# Couple of US election thoughts...



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just a couple thoughts that crossed my mind...

1. I watched all three debates. Something that really struck my that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. When Bush was pushed about not allowing US citizens to buy cheaper Canadian drugs... he gave an arrogant answer about Canadian drugs not being safe. Something like, "I want drugs to cure people not kill them" and that some drugs just might be from "3rd world countries."  

Yet... when Kerry pushed Bush on the fact that the US was caught with not nearly enough flu vaccines because of tainted product from the UK, Bush's answer was that they would look to Canada for help. Little bit of a double standard there?

2. The voting system in Florida.  Now there doing an electronic system that hasn't really been tested all that well. When somebody votes, there is absolutely no paper receipt or paper trail at all. Record numbers or pre-voting so they can still use paper. Security expert on CTV news (who was using a Mac of course) said the system is flawed. When they examined the system, it was very easy to tamper with the machines and the process. In one state where they ran tests on the system, the main server that contained all the data crashed and they lost all the data.  Click here for story.  

How about a system in Canada where you have a list of candidates / parties and you put a friggin X with a number 2 pencil beside your vote?







Maybe because its the only way Bush has a prayer in winning this election.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just trying to wake a few "sleepers" up here PB.  

Think about it for a minute....

Kerry has done rather well at the debates. Michael Moore has released a film that totally trashes the sitting President (and made over two hundred million dollars in doing it). Much of the local North American media is busily trashing this guy on a daily basis. Have been for a long time. Pretty much ALL of the foregin media has been actively doing so for most of the past three years. There have been loud protest marches against pretty much all of the things that Bush has done. Both in America, and in the rest of the world. He is the butt of jokes on pretty much every late night TV show on the planet.

Some people are still saying that he "Stole" the Presidency from Al Gore. Many of them have just been champing at the bit to dump this guy for whatever Democrat is running against him.

All of this while American soldiers keep on dying every single day, in a foreign war that many claim was "illegal".

Oh yeah...and Michael Moore has just convieniently released his extremely popular Bush-bashing film to the video market. A few weeks before the US Presidential Elections, no less.

Given all of this...plus a major recession and the massive debt that both the war and the tax cuts have produced.....a hand puppet on a stick should be able to beat Bush to the Presidency at this point, if you accept the "popular opinion" that is being presented to all of us an a daily basis by the media. AND by practically ALL of today's celebrities. Among others.

But STILL George W. is slightly ahead of Kerry in most polls.







 

What gives? Have the Americans gone totally mad? Or are they being brainwashed on a massive scale?

Why the heck is this guy not facing the same certain loss that Jimmy Carter was, at the end of his shaky and unpopular Presidency?

How come George W is still a contender? How come he could still win this? After all that has happened? Why isn't he MILES behind John Kerry right now?

Answer this question...and answer it honestly...and you will begin to understand why I keep asking it.

Might explain quite a few things to you.

But ya gotta be bold and dump the ideology, in order to find the truth in all of this.

Or...stay in denial, and make broad excuses for Kerry.

Your choice.

[ October 15, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Same thing happened at the last election. Bush sounded like a babbling idiot that couldn't put two words together and people thought Gore would win by a landslide. Who would have ever guessed it would be as close as it was and who would of guessed that Bush would be voted in. 

The same pattern is forming this time. Kerry is actually leading the polls now by about 10 points***...but I don't think it's going to matter. The aame thing is going to happen this time as last. And who knows why.

EIther there are a lot of ignorant Southerns in America or it's fixed. Either way the US (and hence Canada) are ****ed.

_***A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry over Bush, 52 percent to 39 percent._ 

polls 

[Rant]

Have you been smoking too much island weed Macnutt? What the hell is any of this supposed to mean!?



> Answer this question...and answer it honestly...and you will begin to understand why I keep asking it.
> 
> Might explain quite a few things to you.
> 
> ...


and I'm sick of you not backing up the things you say with stats. You must read different media then the rest of us  



> But STILL George W. is slightly ahead of Kerry in most polls.


[/Rant]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Firstly, Pamela...we do NOT say "f*cked" here at ehmac without adding in the asterisks to make it more presentable. You should know that by now.  

Secondly...none of the polls I've seen show John Kerry to be "ten points in the lead". It is about a dead heat right now...and some of the polls show George W. to be leading Kerry by more than the margin of error.

Similarly...Al Gore was NEVER going to win by a landslide in the last election. I lived in the USA at the time, and nobody down there thought it was going to be a cakewalk for him...despite the incumbency and the perception of "experience" that he may have had after eight years in the vice-presidency.

And anyone who thinks that this was actually the case, needs to look back on my last few posts and ask themselves some seriously deep questions before proceeding any further. (Dump the ideological preconceptions when you do, BTW. It'll make finding the truth a bit easier.)  

Or...stay in denial.

And keep on getting swept away by unexpected developments that shock and amaze you. Ones that you didn't see coming.









Your choice.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

> Similarly...Al Gore was NEVER going to win by a landslide in the last election. I lived in the USA at the time, and nobody down there thought it was going to be a cakewalk for him


You must have been in the south then. Because I lived in the US for this election too and it was a shock to EVERYONE I knew...as well as the media Or maybe I just run in smarter....ahem...sorry...different circles than you.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

> Secondly...none of the polls I've seen show John Kerry to be "ten points in the lead"


Did you not go to the link I gave you? Unlike you I back up what I'm saying with references. You just make sweeping dramatic remarks. You should have seen in it black and white right there. Or do you not know how to read? Or are YOU the one in denial? Your choice.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

And Posterboy is right. Polls don't mean Sh*t anyway. It is what comes out of the candidates mouths that matter. And what does and doesn't come out of Bush's mouth scares me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Glad to see you edited your original post to eliminate the foul language, Pamela.  

Now...care to scan across ALL of the most recent polls and report back here what they actually indicate?

Not just the ones made right after the debates?

And...also care to speculate why Kerry is still not a slam-dunk certainty for the next President? Especially given all that has happened?

At this point during the Carter Presidency, everyone with a pulse knew he was a goner. So...how come Bush is still a potential winner?

And, most tellingly, why has John Howard just won re-election by a landslide in Australia? Especially when he made the (supposedly) unpopular decision to strongly back George W. by sending active troops into the "illegal" invasion of Iraq a couple of years back?

He should a been a "goner" as well...IF you listened to what the popular media has been saying for a long time. (They are oddly silent about the Aussie elections these days. Go figure.)

John Howard has just been handed a massive mandate by the Australian voters....AND he now has even more control than he had before.

This was considered to be the "first test" of the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion and of George Bush's proactive foregn policies.

Care to make any broad excuses about why he won...instead of being uncerimoously dumped by the Australian people? Especially since we were being told that this is what would, SHOULD, be happening?

Knock yourself out. It'll be a good warmup for what's coming in the US.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

> Glad to see you edited your original post to eliminate the foul language.


I didn't. That confirms it. You Obviously can't read. I won't edit it. Let the mayor if he wants to.




> And...also care to speculate why Kerry is still not a slam-dunk certainty for the next President?


enlighten me macnutt...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I read just fine, Pamela. I've been an avid reader since quite a while before you were born, actually. And I know what I saw, before you changed it.

Trust me on this.  

As for the polls...they still don't show Kerry to be a sure winner at this point. 

Why is this?

Carter was dead in the water at this point in his first term. Everyone was just waiting for the day that they could dump him. It was a dead nuts certainty.

But George W. is still very much in the running. In the lead, according to some of the larger polls.

As for "where I was living and who I was hanging out with in the States" while the last US elections were taking place...

I was living and working on several different oilrigs at the time. All of the people that I work with each day when out there in the mobile laboratory have multiple degrees in earth sciences. Three of them were PHD's. One had multiple degrees in microbiology, organic chemistry, and a masters in geology. Some were Democrats, some were Republicans.

Most had spent six or more years at university in hard study, before they ever ventured out to the first oilrig.

ALL were highly intelligent. None were "easily led" by others.

Who were you hangiing out with, at the time? And what were you guys smoking, BTW?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> Knock yourself out. It'll be a good warmup for what's coming in the US.


Macnutt I thought you would have learned your lesson about making over the top predictions about elections. Do I have to dig up your posts and the subsequent drubbing you took about the last federal vote in Canada? 

Let's talk about something remotely tangible. The polls, for instance, consistently suggest this thing is going to be very close...it's still anyone's game to win. The GOP and and Dems each have solidified power bases. What's going to decide this is going to be the swing states like Penn. and NH, a much hoped-for uptick in voter turnout, and a not insignificant margin of voters who are still undecided.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes...it's going to be very close.

You might just want to ask yourself why that this is? Especially if you are buying the popular "wisdom" that George W. Bush is such a terrible President?

THAT is what I'm trying to get at here.  

As for my supposed "failure" to accurately predict the outcome of the last Canadian Federal elections...

Perhaps you missed my extensive posts that clearly said that this is "Act One" of a two act play?

Or...perhaps you missed the near toppling of that shaky minority after the very first throne speech?

Or..perhaps you missed the stats that say, quite clearly, that only 22% of the Canadian people actually chose to vote for the Martin/Chretien Liberals, this time around?

