PDA

View Full Version : Latest Poll: Presidential Race Dead Even



BlueFin
09-07-2008, 08:11 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

Seems Palin has closed the gap, will see if she puts McCain over the top.

Seems like a few Hillary voters have abandoned Obama.:foundout::titanic:

Tetragrammaton
09-07-2008, 08:14 AM
One of a variety of polls which have Obama winning.

The_Dark_Knight
09-07-2008, 09:14 AM
Here we go again with the polls topic. I'll copy and paste my previous posting regarding polls...well, never mind.

BTW Wayward...you were the only one that brought up the electoral college poll...I saw it this morning on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

250 vs 237 in favor of Obama...with 51 electoral votes up for grabs, to include 13 in Virginia in which Obama and McCain are in a dead heat.

Colorado with its 9 votes has Obama leading McCain by .4% points
Nevada with its 5 votes has McCain leading Obama by 1% point
Ohio with its bountiful 20 electoral votes show McCain leading Obama by .6% points
New Hampshire with it's symbolic 4 votes has Obama leading McCain by .3% points

As you can see by the map and the closeness of some of these states...and as I've said before...this election is going to be closer than most think. I wonder which state is going to be the one to watch this time. It was Florida in 2000...Ohio in 2004...I have a feeling this year it's going to be Virginia.

Stay tuned.

BlueFin
09-07-2008, 09:19 AM
Here we go again with the polls topic. I'll copy and paste my previous posting regarding polls...well, never mind.

BTW Wayward...you were the only one that brought up the electoral college poll...I saw it this morning on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

250 vs 237 in favor of Obama...with 51 electoral votes up for grabs, to include 13 in Virginia in which Obama and McCain are in a dead heat.

Colorado with its 9 votes has Obama leading McCain by .4% points
Nevada with its 5 votes has McCain leading Obama by 1% point
Ohio with its bountiful 20 electoral votes show McCain leading Obama by .6% points
New Hampshire with it's symbolic 4 votes has Obama leading McCain by .3% points

As you can see by the map and the closeness of some of these states...and as I've said before...this election is going to be closer than most think. I wonder which state is going to be the one to watch this time. It was Florida in 2000...Ohio in 2004...I have a feeling this year it's going to be Virginia.

Stay tuned.

Unless the Palin factor grows ever stronger with women, which I suspect it might. The debates should be important.

The_Dark_Knight
09-07-2008, 09:49 AM
Unless the Palin factor grows ever stronger with women, which I suspect it might. The debates should be important.
Well, there's no doubt that Palin has sparked the race. Democrats charging her inexperience and republicans by a charismatic, well spoken articulate WOMAN (and let's call it like it is guys...she's a LOOKER too!). Her entrance onto the scene has re-energized the election from what was becoming a stalemate of the same old "he said/she said".

You are right, the debates are going to be absolutely crucial. Obama will have the edge in the traditional debates as the format favors him. The town hall debate, which is shooting from the hip since none of the candidates will have an opportunity to review or prepare for questions will favo McCain. Town Hall debates are a very interesting animal...ordinary people...asking ordinary questions...looking for ordinary answers. This is where McCain is REALLY going to have to make his money as the other 2 debate formats will favor Obama.

Now, the VP Debate...THAT may be the one that makes or breaks the election. There is no doubt whatsoever of Joe Biden's credentials. He's a Washington insider, been in Washington since the 70's...he knows the ins and outs backward and forward, inside and out. Again, no question when it comes to his foreign policy experience having sat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Palin can NOT come in trying to appear to KNOW MORE than Biden does. It won't work and everyone will be able to see through it. What she DOES need to do however is show she knows foreign policy, knows the mechanics of it and re-enforce that she will be supporting MCCAIN and HIS policies. She needs to show that she knows what she's doing, but that SHE is not running for President. If she is as bright and charismatic during the debate as she was during the convention, she'll have a strong appeal, but if she tries to go toe to toe with Biden on KNOWLEDGE, Biden will be able to mop the floor with her.

