religious right, who go on TV and say 9/11 was God's punishment for left wing homosexuals.
And are you suggesting that there are no religious lefties? Because that's asinine.
If the godless became powerful within an existing party, would that be anything to fear?
"The godless?" What is that supposed to mean? If you don't believe in God, you're inherently dangerous? All throughout history, more people have died in the name of religion than can be measured. What danger do you think atheists or agnostics represent?
What do the moderates think about that?
I think most moderates believe that religion has no place in our government. The founding fathers certainly did. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2311
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
The radical left doesn't blow up things anymore? What do you call the Earth Liberation Front that has members on trial as we speak. Ted Kazinski(sp?) -- that fallen intellectual was doing pretty well.
Throughout history more have died in the name of religous causes? I think the Communists have more than held up their end of the bargain.
Moderates don't know what to think until people on both sides of the argument have spoken. Furthermore, separation of church and state does not mean the absense of religious people or ideas in government. It has to do with state sponsored religion which would in practise give it primacy over another religion.
You can include an aetheist exhibit during the holidays. It's that blank space next to the Menorah and the Nativity Scene. Put a light on it if it makes people feel better. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 139
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
I'm tired of arguing with you. The fact that you think Communism has killed more people than religion lets me know I'm wasting my time on this one. Ever hear of the Crusades? They predate Communism, but only by a handful of centuries. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2313
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
I didn't say Communism "killed more." I simply said they're doing yeoman's work in body count. And by "more than held up their end" -- I think they scored higher than other non-religous movements.
You are tired. |
John Roberts
Citizen
Username: Undertaxed
Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
M-11
The crusades did not kill that many people for a few reasons. The first was that the population was much smaller back then. The second was that there were no automatic weapons or gas chambers back then. More people have been killed in the 20th century by violence than all other centuries combined.
Most of the people killed in the 20th century were killed in WWI then WWII comes next.
Not sure where religion falls in but it is lower on the list. The Nazis weren't religious as far as I know but maybe you count them. If you count atheist communism as a religion then religious killing moves up some more. If you count the multi millions killed in Africa by dictators as religious killings it moves up some more. But if you are sane you realize that religion has killed very few historically.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Sanity wasn't a ground rule. You believe what you want, Madden. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 141
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
I didn't say Communism "killed more." I simply said they're doing yeoman's work in body count. And by "more than held up their end" -- I think they scored higher than other non-religous movements.
Well, you need to work on being a little clearer next time. I said religion (not one single movement, but religion, as in all of it) killed more than can be measured. You said Communists "held up their end of the bargain." If that wasn't meant to compare Communism to religion, what on earth were you trying to say? Is there some literal bargain between Communists and the religious that I'm not aware of?
The crusades did not kill that many people for a few reasons. The first was that the population was much smaller back then.
Fair enough. Let's just do what Bush does with unemployment numbers and look at percentages. I don't pretend to be versed in medieval body counts, nor am I lining up the Crusades against Communism to see which caused more death. What I actually said was:
All throughout history, more people have died in the name of religion than can be measured.
and I stand by that. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 3:00 am: | |
About Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/showdown.poll/index.html |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 763
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Of all the things I have read and seen about Kerry, in my opinion, what follows is possibly the most relevant and most devastating when it comes to understanding what the consequences of electing this man might be.
This issue is from the debate between Kerry and O’Neill in 1971 on the Cavett show. Near the end of the debate, Cavett asks both Kerry and O’Neill if they think there will be a bloodbath if the US withdraws precipitously from S. Vietnam. O’Neill says that, based on past history of N. Vietnamese actions and atrocities, that we should expect a bloodbath. Kerry, seriously doubts his friends in N. Vietnam would be so cruel, but then goes on, incredibly, to say that even if there is a bloodbath, it pales in comparison to the atrocities we perpetrate on the N. Vietnamese civilians every day through our bombings and through programs such as Operation Phoenix.
In hindsight, Kerry's analysis of the situation was absolutely wrong, but unfortunately for millions of the South Vietnamese men women and children, Kerry got what he wanted. The precipitous withdrawal, made necessary by the lies and anti-war activities of John Kerry and his ilk, allowed S. Vietnam to be overrun before it could develop a stable government capable of its own defense. One could easily make the case that the Killing Fields, in which 2 million people were slaughtered, was a direct consequence of Kerry's wishful thinking with regard to the North Vietnamese. His poor judgement had disasterous consequences and helped to plunge an entire region of the world into decades of repression, turmoil and suffering. Has he ever admitted how wrong he was? Has he ever claimed to have learned from his massive mistakes? Or does he want to pull troops out of Iraq in 6 months?
So, we have a precedent with Kerry upon which we can understand what he will do in Iraq. Based on his answer to Cavett's question in 1971, it is very reasonable to assume that Kerry will pull our troops out of Iraq before that country has a chance to stabilize. Once again, such a policy, if allowed to be implemented in Iraq, will undoubtedly result in massive loss of life, turmoil, and repression for decades to come.
My hope is that someone in the media will take this segment of the Cavett debate and get it out there because it is extremely relevant and goes to the total lack of judgment of John Kerry. We can't afford to have this guy as our Commander in Chief.
FYI, following is the segment from the debate to which I am referring.
____________________________________________________
MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there'll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliche we used to hear a lot. Does either of you still think there would be a –
MR. O'NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that's precisely what would happen in that country.
MR. CAVETT: That's a guess, of course.
MR. KERRY: I –
MR. O'NEILL: I'd say that their record at Thua, at Daq Son [phonetic spelling], at a lot of other places, pretty clearly indicate that's precisely what would happen. Obviously, in Thua, we've discovered, how many, 5,700 graves so far, at Daq Son four or ! five hundred.
MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there's absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There's no guarantee that there wouldn't. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn't be.
First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn't a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn't been.
I think that it's really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. There's just no pur- –
I realize that there would be certain political assassinations, and that might take place. And I think when you balance that against the fact that the United States has now! accounted for some 18,600 people through its own Phoenix program, whi ch is a program of assassination, and when you balance that off against the morality of the kind of bombing we've been doing in Laos and the kind of destruction wholesale of the country of Vietnam, which amounts to some 155,000 civilians a year killed, then I think to talk about four or five thousand people is lunacy in terms of the overall argument and what we're seeking in Southeast Asia.
MR. O'NEILL: I think that's a very highly spurious argument for the following reasons:
First of all, after the North Vietnamese took over in North Vietnam in 1954, everybody knows about the bloodbath that occurred. Nearly 50 to 60 thousand estimated dead at that time. There were a million refugees that came south. As far as the bombing in Laos, it's highly interesting to note that occurred in the area of the Ho Chi Minh Trail primarily where only seven to eight thousand people lived.
It's true that there is a severe refugee problem. There are 700,000 refugees, for ! example, in Laos. There were 10,000 down at [unintelligible]. I suggest that that all that Mr. Kerry's program does is stop the refugee problem, but it stops it by giving those people no place that they can possibly go to. I think there would be a very severe bloodbath there. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page