Ha! I'm assuming you are talking about the popular vote polls only here? You can't be talking about the electoral vote polls. That is a disaster of epic proportions for Kerry right now. By the way, that's the poll that decides the President. Oops. http://www.electoral-vote.com
damn batman you got served! and also saletan seems to hate bush an unbiased prospective would be nice.
NJ is now a red state? Wow, Bush has really made up some ground there. Florida also looks to be solidifying for Bush. What's Kerry going to do? Things are really slipping!
You wanna see someone really get served? Go to the treeman thread. Jorge is so red faced he hasn't even pulled up his panties yet. Will supported Bush, Afghanistan and the Iraq war before the WMD claims turned out to be bogus. And still not a single one of you who's complained about his take has offered the slightest rebuttal against a single thing he said in his piece. That's pretty telling. As for electoral-vote.com, I go there every morning. Three days ago Kerry was up by a wide margin, even days after the GOP convention bounce. The thing about that site (which, by the way, is a pro-Kerry site -- www.electionprojection.com is a pro-Bush one, if you're interested -- both have shown gigantic swings in both directions) is that, unlike Rasmussen Report (Rasmussen's also a Republican), it factors in exact polling data regardless of margin of error. Considering how many states are tied within the MOE, that means the electoral prediction can shift by nearly 100 votes on any given day. It's fun as hell to watch and I go there daily as I said, but you have to look closer to get a clear picture. Rasmussen's electoral predictor is considerably more reliable since it doesn't award MOE stuff to one side or the other. Bush is winning right now, but only just barely. And Kerry's coming very strong right now, which he hasn't done in this entire election. Every day there's a new, strong, well crafted speech from him on policy stuff. This thing is far from over. It's still virtually tied.
Yet another piece of evidence that EXPOSES Batman's silly claim that this election hasn't been blown wide open. CBS Poll: BUSH 50 Fonda Kerry 41 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/opinion/polls/main644205.shtml Looks like yet another barrage has hit your starboard side, Petty Officer Jones. It might be time to stand down. LIFE SUPPORT
Ho ho ho! You surely would like to change the subject, wouldn't you? Ha! Now that your "only one poll has Bush in the lead" nonsense has been thoroughly DEBUNKED, you are scrambling to save face. Stand down, Seaman. STAND DOWN.
I'm changing the subject? Have you checked the title of the thread? This is a thread about Bush's hypocrisy with regard to the National Guard. I'm pretty sure you haven't read the article since you haven't (a) responded to it, or (b) run away like you usually do (you know, like here! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83918), so I can understand your confusion. But since you have diverted and distracted from the actual topic (like any good troll!), I'll play. How's this? Who cares? Do you think I find a source of pride in arguing the horse race? I just enjoy the horse race. I don't feel all yummy inside when Kerry's up -- I don't even like Kerry. But I do like politics. What I like even more is actually arguing the issues. Especially with someone who doesn't run away every single time they're confronted. It seems like you used to actually argue an issue on occasion instead of trolling and changing the subject. Maybe I imagined it. Maybe that was johnheath. Nah, couldn't have been him. But let's play nice. I propose a compromise. I'll admit I was wrong and you were right about how many polls Bush was currently leading in and you'll admit you were wrong and I was right about every single thing to do with Iraq (as evidenced here: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83918). It shouldn't be too bitter a pill. You've already admitted you were wrong by ducking, dodging and running away. OR... If you're going to keep posting in this thread, you could actually address the article. Your choice.
Have I done it to you, halfbreed? I thought we had a pretty good back and forth last night. But just as I wouldn't sincerely discuss basketball with TroyBaros, I won't sincerely discuss politics with the D&D's resident troll. He picks fights, I finish them, he runs away. It's like that with a lot of folks and T_J. Sometimes I ignore him and sometimes I embarass him. Either way, he's asking for it.
I'm not saying I don't respect you or anything. Just we all do what you accused T_J of doing at one time or another (myself included).
What's that, halfbreed? Off topic posts? Yeah, I post those now and again, but I don't run away when challenged. I always respond directly to a challenge. Jorge virtually never does. I also don't make a regular practice of coming into threads for the simple purpose of derailing them, without ever addressing the substance of the thread. Jorge does that all the time. That's what trolls do. It works too. He's wrecked this thread without ever addressing a single point in Will's article. You're certainly right that I'd be better off ignoring him, but I've got a better idea. When he comes in to derail, when he trolls, when he spouts off his silly EXPOSED junk, I'll just post this: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83918 I'm out.
Batman, friend, I ask that you go back and read this thread from the beginning. My first post commented on Will's writing. Then YOU decided to comment on me personally. You, sir, derailed this thread with that post. You. Not me. You. Then, I commented on one of your tangential points. For me to comment on it means that you, sir, were the one that brought it up. How then, Batman, did I derail this thread? It is becoming ever more commonplace for you to take several posts in a thread to insult me, call me a troll, and claim that I consistently derail threads. Repeating it over and over does not make it true, friend. I rise above this level of personal insult. You do not. The evidence here shows, quite clearly, that you were the one that derailed this thread. You. Not me. You.
I think another warning is appropriate at this time. That makes me feel all warm inside. "Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. "
Yup. We repub's needs our women cheap and easy. To be fair, I've never paid more than $25. I'd talk more, but I'm being flagged down by another willing participant. Keep treating women as goddesses, BJ. It only helps me out.
Wow, such vitriol. Please, let's have less talk about the horse race and more about the merits of the candidates. Make an argument for Bush or Kerry; don't ridicule other people just because their guy is down in the polls or because his convention bounce has faded. Yes, I think the hardhead in this race is worse than the flip-flopper. That's my considered judgment after watching Bush run economic and foreign policy for four years (and initially supporting him in Iraq). Republicans are right about Kerry: He's a hopelessly convoluted waffler. I expect him to be a mediocre president. But that would be an improvement. Sometimes you just have to fire a bad CEO before he destroys the company, and replace him, for the time being, with whoever is available. No offense intended to the conservatives here. I like conservative ideas about ownership, limited government, and military strength. You guys just need to find a candidate who pursues these ideas with better judgment. It's your agenda he's screwing up. Back-loading tax cuts when stimulus is needed will discredit tax cuts. Selling military intervention as anti-9/11 and anti-WMD when there are no WMD and no 9/11 link will discredit military intervention. Bush is in the process of doing for conservatism what LBJ did for liberalism.
Will, if you were any more on target, you'd get arrested for carrying a loaded weapon. That thing between your ears.