Ergo the problem with Biden. Biden has a tendancey to run his mouth TOO MUCH...sometimes not knowing WHEN to shut up. There are a number a scenarios that could unfold regarding his short comings that if Palin is sharp enough to catch on to, can take advantage of it. But this will be her opportunity to show the country that she's not just a sweet, funny, good looking woman with great appeal...but to show the nation she is an executive and knows what she's doing.

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 11:03 PM
I think polls are only indicative of trends, not outcomes. Certainly McCain has closed the Gap, and the Electoral map is wide open. This will be another nailbiter.

MDFINFAN
09-08-2008, 09:50 AM
Unless the Palin factor grows ever stronger with women, which I suspect it might. The debates should be important.

While I might agree with you, I think the uncovered new voters and younger voters who generally don't follow through will be a factor this year..and you're right the debates should be very important this year, even though I can't figure out why ppl would vote for somone who says he doesn't understand economics in a time we're having economic problems..and his team only propose more bush..that doesn't make sense to me, if this guy doesn't understand, then why have him, it seem he and his economic advisers only offer more of what we have, and it's on his website..

poornate
09-08-2008, 10:46 AM
DK... what have you seen that makes you think of Palin as funny and sweet?

BTW... I'm working Virginians everyday for the nation's future... I hope those of you who are in the area (MD) are doing the same...

jared81
09-08-2008, 11:20 AM
I think polls are only indicative of trends, not outcomes. Certainly McCain has closed the Gap, and the Electoral map is wide open. This will be another nailbiter.


very true, i still think obama does have the edge as of now, but i feel that the undecided voters will go for mccain since they will vote for someone that is more of a "sure thing", IMO

Mr772
09-08-2008, 11:33 AM
If Palin has any influence on the polls it just goes to show how stupid some americans are.

The lady is a joke. She refuses any interviews or questions because she is clueless about the issues.

I don't expect to here her view any time soon, the McCain (read Bush) handlers will have her programed in a few days.

jared81
09-08-2008, 12:21 PM
If Palin has any influence on the polls it just goes to show how stupid some americans are.

The lady is a joke. She refuses any interviews or questions because she is clueless about the issues.

I don't expect to here her view any time soon, the McCain (read Bush) handlers will have her programed in a few days.


why dont you enlighten me on the tough interviews obama has done or even his platform (and dont say change). the first tough interview he has done was this past weekend, and with oreilly this week. hes been running for president for over a year, and the toughest questions hes had, were on "the view":lol:.

ohall
09-08-2008, 12:30 PM
If Palin has any influence on the polls it just goes to show how stupid some americans are.

The lady is a joke. She refuses any interviews or questions because she is clueless about the issues.

I don't expect to here her view any time soon, the McCain (read Bush) handlers will have her programed in a few days.

Hey it takes a redneck to appreciate a redneck. I think she's cool beans. I mean how else do you explain why she is more popular than Obama right now?

The redneck comment was directed at myself by the way.

Also she has agreed to do a ABC interview so save the she is scared to do interviews DEM talking point.

Dolphins9954
09-08-2008, 07:06 PM
After all the tens of millions (if not over 100 million) that both parties spent on their conventions. Not to mention the 100 million that was spent on the Fascist Paramilitary Security Forces. Which the taxpayer paid for. Both candidates are exactly where they were before the conventions. TIED!!!! Can you say waste of money and loss of liberties? We sure have alot to look forward to this November. I think the time has come to scale back these conventions dramatically. And stop wasting so much money. Actually we need to do that with the whole entire government period.

jared81
09-08-2008, 07:14 PM
After all the tens of millions (if not over 100 million) that both parties spent on their conventions. Not to mention the 100 million that was spent on the Fascist Paramilitary Security Forces. Which the taxpayer paid for. Both candidates are exactly where they were before the conventions. TIED!!!! Can you say waste of money and loss of liberties? We sure have alot to look forward to this November. I think the time has come to scale back these conventions dramatically. And stop wasting so much money. Actually we need to do that with the whole entire government period.

so are you trying to say that protesters should be allowed inside the convention threatening people? i saw protesters breaking windows, and throwing over cars and setting fires......looks to me like they are the problem.......oh i forgot, being an anarchist is cool

milldog
09-08-2008, 07:15 PM
Here we go again with the polls topic. I'll copy and paste my previous posting regarding polls...well, never mind.