According to MY math...that means that eight out of TEN Canadians did NOT vote for them to continue as our leaders?

Hardly a stunning mandate. Doesn't bode well for the rapidly approaching vote of non-confidence that could happen at any moment, either.  

Oh yeah..and their already shaky popularity is dropping like a rock these days. Especially since the sub scandal has now been added to the giant heap of previous (and expensive) scandals that the Liberals have been responsible for.

The Liberals as we know know them are toast. It's only a matter of time before they are tossed out uncerimoniously Then...most of the top crooks in that party of theives will end up on trial before the whole nation.

Unless you belive in your heart that a slim and shrinking 22% of the Canadian electorate will somehow prevail over the other three quarters in the next snap election. Good luck on THAT!

Now..back to the main question.

Why isn't John Kerry a certain winner over Bush, right now?

And why has John Howard of Australia just been handed a landslide win? Even though he actively supported Bush?

And why were the Liberals in Canada practically decimated in the last Canadian election? Even though they actively opposed Bush and his foreign policies?

Go ahead...ask yourselves this.

If you dare.

[ October 15, 2004, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

"It's the economy, stupid."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting...

The false tech bubble that characterised the Clinton Presidency had already burst well before George W. ever first set foot in the Whitehouse. The stock market and the economy were already in free fall before he took charge. The whole shaky house of cards was in collapse when he stepped up to the plate.This is historical fact.

The massive accounting scandals (like Enron, for example) that were such a big part of the Clinton Presidency, were already unravelling and doing terrible damage to the US economy before George W. ever assumed the top job. This is also historical fact.

Then...eight months after he assumed office...the USA was attacked in a horrible way by a group of radical terrorists who had already attacked American interests and embassies several times during the Clinton Presidency. They hadn't suffered any sort of reprisals for this during "Bubba's" distracted reign...so they turned up the wick a bit this time out, and ended up killing several thousand innocent American citizens in downtown New York. While bringing down two of the tallest buildings on the continent. Which were, by the way, the respository and the focus and the absolute center of much of the free world's trade. Which is why they were called the "World Trade Center Towers".

This sort of massive onslaught of leftover bad baggage and unresolved issues from a failed previous Presidency (an impeached President, no less) should have been enough to deal a death blow to any sort of prosperity that the United States may have enjoyed in the previous years.

And it did..for a while.  

The stock market went from almost 11000 to about 8000. Almost overnight. Jobs disappeared. Factory orders dried up. People stopped going out, and stayed home at night. Restaurants closed. Layoffs were massive. And the Enron-type accounting scandals that were left over from the Clinton years made a lot of carefully saved family nesteggs disappear overnight. Everyone lived in fear of what would come next.

Despair was everywhere. Economic ruin was at the door, clawing to get in.

But, today, only three years later, the stock market is back up at 10000 plus...and millions of jobs have been created. The twisted whackos who terrorised New York...and who had terrorised other Americans overseas for the duration of the Clinton Presidency...are now all on the run, or under arrest. Or dead.

There have been NO new attacks on American soil, since 9/11. None. ZERO.

Today, there are free elections in Afghanistan. For the first time in history. And an election will be happening in Iraq, for the first time in living memory. Libya has now suddenly given up its weapons of mass dsetruction and made nice with everyone. North Korea is failing these days, and wanting to talk...instead of building nasty gear for every tinpot dictator who can pay the price.

Saddam is in jail, and his vermin sons are dead. The Iraqi people are now poised to take charge of their own country. 

As a matter of fact, all of the world's economies are doing quite well right now. Despite all of the dire predictions after 9/11.

Gee...you don't suppose that THIS might just be part of the reason that John Howard of Australia just got re-elected by a landslide...and why George W. Bush is still doing quite nicely against John Kerry, do you?

You don't suppose that several million people...tens of millions, actually...who aren't stuck in some sort of preconcieved ideological rut...have actually looked at this situation and seen the truth in it? Seen the reality?

And are voting, or have voted, to continue this positive trend?

"It's the economy", all right. Don't be "stupid". 

Or misled.

Think about it.

[ October 15, 2004, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm an undecided still myself.

But the current U.S. economy's growth is growing in terms of value, but not in terms of employment figures.

I also don't sit well with Bush's stand on various social issues.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't agree at all with his stance on stem cell research. And I think that he is a flawed President. No question about it.

BUT...we all know he has resolve. He's not afraid to use the big stick...and won't be swayed by public uproar.

The terrorists know this, as well. Only too well.

If Kerry is elected this november, I don't think the sky will fall in. He might make a rather good President.

BUT...he hasn't shown any sort of resolve in his many years in government. Or in his private life, for that matter.

When he was an anti-war protester on the seventies he made a big point of throwing his war medals into the Potomac river in front of the TV cameras. As it turns out, he did't actually throw HIS OWN medals into the river. He kept those ones. He chose to throw some medals that he bought at a pawn shop into the river, instead.

This is just one of MANY instances where he has not shown real resolve in his convictions. (He voted strongly in favor of the invasion of Iraq...but voted AGAINST spending the money to support the troops and the rebuilding efforts once the invasion had succeded).

Kerry MIGHT make a good President. He MIGHT make things better.

But he might NOT.

And...sure as shootin...the terrorists will be well aware of his previous wishy-washy nature. They will almost certainly want to test his mettle, if he's elected.

Look for something to blow up, right after a Kerry win. Perhaps rather a LOT of "something's".

Won't happen if Bush is re-elected. No way.

The terrorists...or what is left of them...already KNOW what that guy is all about. He bites back.

And they want no part of it.

Trust me on this.

[ October 15, 2004, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*As for my supposed "failure" to accurately predict the outcome of the last Canadian Federal elections... Perhaps you missed my extensive posts that clearly said that this is "Act One" of a two act play?*

You mean those posts you made right after the election was over?









*only 22% of the Canadian people actually chose to vote for the Martin/Chretien Liberals, this time around? According to MY math...that means that eight out of TEN Canadians did NOT vote for them*

Macnutt, only 18% of the people actually chose to vote for the Conservatives, by your math that means that (just over) eight out of ten Canadians did NOT vote for them.[1]

What is you point with this, anyway?

Plus, what does your question have to do with the original post of this thread? Why do you insist on sidetracking these discussions from "Huh, this one said something interesting" to "WHY ISN'T SOMEONE A CLEAR WINNER?!?!11 OMG!!11`1~"

Plus plus, I don't think you answered why it would be so outrageous to predict that Florida might have another debacle?


[1] Of course, this doesn't take into account that only 60% of registered voters actually voted, and that the Liberals garnered 37% of that vote. Considering the number of parties in the running, that's a pretty big swath of votes.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*[Kerry's] previous wishy-washy nature*

Question: Why is this an issue at all? The GOP is so fond of saying that Kerry flip-flops, as if he changes his mind every other second. Last time I checked, his stance changed over months, not minutes, and changed as the available information changed. That's not flip flopping, that's called "intelligence."

Then again, considering that many Americans seem to feel that Kerry lectures them instead of speaking to them (at least from some polls I read), maybe intelligence is one of his weak points? Who knows!

Besides all that, Rumsfeld, who I believe was talking during the war about how democracy in Iraq would be complete, has recently stated that an incomplete democracy (as in, no voting in the areas with lots of violence) would be a-ok. How's that for a flip-flo..."nuanced position"?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes, PB...the posts that I made right after the election. And I was only one of MANY political pundits who made the very same observation, BTW.

The Federal Liberals are currently in a situation that does NOT allow them to actually make any decisions. Or actually govern Canada, without the full fledged help of the NDP...plus one more vote.

Considering how badly they've pissed off the NDP in the past weeks, and considering how much of a flake that Jack Layton has turned out to be...it is not unconcieveable that the Liberals will be defeated in a non-confidence vote within the next six months. Perhaps even in the next six weeks. Or even the next six DAYS, for that matter.
















And those figures you have posted relating to the time of the elections are OLD news, these days. The Liberals have dropped from the "lofty heights" of 22% in recent days. 

Especially in light of the latest scandals.


As for John Kerry.....

My question remains unanswered.

Previous Presidents who were wildly unpopular in their first term...like Carter, for example...were already at deaths door and packing their bags by this point. ALL of the polls were showing a certain defeat.

So...how come George W. Bush is still riding rather high in the polls? How come he could still easily win? Especially if he's so darned unpopular, as so many people are currently claiming?

Apparently...he's not quite as "unpopular" as the last half-dozen Democratic candidates who have run for President.

Except for Bill Clinton. But he got impeached in his second term...and his incumbent eight-year VP got dumped, and decided not to ever run again. So it sort of equals out, in the long run.

Bush or Kerry. Qute a race right now.

Odd that Kerry isn't winning in a big way in these last days before the election, like Reagan was against Carter, eh?

I guess "Popularity" comes in several different flavors.

I also guess that the popular media would like you to forget some of the examples of the recent past. Just to be safe. 









Think for yourself. Make your own decisions.

And then watch what happens. Use this as a basis for future decisions. Be brutally honest with yourself.

You might just find yourself switching sides, once you do this.

I know I did.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt,

All that typing and not one of my questions answered. I'd be impressed if that didn't happen so often.









