*DAMN R6 Forum

When will they stop lying?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/)

>>>
Armitage accused the insurgents of engaging in a cynical bid to undermine President Bush?s re-election. ?They?re trying to influence the election against Mr. Bush,? he told Reuters in a separate interview.

?It?s quite obvious that they would like to raise the cost to President Bush. I think this is their cynical effort to do that and to somehow influence our elections, and they will fail,? he said.
<<<

So, that's where we stand. All the bad people in the world have united with a common goal of electing John Kerry. Anything bad that happens, anywhere, anytime, by anybody, happens because somebody is trying to deny George Bush his throne.

This is Republicans trying to control you with fear because they are so weak all they have left to motivate you with is fearmonging.

Lmao. 3 posts....Six....get a life?

I wonder why Bush is 13 points ahead in the polls???

hmmmm[/size]

Sixhits, Im just curious, and Im not flaming, are you even old enough to Vote?

Depends which poll you look at, the Pew poll showed that they are statistically dead even. I don't put much faith in either poll, the Gallup poll which showed Bush with a 13% lead, is conducted on weekday afternoons, when most non-retired people are at work. In edition, it is totally devoid of non-home owning participants which make up a significant percent of young people who possess enough intelligence to make an informed decision and vote democratic.

I'd like to point out that most of these polls that have Bush up by 5-15 points are complete bullshit. If you look at who they are polling, it is like 38% Republicans, 31% Democrats with the rest independent. In reality, the number of Democrats is 4% higher than Republicans in the poulation that votes (based on estimates this year and exit polls from 2000.) That means there is an 11% skew in favor of Bush in these polls. Basically, the only reason Bush is doing better in these polls is that they are asking more Republicans in proportion to reality. Obviously that is going to result in Bush having favorable results.

In reality, this election is a dead heat even though Kerry has had 6 horrid weeks. If Kerry can do anything the next 6 weeks, he'll win the election, perhaps easily.

P.S. If the Iraqi insurgents were trying to elect Kerry, it would just show that they are smarter than half of the US. In reality, most of the terrorists want Bush to win because he is a great recruiting tool. Well, Bush is a tool in general. Whereas, most of the sane people around the world favor Kerry.

Yap about what poll is higher, less right, skewed or what not...

In the end it is still a lot closer then what the popular media would like you to think.  It is not just some super hate for bush out there, if it existed it would be a larger difference.  It just shows there is a lack of public support for both fucktards, just depends which sinking boat you want to get on.  Both of these numb nuts will get us no further, I guess we are just seeking the asshole who might stay afloat.

Why squabble to see which lesser candidate wins.  Its like picking which cancer may kill you slower.  Is there no common sense left in the world.  Don't vote for some idiot because he may be the lesser of two evil's.  Progress humanity and find someone who can excell and prosper.

This is one highly stupid ass argument in here.

He's 24

Because there is such a unbelivably huge number of narrow minded stupid americans who belive the dribble that they are fed by the administration and 'their' media, and are not able to look around them and see what is happening in the world and their country.

Until we get some massive electoral reforms that make third parties legitimite, I need to vote for the better (or less bad) of the two main parties.

And trust me, there is a huge difference between Bush and Kerry. Kerry may not be that good, but Bush is that bad.

I'd just like to point out that this election has no "good" canidate.  Kerry is bad, but Bush is worse.  No flame intended.

23.  I do vote.

And the polls? Bush is up in a Gallup poll, where they ask 40% Repubs, 33% Dems, and the rest unresistered or independant. Interesting, don't you think, that when you poll a pluraity of Republicans you get a lead for Bush?  Guess who runs Gallup? A Republican donor.

Have a look.  This breaks the Gallup poll open, including links to facts.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html)

Biased.  Manufactured.  Lies.

The true race is split, with Kerry leading indipendants even in the Gallup poll.  No doubt the race is close. But as we know the undecided break against the incumbent. And Kerry leads among indipentants. Both bases are solid, so where are the remaining votes?  Indipendants.

What lead?

The lead the owned media wants you to hear about?

As for three posts -- procrastination. :-)

Wasn't it you who said that polls are useless?

Yes, and I brought that up to show that no matter what the polls say, somebody will cry foul that they are made up.  Just like the Democrats are doing right now.[/size]

Welcome to the "Fox" world where "balance" is more important than "accuracy."

im voting for nader! i hate everyone!

One of those web quiz things that matches you in varying %s with the candidates had me tied on Kerry and Nader at a measley 59%. Surprisingly, though in the party selection one I was closest on the Green Party, I felt Kerry was closer to my stance overall. He may not be a great choice, but he is the best choice according to this, even compared to all the other earlier Democratic candidates.

hehe theres a whole bunch of British diplomats who are in a bit of shit when at a "chatam rules" dinner it was discussed who they would vote for if they could in the US elections. The general consensus was that most idiots and A-Quieda would like bush back in power as he's doing such a great job at helping them.

...problem was someone leaked the comments to an italian newspaper. ouch

If you're going to make a fallacious argument, please, at least do so with some semblance of understanding of the English language.  Bemoaning poultry is hardly a productive form of debate, eh?

---

Oh and I hate to cry foul over all the "lesser of two evils" arguments, but I think it's a little deeper than that.  First of all, Nader is a radical egotist, an excellent consumer advocate but not that impressive a candidate even on his merits.  But most importantly, the "less bad" ideology that usually applies to the major political parties doesn't resound with me when it comes to John Kerry.  Sure, he may have some campaigning issues, but the man is about as desirable a candidate as you'll find among any party.  War hero, most liberal voter in the Senate - that sounds pretty good to me, not really all that bad.

The only thing I think is "bad" about Kerry is his campaign style - he hasn't done a great job countering right wing media/public opinion manipulation.  But if you really analyze the nuance of his views, he's right on point most of the time - or at least as close to it as any other elected politician out there.  Under Kerry this country will be far from a "sinking ship."  It may not occur to the average American, but we need leaders who are able to think through the nuances of complicated policies - what some consider Kerry's greatest fault I see to be a resounding strength.

I'm with you Loud on thinking Kerry is hardly a bad candidate. I have some doubts that the Democratic Party can make the big changes necessary to prevent this country from continuting its rot, but it isn't because Kerry is not a good candidate (it isn't his fault he can't be really risky and radical and still win election.)

I'm not entirely sure if Kerry was the best of the candidates IMO...it was too close to call between Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards really...but he is a good one. I'm not voting against Bush specifically, I'm just definitely not voting for Bush. Even if I thought I could afford to vote for a third party, I wouldn't because none of them seem better to me than Kerry.