BTW Wayward...you were the only one that brought up the electoral college poll...I saw it this morning on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

250 vs 237 in favor of Obama...with 51 electoral votes up for grabs, to include 13 in Virginia in which Obama and McCain are in a dead heat.

Colorado with its 9 votes has Obama leading McCain by .4% points
Nevada with its 5 votes has McCain leading Obama by 1% point
Ohio with its bountiful 20 electoral votes show McCain leading Obama by .6% points
New Hampshire with it's symbolic 4 votes has Obama leading McCain by .3% points

As you can see by the map and the closeness of some of these states...and as I've said before...this election is going to be closer than most think. I wonder which state is going to be the one to watch this time. It was Florida in 2000...Ohio in 2004...I have a feeling this year it's going to be Virginia.

Stay tuned.

I sure hope it doesn't come down to Florida. You see the way we screwed up and lost some 3000 votes in a judicial election a week ago.

phinfan3411
09-08-2008, 07:16 PM
If Palin has any influence on the polls it just goes to show how stupid some americans are.

The lady is a joke. She refuses any interviews or questions because she is clueless about the issues.

I don't expect to here her view any time soon, the McCain (read Bush) handlers will have her programed in a few days.


I love to be called stupid by a person that does not know the difference between hear, and here.

It is honestly very amusing to me to see many liberals completely lose their cool as soon as things do not go their way.

I, on the other hand, am very used to my candidate losing, happens all the time.

BlueFin
09-08-2008, 07:40 PM
While I might agree with you, I think the uncovered new voters and younger voters who generally don't follow through will be a factor this year..and you're right the debates should be very important this year, even though I can't figure out why ppl would vote for somone who says he doesn't understand economics in a time we're having economic problems..and his team only propose more bush..that doesn't make sense to me, if this guy doesn't understand, then why have him, it seem he and his economic advisers only offer more of what we have, and it's on his website..

Actually, if you remove money spent on fighting terror and war, Bush cut government spending and cut taxes very nicely.

Since the war is now winding down, I really don't think its valid for Libs to use that as an argument.

McCain is clearly not Bush, but I understand your following the democratic talking points.

Dolphins9954
09-08-2008, 07:40 PM
so are you trying to say that protesters should be allowed inside the convention threatening people? i saw protesters breaking windows, and throwing over cars and setting fires......looks to me like they are the problem.......oh i forgot, being an anarchist is cool


No I'm trying to say that we need a government and candidates that don't waste tons of money and violate the Constitution. That would be the cool thing to do. Don't you think?

BlueFin
09-08-2008, 07:48 PM
If Palin has any influence on the polls it just goes to show how stupid some americans are.

The lady is a joke. She refuses any interviews or questions because she is clueless about the issues.

I don't expect to here her view any time soon, the McCain (read Bush) handlers will have her programed in a few days.

I'll make a deal with you, you stop calling supporters of Palin stupid, and I'll make sure nobody calls you stupid for supporting a candidate thats never held an executive position, only been a US Senator for about two years, and in that time failed to write any legislation or "change" anything, but he did manage to write two books about himself.

Ok?

jared81
09-08-2008, 07:50 PM
No I'm trying to say that we need a government and candidates that don't waste tons of money and violate the Constitution. That would be the cool thing to do. Don't you think?


good point.....im the 1st person to say that we need to cut all spending, but i do believe that having conventions is a good way for the majority of americans to see the potential canidates they can choose. i do however, think that it needs to be paid for by the parties, and not by taxpayers

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 08:31 PM
I'll make a deal with you, you stop calling supporters of Palin stupid, and I'll make sure nobody calls you stupid for supporting a candidate thats never held an executive position, only been a US Senator for about two years, and in that time failed to write any legislation or "change" anything, but he did manage to write two books about himself.