Interesting that you support Kerry now though. I didn't realize you'd switched sides.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't switched sides at all. I have ALWAYS said that John Kerry might make a rather good President. Go back and check for yourself, if you don't believe me.

I have ALSO said that a John Kerry/John Edwards (or a John Edwards-and-anyone-else) ticket should be a slam-dunk. Again, check for yourself.

But it's NOT! Not even CLOSE to being a slam-dunk!

I wonder why?

Posterboy...you, and many others, have chosen NOT to answer any of my questions. Especially the BIG one....why is why Kerry is not kicking serious butt in this election?

Especially when George W. seems to have the deck stacked well against him? From all concieveable sides, no less.

A nameless cardboard cutout with NO policy stance should be able to beat George W. at this point...if the popular media is to be believed.

But, even a decorated war hero with a running mate who is as charismatic as JFK cannot seem to pull ahead of George W. in the latest polls.

Funny about that.

Any thoughts on this, PB?

Or...are you still in denial?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Temperature readings from Hell suggest it's still a bottom-scorching 300+ degrees so what gives here!!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

LOL! Macnutt's simply hedging his bet by saying that he supports Kerry but he really doesn't.

As for Kerry pulling ahead in the polls...well, he has.

BTW, there was no "supposed" failure on you calling the Canadian election and Act Two doesn't play into it. If you can't deal with the truth, tough noogies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You've also always been a staunch supporter of the right wing. You've also always said "might" before saying "make a good president" when talking about Kerry (hardly a stirring endorsement). You've also been a staunch supporter of the right wing for as long as anyone here has known you.

But realistically, I was just giving you a hard time. Talk about denial, you wont accept that your predictions about the federal election here in Canada was way off base.

If you want your questions, perhaps ask them in a new thread instead of hijacking this one? Why do you always hijack these threads? Why do you insist on deflecting discussion away from it's original topic?

Oh, and I have answered your questions before. Go back and check, if you don't believe me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And I'm bettin you singed that big mop of hair when you were down there, CC.









Pretty toasty in that nasty place, eh?









Hey...is the Big Guy still building that special luxury suite for Jean Chretien's imminent arrival? The one with the flaming golf course adjacent to it?

I hear JC is going to be the guest of honour once he gets down there. A major celebrity, so to speak.

Too bad he has to leave the horridly expensive luxury jets behind here in Canada.

I just know he's gonna miss them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Posterboy...

Why do you NOT think that a thread called "Election Thoughts" can encompass a question about why John Kerry is clinging to a thread right now...when, by all accounts, he should be kicking Bush butt, at this point??

Historically, a failed American Presidency like Carters...or Clintons, in his second term (after his impeachment)....or almost ANY Democrat for the past fifty years...can be seen to be a total washout by the poll results. Especially during the last few weeks before the election. The sitting VP doesn't have a ghost of a chance of turning this around, either. Check the historical record if you don't believe me.

The result is a foregone conclusion.

But not with George W. He is still very much in the running. In fact...he's in the lead in several of the major polls.

Care to comment on the difference between THIS particular election...and all of the other US elections where a highly unpopular President was up for re-election?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

This thread was started discussing a double standard (read: flip flop) that Bush made during the debates, and the shenanigans down in Florida that may yet occur again this year.

Your big ranty post distracts from that discussion, rather effectively, too. And since you write essentially the same thing in each thread that has anything to do with Kerry or the election, it almost makes me think you might have an ulterior motive in doing so.

If you want to talk about Bush vs. Kerry, or even if you just want to trash Kerry some more, why not start a new thread? I'm kind of tired of the possibility of meaningful discussion being ruined in every thread.

Oh, and that's Poster*B*oy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Whoops! Sorry Poster*B*oy!
I'll try to remember that little midname emphasis. I am, as you no doubt know by now, rather sensitive to everyone's preferred label. (Especially mine.)

So...back to the subject at hand...

I've just gone over ehmax's first post on this thread, and I can't actually see where my still-unanswered question about John Kerry's lack of overwhelming popularity does NOT conform to the subject of this particular discussion.

And I can't for the life of me see where your contention that I always "derail threads" has any real traction on THIS particular one.

(On others perhaps...but I'm on firm ground HERE.)

So...I just GOTTA ask....

PB, how come John Kerry isn't mopping up the place with the totally spent George W. Bush these days?

How come George W. could, quite easily, still TAKE this election? Especially if he's so danged unpopular?

And how does this relate to the many unpopular Democratic Presidents of the past fifty years?

You now...the ones who were written off as dead in the early part of their fourth year as President? And had no hope of re-election?

BTW...this NEVER happened to Nixon or Reagan. They were both re-elected by healthier margins, the second time around.

And BOTH of their incumbent vice presidents served as Presidents.

I can't think of ANY Democratic VP's that have served as President right now. (Except for the horribly corrupt LBJ...who MAY have been ultimately responsible for the assasination of his President, BTW.)

Other than this one tawdry example....NONE of them have ever moved into the Whitehouse as Big Chief.

Odd about that, eh?

Care to comment on this?

Or...are you just going to keep on claiming that I am derailing this thread called "US Election Thoughts" while I add my own thoughts on the US Elections?

Your choice.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Mr. Macnutt, I commend you for your entertaining and informative contributions to these boards.

What's all this about LBJ and JFK's assassination though? I hope to f**k Cheney hasn't got any …

Oh, Jesu mawr!

F**k me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your comment that "I can't think of ANY Democratic VP's that have served as President right now.", lest you forget Harry Truman??? As well, he did get reelected in 1948, and WAS a good president. Trust me on this one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your comment pertaining to Republican VP's that "And BOTH of their incumbent vice presidents served as Presidents.", Gerald Ford was president, but was never elected. Carter beat him in 1976, and Carter, too, was a good president. Again, trust me on this one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your comment that "Other than this one tawdry example [i.e. LBJ]....NONE of them have ever moved into the Whitehouse as Big Chief.", again I refer you to 1948 and Harry Truman. 

I think that I shall send you a US history book for your birthday. It should make for good reading. Trust me on this one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Did you know that four years ago, candidate George Bush was perceived to have won all three debates and exited the last one ahead by 5 to 11 percentage points in key national polls. But, less than three weeks later, in the homestretch of the campaign, Al Gore caught up to Bush and ultimately surpassed him in popular support by about 500,000 votes. It's true. 

This has been a "Macnutt Moment" brought to you by FactCan, the Canadian Information Service for the Distribution of Facts and Trivia.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*PB, how come John Kerry isn't mopping up the place with the totally spent George W. Bush these days?*

I've answered before (you can search it up, I'm sure), and yet you keep asking. Why don't _you_ answer? All you've done so far is make the question as long winded as possible.

And this doesn't "conform to the intended subject" because the intended subject was Bush and his policies and the once and future Florida debacle, not why Kerry isn't going to win hands down.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wy waste your breath on Macnutt. The reason the US election is close has been answered time and again but his ears are as closed as his mind.

And as to Australia, Howard almost lost it despite a booming economy BECAUSE OF HIS SUPPORT OF THE US.



> SYDNEY, Oct. 9 -- Prime Minister John Howard, one of the staunchest U.S. allies in the war in Iraq, defied predictions about a close race and won a convincing victory for a historic fourth term on Saturday *despite widespread public disagreement in Australia with Howard's position on the war.*
> 
> With about 77 percent of the vote counted, official figures showed Howard's conservative coalition had *52.4 percent to the opposition Labor Party's 47.6 percent,* a clear lead in the race for a majority in Parliament's 150-seat lower house, where the government is formed. The victory ensured that Australia will keep its roughly 900 troops in Iraq.


The polls called for a narrow win and it was.

As to your "avid reader" status......what where they??...... Capt. America comics???....... cuz it sure weren't critical reading given your penchant for errors, braggadocio, hyperbole and just plain being wrong.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*the many unpopular Democratic Presidents of the past fifty years? You now...the ones who were written off as dead in the early part of their fourth year as President? And had no hope of re-election?
*

Truman was re-elected by a more than healthy margin. It was thought he was going to lose, and then he won, it was a big upset for the Republicans.

JFK didn't make it to the end of his first term, let alone his second. Who knows whether he would have been re-elected. And no, _you don't_.

LBJ was re-elected by the widest margin in US history, though his "re-election" was really his first time. He chose not to run for a second elected term, so we don't know what would have happened there for sure.

Carter wasn't re-elected, but let's not write him off as a total loss. He had to deal with quite possibly the worst economic conditions in the century so he was destined to lose, but remember all the good international work he did? No, no one does.

Clinton was re-elected by a large margin. More than 200 electoral votes, more than 8 million actual votes.

Democrats have done all right if you actually look at the past elections. In fact, the two incumbent presidents to suffer the biggest defeats in the last century in their second try were Republicans: Herbert Hoover and George HW Bush. There has only been one president resign in disgrace, too. A Republican: Richard Nixon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt also continually refuses to answer why the 3 sequential Republican Presidencies in the 1920s led to the US national disaster of the the stock market melt down and the Great Depression......which it took a visionary Democrat to pull the US out of.

It took another visionary Democrat in the form of Harry S Truman to remake the world after WWII - something Macnutt is fond of referring to in his defense of current US foreign policy.

But then we know the relevant oxymoron by heart already

*facts Macnutt*









N'er the twain shall meet.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Why the HECK is John Kerry not ten or twenty points AHEAD of George W. right now? Why is this NOT a slam dunk certainty for Kerry at this point? How come Bush is still ahead by a slim margin in several of the major polls?* 










Why is Kerry not ahead in the polls? *tick* Why is Kerry not ahead in the polls? *tick* Why is Kerry not ahead in the polls? *tick* Why is Kerry not ahead in the polls? *tick* Why is Kerry not ahead in the polls? *tick* 

I'm tired of answering your stupid question ad nauseam. I can not wait to rub it in your face when the real poll happens in November.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm tick, tick, tick........ sounds like a stuck record indeed and since he's mired in the groove of the 80's with Reagan and Thatcher as Idols it's all of piece. 










"Course he's fun to ...ahem....needle, too bad he's so "out of tune"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It has been written in "The World According to Macnutt" that "The ticking of time is relevant only for those who own watches. The rest of the world evolves to the pace and tune of its own biorhythms. History will not judge how highly you have climbed up the cosmic measuring stick, but in how higher up you intend to go. For what does it profit a man to gain the reality of factual information, but to lose his reputation for always being correct?"


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Just a couple of thoughts on polls:

First, in an earlier post Macnutt suggested that the Liberals were declining in the polls.

*And those figures you have posted relating to the time of the elections are OLD news, these days. The Liberals have dropped from the "lofty heights" of 22% in recent days. * 

Not so. 

According to an Ipsos-Reid poll released earlier this week, they have climbed to 40 per cent, while the Conservative have fallen to 25 per cent.

Oops, wrong again Macnutt.

Second, traditionally in U.S. politics, a president who enters an election at less than 50 per cent in the polls, loses because the undecided vote breaks in favour of the challenger. In a deadheat election, like the current one, give that edge to Kerry.

Third, as in all polls, one should read the fine print on methodology. Different polls ask different questions of different people in varying numbers. There's a nice little example at www.electoral-vote.com today on how one poll ended up with three different results.

Bottom line, polls are interesting debating points but the only one that counts is on election day.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> "Act One" of a two act play?


Ha! Do actually believe half the stuff you say?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macnutt says:



> How come Bush is still ahead by a slim margin in several of the major polls?


I was just reading the WSJ and they had a short pop-up that tracks polls. Here are the LATEST results:

CNN (10/9-10)
Bush 48%
Kerry 49%

CBS News (10/9-11)
Bush 48%
Kerry 45%

Reuters (10/10-12)
Bush 45%
Kerry 45%

ABC News (10/10-12)
Bush 48%
Kerry 49%

Reuters (10/11-13)
Bush 46%
Kerry 45%


Their timeline actually shows all the polls done for the last 6 weeks or so but I don't have the time to go back and list them all. What is EXTREMELY evident to anyone with two neurons to rub together is that Bush has been steadily losing his lead over Kerry and this trend accelerated precipitously after the first debate.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Re:

1) Yeah, I thought it was ironic. I lost focus on the rest of the debate's topics when they kept showing the dumbass look on Bush's face whenever Kerry was talking.

2) How else is Bush going to get re-elected?  

Think about it, man...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sounds like some of you are whistling while walking past the graveyard at midnight. 









The question you should be asking yourselves is this:

Why the _HECK_ is John Kerry not ten or twenty points AHEAD of George W. right now? Why is this NOT a slam dunk certainty for Kerry at this point? How come Bush is still ahead by a slim margin in several of the major polls?

Figure out the true answer to this...and you might just end up answering a whole bunch of other questions that may have been nagging at you for some time.

Or...you could remain in denial and listen intently to your handlers, who are already setting up a conspiracy theory or three to explain the potential re-election of the "hated" George W. Bush.

















Think for yourself, using first principles...or be led by the nose.

Your choice.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here's a question, why do you always try to deflect the conversation away from the issues brought up? 

Does it really matter who's in the lead when we're talking about things Bush has said?

Is it really that unreasonable to predict that there is going to be some shenanigans in Florida (again) this time around?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If that is the case IronMac, how do you explain this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Do I misunderstand that electoral votes are what decides who becomes president? And if that is so, does it not appear Bush is way ahead?

Just asking.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, sadly, you are correct in your beliefs about the Electoral College. Kerry, just like Gore in 2000, could win the popular vote, but whomever receives 270+ votes in the Electoral College wins the election. Thus, as I have been saying for 6 months now, Pennsylvania and Florida (and now Ohio) are the key states. Whomever wins two of these three states is most likely going to be the president. Win all three and this person WILL be the president. We shall see.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

For all of you wishing you could slap some sense into George Bush, here's your chance to do it, at least virtually.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think MacNutt's question is a reasonable one, so I will attempt to answer it.

Why is it that G.W.Bush, who, in the opinion of so many around the world and within the US, has been the worst president in recent history, still even remotely viable as a candidate?

I think the surprisingly resilient support for Bush stems from several sources:
1) The evangelical Christians - These people would vote for a child molester before a democrat.
2) The corporatists and those who have been fooled by them into believing that only by ceding sovereignty to corporate interest can a country have a competitive economy - these people vote for whoever they believe will give them the biggest tax breaks. (This is one of the issues where I think the Democrats simply less odious than the Republicans, but that's another discussion).
3) The frightened - many Americans have been sufficiently intimidated by the terrorists (and the media's portrayal of the threats facing the US) that they are afraid of 'changing horses in midstream' because they think it may be viewed by their enemies as a sign of weakness.

Thus, we have a situation where, what should be a slam-dunk for the democrats will be a very tight race, fought primarily on the basis of who can get out their vote the best.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Bryanc, a most reasonable rebuttal to Macnutt's various questions. Points #1 and 2 were known entities, but your #3 point re those who are fearful is, in my opinion, accurate. Sadly, this group of voters, should they choose to vote, will swing the election over to Bush. If they choose not to vote ("A pox on both your houses."), then Kerry has a chance. If the Nader factor is not a factor in this election, then Kerry has a chance. If a new group of voters who are more fearful of another four years of Bush suddenly decide to register and actually vote, then Kerry WILL win, regardless of Macnutt's oversimplification of historical facts. Trust me on this one. We shall see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Look's like I wasn't the only one who noticed the ironic statements Bush made about Canada's drugs...



> Thompson's comments weren't quick enough to stop the snickering Bush's initial suggestion set off, however. Some thought Bush's suggestion ironic, considering his stance on importing Canadian drugs into the U.S.
> 
> "They've been disparaging the Canadian drug system, saying how it's a buyer beware situation, completely unsafe, can't guarantee the safety," executive director of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, David MacKay, told The Canadian Press.
> 
> "Then the moment that they need to go to Canada to find our flu vaccines, all of a sudden, magically, things are safe."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_I think MacNutt's question is a reasonable one"_

So did others and answered with essentially the same thoughts you summarized very well......it was answered several times over.
The exasperation is not with the question - it's that it's been answered several times.

It's a values/religion race as an undercurrent and a deeply divided hostile political battle on top.
The gap between the parties is at an historic high and confusion about serious issues doesn't help. A large number of Americans persist in thinking Saddam was part of the 911 attack.

A note in the Economist the other day was indicative of the "reality distortion" in voters minds.

Number of Americans who THINK they are in the top 1% of income earners..........19%.

If they are that deluded about the state of affair vis a vie they're own income level how are they going to look at a $ .5 trillion and climbing deficit and a $50 billion per month trade imbalance and make any sense of the coming impact of Bush's "choices".

Fortunately there are still 18% or so undecided voters but how that will play out on the electoral college is uncertain.
The Canadian election swung dramatically in Ontario a tthe very last moments as the Neo-Con agenda was rejected by the middle.

We can hope a similar situation comes about in the US but the conditions are far less favourable.

Iraq has in essence trapped the US into a generally unavoidable set of problems perhaps for the next decade both fiscally and internationally.

Sow the wind indeed


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, my other prediction, should Bush win another four years as president, is that water will become a BIG issue between our two countries. There are US companies looking at the various large lakes here in NL, located in areas with no human habitation, as a source of water to be piped to tankers bound for wherever. Under NAFTA, this would be ruinous for NL and Canada.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

...wait till they find out about macnutt's spring!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

They already know about it.  

Next time you see a photo of George W. in the Oval Office...check the water bottle on his desk.







 

We ship Carley Spring Water to the most interesting places. And they ALL pay full retail for the priviledge.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Memo from George Bush to an incognito CIA agent somewhere on the west coast --

"Dear xxxxx,
I hope you are well. Life down here in DC is good, and will be good for another four years if Diabold has done its job. We shall see.

There is a chap over there on Salt Spring Island who is a supporter of our views. Pay him a visit and tell him how much we would like to have him serve in our government as the Assistant Deputy Director of the Bureau of Right-Thinking. Tell him also that he has 48 hours to vacate his land, in that we shall be using that spot for an early detection site for our missle defence shield. Seems like the Canadian government is having some problems with seeing things 'our way'. Luckily, we shall have no problems with this Macnutt fellow. He might object to the loss of this pristine spot, but tell him to take off those coffee-colored glasses and to smell the roses. If he still objects...................well, get the job done in ANY way you see fit, under the circumstances.