Ok?
Mr. 772 - Take the Deal!:up:

Mr772
09-08-2008, 10:18 PM
I'll make a deal with you, you stop calling supporters of Palin stupid, and I'll make sure nobody calls you stupid for supporting a candidate thats never held an executive position, only been a US Senator for about two years, and in that time failed to write any legislation or "change" anything, but he did manage to write two books about himself.

Ok?

First you need to find a post where I said anything that supported this so called candidate. (good luck with that)

I liked McCain much more before he made a desperate pick for VP. It only shows his weakness within the party. He was over ruled on picking a VP of his own so he picks a lousy VP solely on her abortion stance (pathetic). Anyone who thinks she is a great pick for VP is a party line head case.

Oh by the way, Bush held an executive position before being elected to office which is proof that being a governor of a state has absolutely no bearing on who would make a better president. I see you are just part of the Carl Rove brain washing, wake up and think for yourself.

I bash bush on a regular basis and anyone who defends him shows they are more about "the party" than our nation. I have never promoted anyone that you have mentioned.

ohall
09-09-2008, 12:42 AM
First you need to find a post where I said anything that supported this so called candidate. (good luck with that)

I liked McCain much more before he made a desperate pick for VP. It only shows his weakness within the party. He was over ruled on picking a VP of his own so he picks a lousy VP solely on her abortion stance (pathetic). Anyone who thinks she is a great pick for VP is a party line head case.

Oh by the way, Bush held an executive position before being elected to office which is proof that being a governor of a state has absolutely no bearing on who would make a better president. I see you are just part of the Carl Rove brain washing, wake up and think for yourself.

I bash bush on a regular basis and anyone who defends him shows they are more about "the party" than our nation. I have never promoted anyone that you have mentioned.

I defend him because I agreed with his decision to free Iraq. I respect the troops and I'd hate for the LIB's to recreate another Vietnam.

Say what you want about Bush, in these times his approval rating is not as bad as some may think. Congress can't get out of the single digits, and both of our candidates running for President throw a party if they are over 50% in a poll.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 01:45 AM
I defend him because I agreed with his decision to free Iraq. I respect the troops and I'd hate for the LIB's to recreate another Vietnam.

Say what you want about Bush, in these times his approval rating is not as bad as some may think. Congress can't get out of the single digits, and both of our candidates running for President throw a party if they are over 50% in a poll.

You are so blind to the facts that you freely admit that you like to be lied to and led into a war under false pretense, as well as like the idea of our own country men loosing their lives for Bush lies??? You respect the troops so much you would have you're president send them into a meaningless war to have them lay down their life for Iraq's people?

With your philosophy I guess you want us to invade China next then Burma then who? So we can free all the people of the world right???

Bush told you we need to invade Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction that they were hiding, just remember that.

I know Bush changed the reasons 5 different times after we all found out there were no weapons but you don't have to buy every one of them hook line and sinker.

Bush is a war monger who was quick to war for no reason.

Real conservative don't spend 10 billion dollars plus a year and risk American's lives to free other countries because it makes them feel good.

The_Dark_Knight
09-09-2008, 07:41 AM
First you need to find a post where I said anything that supported this so called candidate.(good luck with that)

I liked McCain much more before he made a desperate pick for VP. It only shows his weakness within the party. He was over ruled on picking a VP of his own so he picks a lousy VP solely on her abortion stance (pathetic). Anyone who thinks she is a great pick for VP is a party line head case.

Oh by the way, Bush held an executive position before being elected to office which is proof that being a governor of a state has absolutely no bearing on who would make a better president. I see you are just part of the Carl Rove brain washing, wake up and think for yourself.

I bash bush on a regular basis and anyone who defends him shows they are more about "the party" than our nation. I have never promoted anyone that you have mentioned.
Yes, President Bush was a governor, as was...
President Bill Clinton
President Ronald Reagan
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
President Herbert Hoover

Pundits at the time were excrutiatingly critical of them, but history has been MUCH MUCH kinder.