Wish you were here,
GWG"


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*Trust me on this. * 

...if I had a nickel....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pamela, it is written in "The World According to Macnutt" that "It is easier for a smart woman to be correct all of the time than it is for a rich man to stand on a nickel. Trust me on this one."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure what your little parable was supposed to illustrate, Dr. G....

But I have NO problem with women being right. None, whatsoever.

They outnumber us males...and they frequently outTHINK us males, as well. This is a matter of historical record. It's not even an arguable point, really.

I just wish there were more women around here...especially ones that didn't mind expressing their thoughts, here at ehmac. To balance it all out.

We'd ALL be better off, if there were.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*Pamela, it is written in "The World According to Macnutt" that "It is easier for a smart woman to be correct all of the time than it is for a rich man to stand on a nickel. Trust me on this one."
* 
Classic Dr. G.  

And Macnutt....
*I just wish there were more women around here...especially ones that didn't mind expressing their thoughts, here at ehmac. To balance it all out.
* 
There aren't enough people in Canada in General that express their true thoughts...nevermind women. Plus women don't generally like to get into pissing contests as men do. (I Said generally)...therefore their lack of involvement unless it's a serious matter.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I finally got around to seeing Farenheit 9/11 with my (american) husband tonight. Needless to say both of us felt like throwing up after we saw it and he was pretty horrified and surprised by some of the facts...considering while we lived in the states we never saw anything in the media that would expose such details and issues.

Sickening.

He'll be sending in his vote as soon as he gets his absentee ballot. Let's hope that the almost 1 million potential american voters in Canada demonstrate their educated viewpoints... [

[ October 17, 2004, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: Pamela ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"There aren't enough people in Canada in General that express their true thoughts...nevermind women." Classic, Pamela. Amen, Sister. Keep the faith. Paix.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's why I admire our MP Carolyn Parrish. She speaks her mind and has some clout to make her thoughts heard.
The lack of women in Parliament is disgraceful. 
You up for it Pam????


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

LOL....I couldn't even imagine it MacDoc. I wouldn't
be able to handle the injustice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macnutt:


> Next time you see a photo of George W. in the Oval Office...check the water bottle on his desk.


I guess he was telling us the truth. Look what I found:










Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

You missed the second line Sinc: "I use it to wash down ma pretzamacallits".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, "pretzamacallits"??? Is this a new disease? Might the Nobel Prize for Medicine be far away???????? Actually, your actual work/research has importance regardless of whether or not you are awarded such prizes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pamela...

Before you get terribly worked up about Michael Moore's "facts", you might want to look at how many of the newspapers and officials etc. that he quoted in Farenheit 9/11 who are actually SUING him for altering the actual facts as they originally reported them.

He actually went so far as to change headlines on one prominent newspaper in "Farenheit"...in order to better "make his point". He lied. On film.

He's being sued for this now.

Pretty much everything that Moore says in any of his politically-driven mockumentaries can be disputed by actual data, if you care to look for the truth.

And Michael Moore can afford to fight all of these many lawsuits in court, given the two hundred million dollars (plus) that he made on this film. Which, by the way, he himself calls a "political parody". NOT a documentary.

THAT"S how he gets away with manipulating the facts the way he does. He just claims that they are "Parodies". Comedy. Not reality.

It's not HIS fault if some unwitting viewers take them as fact. Or pay him hundreds of millions of dollars while doing it.

BTW...he's also currently engaged in yet another lawsuit against an independant filmmaker who has been following HIM around with a camera...just like HE has done to so many others...while trying to document Michael Moore's extravigant Beverly Hills lifestyle. 

He's gotten court injunctions against this guy. And has siezed footage that shows Michael enjoying his limos and his babes while manipulating his multi-million dollar transnational corporation.

I guess what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. 









Don't make yourself look like a fool, Pamela. Michael Moore is totally discredited these days. Even by the left.

He hasn't even had any sort of real effect on the Presidential elections at all. This should tell you something. 

Macdoc...

Carolyn Parrish is a hero in your mind?? 









Funny, but pretty much every journalist who was present at her last outburst heard her do a quick backtrack a few moments later.... while trying to blame her mother's illness for her witless blathering. Then she tearfully pleaded with everyone present NOT to print what she'd just blurted out in public.

What a champion she is. A real oracle of truth. An unimpeachable source of wisdom, eh?
















Too funny.

And kind of sad too. Especially if you think that she is any sort of hero..









Kind of sad that anyone these days thinks of Carolyn Parrish or Lenin or Fidel Castro or Mao Tse Tung or Michael Moore as "Heroes" Especially knowing what we now know.

But...some people STILL follow these fallen public figures, and hang on their every utterance as if it were actual fact. Or even relevant. 

This says a lot about those last few adherents to the failed old ways. 

Quite illuminating, really. 

[ October 19, 2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, before you blast Macdoc ("A real oracle of truth. An unimpeachable source of wisdom, eh?"), I have heard the same said of you. Remember, it it written in "The World According to Macnutt" that "Wisdom comes not with the presentation of certain facts, but with the ability to use these facts to bring enlightenment to the children of the world. Listen not to the 'oracle of truth', but rather, listen to your inner voice of reason."


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

For those who like to argue polls the NY Times today has an excellent explanation of how the different polling companies interpret essentially the same information to get such different results.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Your NYTimes link requires a member ID and password. Could you please copy and paste the story for us to see?

Cheers


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Bush Leads. Make That Kerry. Why Can't the Pollsters Agree?

By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: October 19, 2004


ASHINGTON, Oct. 18-What is going to happen on Election Day? It depends on which pollster you ask.

President Bush leads Senator John Kerry by a margin of eight points among likely voters, according to the most recent poll from Gallup, USA Today and CNN. The margin of sampling error was four points.

But wait: Mr. Bush is up by only three points in the latest tracking poll from ABC News and The Washington Post, although with a margin of error of three percentage points.

Not so fast: The race is actually even, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. And Time magazine's new poll says much the same thing.

But while the headlines they produce may diverge, the actual findings of these polls may not be so different. The differing conclusions reflect how different pollsters use complex formulas to interpret very similar findings among self-described registered voters and try to come up with a result they think best accounts for who will actually show up at the polls.

The different interpretations have drawn a litany of complaints from partisans on both sides. Some are questioning everything about the surveys, including pollsters' political motives, their methodologies and whether accurate polling can be done in the age of cellular phones that cannot be called and caller ID systems that make screening out unfamiliar numbers easy.

But pollsters, who insist that they have the best intentions, say the differences in their surveys only highlight the difficulties this year in determining who is going to vote, no small task at a time of unusually high voter interest and many new voter registrations. And how pollsters set about figuring that out, they say, can make all of the difference in how the results are presented on television and in newspapers.

Five polls taken from Oct. 14 to Oct. 17 found similar results among registered voters. Mr. Kerry received support from 45 percent to 46 percent of those surveyed; Mr. Bush received from 45 percent to 49 percent. These polls, all with margins of error of plus or minus three or four points, showed the race as either tied among registered voters or with Mr. Bush ahead by two to three points - in each case a statistical tie.

But when Newsweek, for instance, looked not at registered voters but at "likely voters," Mr. Bush's lead grew to six points, from just two - still within the poll's margin of error, though a more impressive-sounding lead to the average voter. 

Similarly, when the Gallup Organization applied its formula, Mr. Bush's three-point lead among registered voters grew to eight points among "likely voters." With a four-point margin of error on each candidate's result, even this seemingly larger lead was at the edge of the poll's margin of error. 

Pollsters say they have to look closely at likely voters because many registered voters do not show up come Election Day. In 2000, for instance, more than 30 percent of registered voters did not vote. 

But pollsters acknowledge that the winnowing process calls for more art than science.

"Science is put in place and then the pollster has to exercise judgment about how to define likely voters," said Nancy Belden, president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. "And every polling organization may define a likely voter slightly differently, or in some cases, more than slightly differently than the next polling organizations." 

Ms. Belden added, "Each organization is doing its best to try to define the voters in the way that that organization thinks is closest to the truth." 

Gallup, for instance, uses a mixture of questions to determine likely voting based on how seriously a respondent is planning to vote and how frequently he has voted in the past. It gauges this with seven questions, including one about whether the respondent knows where the local polling place is. After estimating what the actual turnout will be, Gallup includes the preferences of just that fraction of their respondents.

The New York Times and CBS, on the other hand, include responses from all those determined to be likely voters, but gives some of their votes more weight than others depending on how they fit on a scale rating their likelihood of voting. 

Trying to divine likely voters is nothing new. And there are plenty of other factors that can affect the polls, from the way questions are asked to the dates of the poll.

Several pollsters said, for instance, that some polls seemed to give Mr. Bush a bigger edge because they were taken amid news reports about Mr. Kerry's referring in a debate to Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation. The comment did not sit well with some people and was denounced by Mr. Cheney and his wife, Lynne.

But this year is presenting new, complicating factors, from the closeness of the race to the influx of new registered voters.

"There are many things about this election that may be different than past elections, and one is this phenomenon of how many people are possibly registered," Ms. Belden said. "That could make an enormous difference." 

Hundreds of thousands of new voters have been added to the registration rolls in states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, by some estimates. Since many of these people have not been regular voters, polls that weigh the likelihood of voting in part based on past behavior may not be taking sufficient account of them. 

The same goes for increased voting registrations among younger voters, many of whom seem excited about voting for the first time, according to pollsters. Pollsters have varying opinions about whether or not these people will show up at the polls just because they registered.

Pollsters say voters need to be cautious about putting too much stock in any single poll.

"We're basically trying to get a read on the electorate as of the day that we're polling,'' said Jeffrey M. Jones, managing editor of the Gallup Poll, "not necessarily trying to predict what's going to happen on Election Day itself."

Pollsters from both parties said the best thing to do was to take all of the public polls and average them together. By that count, it is Bush by a nose. For now.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I wonder what the polls will show if the Houston Astros meet the Boston Red Sox in the World Series? Texas vs Mass.!!!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I wonder what the polls will show if the Houston Astros meet the Boston Red Sox in the World Series? Texas vs Mass.!!!!!


Easy.

They will show "Texans of Mass Destruction", and Bush will invade.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I even have my wife rooting against the NY Yankees...........................and she is not genetically "hotwired" to hate the Yankees and truly HATE the Dodgers, as I am. Strange things come from the Alberta foothills.

[ October 20, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Dr.G. ]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

So as to Mr. Macnutt's big question, from page 3 of this thread:

*So...I just GOTTA ask....

PB, how come John Kerry isn't mopping up the place with the totally spent George W. Bush these days?*

So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick) So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick) So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick) 

Although it has been asked and answered numerous times in the past weeks, in different threads, it has been answered again:

Here, by Doctor G.

Here, by PosterBoy

Here, by MacDoc

Here, by Brainstrained

Here, by IronMac

Here, by bryanc

And here again, by MacDoc

So ... *I* just GOTTA ask .... has your question been answered, yet? You haven't mentioned it and thanked anyone for clearing up your query, or are you going to repeat it somewhere else yet again?

As PosterBoy said in another thread:


> *And yes, PosterBoy...you can nitpick all you want. But the facts remain. And I will stand by them.*
> 
> Translation: "I like my 'interpretation' better, so I am going to stick with it."


And as far as Kerry poll numbers go, overall there appears to be a steady rise in his direction from a number of polls. Today's Electoral-Vote.com Electoral College Vote Predictor appears to have Kerry in the lead at 291 - 247. My sense is that it is still tied and anything can happen, but the trend looks good.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, re your comment that "So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick) So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick) So...I just GOTTA ask.... (tick)", I would walk carefully if I were you. Remember what has taken place in the past:

"1600 A. D.: Friar Giordano Bruno is burned at the stake in Rome for insisting on heresies tied to his belief that the earth traveled around the sun, rather than remaining motionless over Salt Spring Island, the center of the universe", as the Macnutt suggests.

"1632: Galileo publishes a book supporting the non-Macnutt universe. The next year Galileo is tried and convicted of heresy and sentenced to house arrest. His book, "Dialogue on Two World Systems," remains on Macnutt's list of prohibited books for the next 200 years."

"1856: After visiting the Salt Spring Island, Charles Darwin begins work on The Origin of the Species. We all know where Darwin is today."

Thus, go about your work very carefully. Macnutt takes his beliefs very seriously, although, deep down, beneath his gruff exterior he wants us to see, I believe that he is a caring and good person.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

See now Dr. G that's where you truly have the liberal "belief in the betterment of all humans". whereas I would consign Macnutt to his confreres

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/portal.php 

where a Reagan avatar is considered appropriate for a Canadian.










Just the Forum descriptors are a Macnutt compendium



> *The Gun Room*
> Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin
> News and discussion about the Firearms Control Act, Bill C-68, and other firearms related issues. No registration required. You don't even have to show your PAL to join in.
> 
> ...












Don't you really think he'd feel far more at home? 

[ October 20, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Unless I missed it in this battle of the head bashing. I’m surprised that no one on has mentioned the withdrawing of the Sinclair broadcasting documentary. 

Seem that the Dems can hand it out but they can’t take it. Talk about bad use of political power. 

If Bush and gang had influenced the screening of an anti Bush video the Macdocs’ of this world would have been spewing their usual one sided spin.

I’ve learned one thing in the past months from reading these threads that many of the
anti Bush crowd display a lot of hate, which I find disturbing.

I don’t have much time for either candidate, but I would rather vote for a candidate whose supporters are stupid, than those who have filled with so much bitterness and hate. These two attributes when mixed with power have lead to some catastrophic results.

And for those that keep quoting polls try this page it has some overall accuracy rather than picking a poll that supports the authors viewpoint.


Real Clear


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And what I've learned is that there ARE some policies and regimes worth speaking out passionately against for the insidious threat they represent.

Bush and Co is the antithesis of ideals America was founded on. That's not just my opinion.

Many believe both in America and around the world that Bush and Co.is destructive and dangerous, hence the level of passion.
Something YOU seem to think is too often lacking.

And where do you possibly get off claiming to understand my view on the Sinclair situation. I have not said a single word on the subject.

I watched the Leiberman interview and read this



> Last night, facing pressure from shareholders and advertisers, Sinclair Group said it would not show the film in its entirety. Excerpts will be used as part of a program examining how politically charged documentaries influence voters. AP, NYT


and that's the sum total of my direct knowledge of the situation.

My ONLY conclusion was admiration for stances like those of Globe being dedicated to providing balanced non partisan or multi-partisan viewpoints and reinforcing my opinion that there ARE dangers in concentrated media ownership.
I have no idea whatsoever of the political situation between the shareholders and the Sinclair management and what prompted the scheduling or the withdrawal.

You make assumptions as you have before and they are wrong as they have been before.
Maybe THAT's what you should take away from the observations.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The “pressure from advertisers” was actually part of a telephone/internet campaign backed by the Democrats to stop the broadcasting of the video.*

I believe they could have prosecuted under the McCain/Feingold law, too. Same reason that Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't going to be on PPV.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, there is a parable in "The World According to Macnutt", about the fisherman who goes in search of a lost fish. When asked why he would leave his nets to go in search of one stray fish, the fisherman replied, "The fish are my friends, and have sustained me all these years." Still, when asked why he would go in search of just one fish, the fisherman again replied, "The needs of one are as great as the needs of many. Am I not my brother's kipper?"

Smart man, Macnutt................not always accurate, but smart. Where is he these days?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

David having an opinion and passion is one thing unfortunately those where not the words I used.

As usual you don’t read other peoples posts before you comment on. The word I used was hate which was missing from your reply. 

You have told me personally that you hate Bush, have you changed your views?

As for the Sincair situation, I’m not surprised that you have little knowledge on the subject as it does not fit your agenda.Which by the way was the point.

The “pressure from advertisers” was actually part of a telephone/internet campaign backed by the Democrats to stop the broadcasting of the video. 

I find it interesting that you “admire” 

“Globe being dedicated to providing balanced non partisan or multi-partisan viewpoints“

It’s a pity that you don’t follow their lead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice spin Andy too bad it's wrong. You have never understood where I stand which is as anti Bush as the Globe is.

Hate is one passion and I hate what Bush and Co stands for, their actions and policies. It's far right, Neo-Con and nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum despite what they'd want us to believe. Harper was a faint shadow of what the Bush NeoCons represent as a threat.
If you like their agenda by all means applaud - just don't ascribe extreme views to others when they don't exist.

I didn't AVOID Sinclair - it was and is peripheral. It's a scrap with management who appears pro Bush from their requested program airing and shareholders who appear to be either anti Bush or want to stay neutral and avoid appearing partisan.

I don't really care either way other than as I stated that it's a cautionary tale..
I can read AND write.....can you???  

You've determined things are "a certain way" in my world view........ you're wrong. It's not the first time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey Stinand,

If you want to see "hate" take a good look at that freedominion.ca site that Macdoc linked. Or it's US big brother, freerepublic.com. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, or any of the US radio conservative shock jocks as they savagely attack those on the left? Does the phrase "Soviet Canauckistan" applied to Canada not sound a bit hateful?

Your charge that somehow those on the left have a monopoly on hate is simply not true. Compare freedominion.ca to a lefty political forum like Babble and honestly tell us that there are less foam-at-the-mouth style postings, compared to well-reasoned argument there, than you would find in Babble or on this site. Just judging from the forum headers that Macdoc posted I'd say there was likely more.

Yup, if it's not obvious, I don't like George W. Bush. He is representing a hateful agenda, because it is anti-democratic (which by the way, makes it quite anti-American) and because his side will tell any lie necessary to promote it. His Project For A New American Century backers are only interested in establishing world-wide US hegemony, fairness and justice be damned. This kind of agenda is something that those who believe in freedom and democracy should oppose actively and passionately.

As far as George W. personally, never met the guy, so I don't have any personal antipathy towards him. I don't like the public persona that I see on TV and read about in print and I think that is my right to hold such an opinion. He impresses me as a dressed-up mannequin, who doesn't have the intelligence or native wisdom necessary to be in his position. But he's just the figurehead.

And if Kerry gets himself elected, I know I will find much to disagree with there too. Although, unlike Bush, he appears to be capable of making his own decisions, he has already signalled that he will carry on much of the status quo in the US. In my opinion he is simply a trade-up, say from a no-name PC to a Sony, but he's still a PC. The world needs to get someone in there who truly "thinks different". Kerry and Edwards are not radical lefties as those neo-cons in the US would have you believe, in Canadian terms they would be more like right-of-centre, but that's what passes for left in the US.

If Kerry becomes president, my criticism of the US government may become less strident, but it will still be there. As Jon Stewart said on Crossfire to Tucker Carlson, when asked if it would be harder for him to mock the Kerry administration, should he win, "The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder. 

But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly."


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I just returned from a trip to DC. My flight on USAir to T.O. was cancelled (USAir manages to make Air Canada look like its run by Steve Jobs) so I spent a lot of time reading newspapers and watching tv. Both media are crammed with election material. There are on-going debates on every "news" channel. Every other commercial is something to do with one side or the other (the latest 9/11 victim testimonials are simply a testament to how low the parties will stoop).

I saw Kerry/Edwards supporters at two busy junctions but very few lawn signs (my caustic interpretation is that Kerry supporters don't want to be picking shot from their doors in the middle of the night and Bush supporters can't figure out which way up the signs should go







).

In spite of all of this activity, 99% of the material is partisan. Each point is made by either a Republican supporter or a Democrat supporter. There is very little weighing and it simply sounds like an ongoing argument between two people who have irreconcilable differences.

The level of debate is lousy, largely negative and seemingly conceived by constant focus-group analysis. Meanwhile, the world is moving on.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

UTB - that's a good synopsis based on your observations. The gap between the sides is deep and wide and the level of rhetoric and vitriol is historic in scope.

GA - I suspect Kerry IS more left than he is TRYING to portray, just as GW is doing as well.
Both attempting to appear centrist when in reality I don't think either are tho Kerry would be from a Canadian political spectrum stand point.

One thing the web has enabled is for people to see the thoughts of the radical edges and it strikes me that ANY politico that hints of extremist ties has a tough time getting moderate support. Harper had a hard time getting the far right to shut up during the election and it's an ongoing battle for the NDP to muzzle the far left.

Were there NOT a supposed "war" on......Bush would indeed be toast for the economy alone.
it's a convenient "cause celeb" for the NeoCon agenda.

My sense is that much of the heightened tensions comes from several of sources all of which compound.

A smaller world - everybody is "closer" to each other since 9/11 so tensions are higher. This is part of the technology both of the web and of terrorists and the threat of terror.

The US is a deconstructing empire on the ebb vulnerable to oil and other resource shortages and suddenly in competition with emerging regional powers such as China.

The pressures of the economy, vulnerability, resource issues and a changing place in the world are impacting on America in a manner perhaps not seen since Pearl Harbour.
Meeting the challenges of the multiple pressures sets up radicalization on both sides of issues.

Continuing American hegemony on the neoCon side and America as first among equals" view on the Democrat side.

The stakes are very high - I think that is beginning to penetrate.
Neither side can claim an easy path to "safe and secure" because there is none.

As stated above the world has moved on in many respects and that is beginning to penetrate to middle America - their health, their jobs, their place as world cop, their love affair with SUVs and cheap gas, even having enough water, big companies like Boeing under pressure from other world monsters like Airbus.

It's no one thing creating the diatribe - a restless uncertain and polarized America is a danger


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Hey Applesauce I don’t want to see hate in any form it spells trouble. Whereas I see more high profile Bush bashing I do not think that the left has any monopoly. However as soon as one points this out to the shrub trimmers they immediately accuse you of being a far right Neo Con. 

Overall I’m pretty non-partisan. What gets on my nerves is the form of the American election, it’s mostly negative. Rather than anti Bush caterwauling, why not discuss why Kerry is a better product? Nobody in this election will get voted in, the electorate will just vote against the other guy, and therein lies the problem. 

I think it small minded that one side accuses the other of corruption and misdeed as both parties are as crooked as a hind leg. Bush is rotten but the last Democratic president got impeached . Do I buy the argument that one side is slightly less of a crook than the other? No, it’s like comparing types of poison. I agree both Canada and The States need somebody that “thinks different”


Macdoc 

The anti Kerry film was not, as you put it “peripheral” as it was going to play in many key swing states. With a race this close I would think that this type of anti Kerry programming could cost him dearly. Perhaps that’s why the 18 senators went to the FCC to get an investigation started. 

Woodget

I couldn’t agree more, expect you missed one thing . When the votes have been counted will anybody really know who actually won? I’ve read material on both sides saying the parties are manipulating the voting system as much as they possibly can.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re you comment (to which I agree) that "The stakes are very high - I think that is beginning to penetrate. Neither side can claim an easy path to "safe and secure" because there is none.", I recall a campaign slogan used by LBJ when he ran against Goldwater in 1964 -- "Vote like the world depends upon it".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peripheral for *me* Andy. You accuse me of ignoring the issue because it was somehow pro Bush and that I would have been screaming if it was the other direction.......wrong-.......- it's a NON-incident for me.

That it's being investigated etc is all well and good as far as media concentration goes but whether it's pro Kerry/Pro Bush anti Kerry anti Bush is simply not of great interest or import to me









If you put on the same footing a ridiculous politically "staged" impeachment of an otherwise excellent presidency with the enormous damage Bush has done to the US abroad and to the the US economy at home then your sense of what's important is truly whacked.









What I WILL agree on is that the actually impeachment certainly contributed to the US being a laughingstock world wide.

It did NOTHING for the US credibility and Bush has simply continued on the same NeoCon/Republican led swathe of destruction of any world community respect for the US policy or it's institutions.

Someone said elsewhere the US has ONLY it's military superiority left, it has neither economic nor moral high ground and Bin Laden and the issues in Iraq are doing little to keep the military profile high.

When troops openly refuse duty as they did in Iraq this week....
 

I think Kerry can help the US through the transition better and even tho it may hurt the Canadian economy his policies may be needed to regroup jobs/deficit/trade balances which are wildly out of whack.
The US is absolutely foundering in red ink and as it was for Canada ( and still is to some degree ) 15 years ago it will be a painful change and require some serious changes in US policy at home and abroad.

There simply IS no marked easy path - ALL are "Here be Dragons" writ large.
I simply think Kerry will facilitate the world cooperation needed on a variety of fronts both policy and economic far far better than Bush who has proven he can fracture, but not mend, international alliances.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very good point, Macdoc. With Kerry, there is hope for a transition out of Iraq. With Bush, it is more of the same................with soldiers marching out of darkness into darkness.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Speaking of right wing hate, I stumbled across this site a while ago called Right Wing Stuff (back handing the left into submission) that sells bumper stickers, t-shirts, buttons etc.

Some of the graphics speak to the real underlying philosophies of these folks.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

G & Doc . I would love to agree with you that Kerry will lead a transition out of Iraq, unfortunately I have not seen any proof that he has the ability to do it. No matter who takes office a 4 year transition I think is almost impossible. 

The issues that surround Iraq politically, economically and the current wave of terrorism are here to stay for a long time. I also can see that if the States departed, besides the obvious civil war that would take place (heavily backed by Iran) I also think that the terrorists might take the fight onto American soil, something no president wants to chance.

The States needs a leader and what I see is wishful thinking, and my rose colored glasses faded years ago.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The US too "deserve democracy." Stinand, I still feel that Kerry is far more able to disengage America from the morass in Iraq. If Bush wins, maybe he could pull some of the troops out and send them to Cuba.  We shall see.


Castro falls, breaks knee and arm
From Lucia Newman and Elise Labott
CNN
Friday, October 22, 2004 

HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) -- President Fidel Castro broke his left knee and right arm in a fall Wednesday after giving a graduation speech in the central Cuban city of Santa Clara.

The 78-year-old leader missed a step down from a rostrum as he was walking back to his seat and crashed down heavily.

In an effort to calm the crowd, Castro took the microphone after a few minutes, saying, "Just so that there won't be any speculation, it seems that I broke my knee."

He apologized for any concern he may have caused those who care about him, and then joked about how his spill was likely to make headlines in the international media.

Looking shaken, the Cuban leader of 45 years was taken to a hospital, where he said he would probably get a cast. He promised to get back to normal as soon as possible.

Castro's health has been the subject of widespread speculation for the past seven years. At times, he has appeared thin or tired and has disappeared from the public eye for extended periods.

Castro's health is considered a state secret and is not discussed by the government.

In Washington, the Bush administration used the opportunity of Castro's accident to reiterate its desire to see him removed from power.

"We heard that Castro fell," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "I guess you'd have to check with the Cubans to find out what's broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what's broken in Cuba."

When asked if he wished Castro a speedy recovery, Boucher said, "No."

"The situation in Cuba is of our primary concern," Boucher said. "The situation of Mr. Castro is of little concern to us, but, unfortunately, of enormous importance to the people of Cuba, who have suffered very long under his rule. And we think that the kind of rule that Cuba has had should be ended."

While declining to speculate on who might rule a post-Castro Cuba, Boucher said the Cuban people "deserve democracy."


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

American tourists are the only thing that Bush needs to invade Cuba. 
On a more serious note I think that if Bush regains his title Syria could be on his list and we could see some action there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Re Cuba and tourists, I just received my Canadian passport, and it has (rightly so) as my place of birth "New York City, USA". Might this be problematic if I am ever part of the first wave of tourists who come to "liberate" Cuba on some cold March day here in St.John's?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I have filmed in Cuba with some American crew and my other half (she who must be obeyed) is American.

An American cannot fly out of the States, however if they fly out of anywhere else the Cuban authorities do not stamp Americans passports. To visit Cuba as an American is treason or some other high crime  

It’s funny how the Cuban regime is so hospitable to Americans and their $$$$


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Stinand, my son is going on a student exchange for two weeks with 20 other students from his high school. He was told to bring only US one-dollar bills. No Canadian money, just US ones and a few five-dollar bills. Wonder what they would say to Canadian money if it ever surpassed the US dollar in value?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It has in the past and may well be on the way again.
The REAL question is if the yen every surpasses the US dollar


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, with Castro's fall yesterday (breaking his knee and arm), there is again speculation about the fall of Castro. I wonder what currency they shall use once the reign of Castro is over?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Which will crumble first the US Empire or Castro.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Castro has outlasted 10 US presidents, so quien sabe???


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G., a few posts ago you said "Bush...could send troops to Cuba..." - I hope that wasn't an endorsement!  

Since your son is going for only a week or two (correct?), and I believe to a somewhat rural area east of Varadero, it's unlikely that he would have access to a bank or other money-changing service to convert Canadian funds into U.S. dollars (or the convertible Cuban peso, which trades at par). 

Canadian, EU, etc. currency is acceptable, but just not as easy to use as the U.S. dollar.

As for the future of Cuba following Castro's passing... it looks like he may outlast an 11th U.S. president, depending on next month's election! 

Cuba's critics will, I expect, be rather surprised to see how little changes if Fidel departs the scene anytime soon. The anticipated "wave of 'democracy' and free markets" they seek are based on the erroneous belief that Fidel is Cuba. Certainly he was an important figure in the early decades of the Revolution, and continues to hold a prominent place in Cuban society & politics, but the Cuban government is far more robust, the people far more prepared to continue the work of the Revolution than Washington seems prepared to admit. 

This has always been the crux of America's failure to understand Cuba: Washington sees a dictator who rules with an iron fist, rather than a deeply ingrained nationlism and widely-based, populist, consultative political structure which includes the great mass of Cuban people, the workers, in the decision-making process.

Cuba's democratically elected National Assembly will continue to elect a Council of State, which will continue to elect a President. Who that will be depends on a variety of factors, though certainly those with the longest history of service to the country and the experience in government will continue to serve as they are needed. It is possible that Raul Castro, Fidel's brother and Chief of the Armed Forces, may be elected by the Council of State as the next President. However, he is only a few years younger than Fidel, and there has been no indication that he wishes to have that post.

For the past decade or so, the Cuban government has been actively working to bring in younger people in important posts. Women make up a sizeable proportion of officials. One key political figure who is widely seen as a likely future President is Carlos Lage, currently Vice-President of the Council of State and Minister of the Economy. In his mid-50s, Lage is a true product of the Revolution, which occured when he was not yet 10 years old.

It was a rather embarrassing blow to Cuban pride when the U.S. dollar was permitted to be used domestically... but with the economic crisis that followed the loss of Socialist Bloc trading agreements (in which Cuba lost 87 percent of imports and 87 percent of exports, a huge blow to the GDP), Cuba needed to rapidly get its hands on hard currency, the stuff with which it could purchase goods which it could now only purchase on the world market, from those few countries who dared to disobey U.S. pressure (and who saw the profit to be made with Cuba backed into a corner).

It ain't easy going against the grain, charting your own path in the world...

M.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark, I oppose the embargo around Cuba. When I said that Bush "could" send US troops, this is like the difference between "can", "may" and "should". Bush "can" send in troops, in that he is able. He "may" send in troops if he wants to deflect US/world negative opinion from his fiasco in Iraq. However, "should" he send in US troops into Cuba -- NO! I am not the biggest fan of Castro, for I feel that there are still human rights issues in Cuba. Still, to allow US citizens to travel to N.Korea, Iran, etc and not Cuba is insane.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for the clarification...  

So we're less than two weeks from the U.S. election... when do you all think Bush's handlers will thaw out Osama's body and announce his "capture"? Before or after U.S. troops "discover" a cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Iraqi desert?

 

M


----------



## Tara (Aug 17, 2004)

I really hate the assumption that everybody who disagrees with you is stupid, scared, or morally suspect.

It is impossible to have a meaningful political conversation unless you start with the assumption that reasonable people can disagree. Starting with the assumption that people who don't agree are unreasonable gets you somewhere else entirely.

Anyway, we're all just guessing as to what will happen if this happens or that happens or if we do this or that in Iraq.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Tara, I strongly agree with your point that "It is impossible to have a meaningful political conversation unless you start with the assumption that reasonable people can disagree." I think that you should clarity to whom you refer when you utilize the word "you" in your last posting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Agreed, Dr. G.

I went back through the various posts on the thread looking for, but not finding an obvious "you".

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, we could round up the likely suspects -- Macnutt, Me, Macdoc, et al. Strangely, all begin with the letter "M". Perhaps Tara is trying to tell us something???? Of couse, my arch nemisis, MacDoxie, has been silent all these months, ever since my court order. Still, that's another story for another thread.

However, Tara does make a good point re the need for an open and free discussion about the issues. Many are becoming far too polarized in their discussions with there being one and only one correct POV.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Many are becoming far too polarized in their discussions with there being one and only one correct POV.


All I can reply to that Dr. G. is "AMEN".

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

We need voices of reason in this forum. I am fairly committed to most of my views, but I am willing to listen to other POVs. I try to take a reasonable approach to most issues, although it is hard at times.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I try to listen to other POVs so long as you can back them up with verifiable facts and logic. If you can't, then, you're fair game.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

IronMac, a valid point. Questioning the validity and reliability of presented "facts" is the first step in critical reflection. Good point.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...

Here is a voice of reason from the "far right wing" of the ehmac faithful....

I think that John Kerry would make a pretty good President. Perhaps even a great one.

And I say this with only ONE qualification:

He MUST have serious _RESOLVE!!_  

The sort of resolve that he has NOT demonstrated in the past two decades as a Senator, BTW.  

But...the office of President often brings out the very BEST in a normal man who has been thrust into the Top Job on the planet (Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Bush senior...and, whether you recognise it now or not...Bush junior)

Or, it can bring out the very worst (LBJ, Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Just to mention a few).  

Like it or not...less than two weeks from now, we will all be dealing with a newly-elected President of the USA.

And, personally, I don't have the sort of scary feelings that I had the last time around in 2001.

Back then...I was terribly frightened that Al Gore might win. And that we would all be in for terrible danger when the inevitable sh*t hit the fan (due to the terrible leftovers from the distracted Clinton years).

Thank GOD he didn't win!  

And thank GOD he isn't even running for President, this time out!  

If Bush wins, it will certainly be more resolve, and a definite move towards smacking down the terrorists where they live. With an iron fist! 

Good stuff!  

If Kerry wins...it will probably be the very same thing. Perhaps even more so. He's talked publicly, at great length, about sending even MORE troops into Iraq, in order to solve the ongoing problems.

He may turn out to be far more warlike than George W. in the long run. Just like his many Democratic predecessors have been, in their day. 

(Especially if stuff starts to blow up on home turf while the terrorists test his mettle in the early days of his Presidency.)  

Looks like a win-win to me.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

LOL! At least Macnutt is consistent.



> And, personally, I don't have the sort of scary feelings that I had the last time around in 2001.


I think the issue is that EVERYONE outside of the US has the scary feeling that Bush will win.



> If Bush wins, it will certainly be more resolve, and a definite move towards smacking down the terrorists where they live. With an iron fist!


LOL! How do you explain his Iraqi invasion? How do you explain his failure to smack down bin Laden? How do you explain his failure to destroy every terrorist group listed by the State Department?

How do you explain his support of governments that repress their own people such as Pakistan and China?



> If Kerry wins...it will probably be the very same thing. Perhaps even more so. He's talked publicly, at great length, about sending even MORE troops into Iraq, in order to solve the ongoing problems.
> 
> He may turn out to be far more warlike than George W. in the long run.


More warlike? You must have missed the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech.









At least Kerry has the GUTS to agree with what the generals on the ground are saying. No heming and hawing about giving the generals the troops that are needed to bring stability and peace to a country destroyed by Bush. The US broke it the US fixes it.

Bush is too scared and too gutless to publicly state the truth...sounds typical for someone who hid out in the US while others actually went overseas.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

If only the world could vote in the U.S. election?

Well they and you can at betavote.com.

So far, bush is leading in Niger and Liechtenstein, and in a statistical tie with Kerry in about 25 countries. Otherwise Kerry is whumping Bush's ass with almost 90 per cent of the world vote.

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, it still won't count.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

In keeping with the . . . er, implication of my last post, you can read of American reaction to the Guardian's attempt to have Britons write Ohio voters at Dear Limey A*******.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

D'ya think you could tell the the Dems from the NeoCon letters.


----------