Just because someone supports someone that you oppose, or even worse..despise, doesn't mean they've fallen under anyone's spell. You know, most people here DO think for themselves. I just find it ironic how if someone supports a conservative candidate, how some have to resort to juvenile negative name calling and labeling.

That doesn't raise the level of an argument, it only lowers credibility.

poornate
09-09-2008, 07:54 AM
I'll make a deal with you, you stop calling supporters of Palin stupid, and I'll make sure nobody calls you stupid for supporting a candidate thats never held an executive position, only been a US Senator for about two years, and in that time failed to write any legislation or "change" anything, but he did manage to write two books about himself.

Ok?

Why is there this new venom about serving your community and being intelligent enough to author books? These are wonderful traits if you ask me... i understand that you don't like Obama, but I don't understand this line of criticism.

As for Palin... With th exception of a few "labelmakers" in the PoFo... I hope I am recognized as making decisions based on a lot of information. I am not a member of a party and think for myself. I am sold on Obama in this election, but definitely put a lot of thought into who I was backing and why... But if you want to know why a lot of people contend that supporting McCain at this point is stupid? Well... i honestly am mystified how anyone can still be in his camp who actually looks at the big picture... She is a danger to our country... I will say this again... Do you feel like she can step in a and be president of the United States today? No? Well that is the criteria by which a Veep should be selected... McCain sold our country down the river to feed his political ambition... I am really disappointed in him...

Mr772
09-09-2008, 09:01 AM
Yes, President Bush was a governor, as was...
President Bill Clinton
President Ronald Reagan
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
President Herbert Hoover

Pundits at the time were excrutiatingly critical of them, but history has been MUCH MUCH kinder.

Just because someone supports someone that you oppose, or even worse..despise, doesn't mean they've fallen under anyone's spell. You know, most people here DO think for themselves. I just find it ironic how if someone supports a conservative candidate, how some have to resort to juvenile negative name calling and labeling.

That doesn't raise the level of an argument, it only lowers credibility.


Reciting talking point lies made up by the Bush administration verbatim sure does make a case for more than a few people looking like they are deep under the spell. Half the arguments I see start and end with a Rush Limbaugh talking point. Just like this whole worthless experience debate.

Your bias runs deep, you fail to even recognize that no matter if your right or left both sides resort to name calling and labeling, the way you preach it it's a one way street. We all know that is far from the truth.

How history portrays a president has no point in my argument that experience as a governor has no bearing on how one will lead or fail to lead a nation.

ohall
09-09-2008, 01:49 PM
You are so blind to the facts that you freely admit that you like to be lied to and led into a war under false pretense, as well as like the idea of our own country men loosing their lives for Bush lies??? You respect the troops so much you would have you're president send them into a meaningless war to have them lay down their life for Iraq's people?

With your philosophy I guess you want us to invade China next then Burma then who? So we can free all the people of the world right???

Bush told you we need to invade Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction that they were hiding, just remember that.

I know Bush changed the reasons 5 different times after we all found out there were no weapons but you don't have to buy every one of them hook line and sinker.

Bush is a war monger who was quick to war for no reason.

Real conservative don't spend 10 billion dollars plus a year and risk American's lives to free other countries because it makes them feel good.

If we were lied to we were lied to be all of our government. If you chose to blame Bush alone that only shows how biased you are my friend.

I don't think we were lied to. I think France and Russia did their job very well in the UN in delaying our invasion.

And please don't tell me what real CON's would do. You wouldn't know a thing about that.

I suggest you go an look up Kerry's, the Clinton's and Al Gores public stance regarding Iraq pre-invasion. When you do that get back to me ok?

The_Dark_Knight
09-09-2008, 02:23 PM
Reciting talking point lies made up by the Bush administration verbatim sure does make a case for more than a few people looking like they are deep under the spell. Half the arguments I see start and end with a Rush Limbaugh talking point. Just like this whole worthless experience debate.

Your bias runs deep, you fail to even recognize that no matter if your right or left both sides resort to name calling and labeling, the way you preach it it's a one way street. We all know that is far from the truth.

How history portrays a president has no point in my argument that experience as a governor has no bearing on how one will lead or fail to lead a nation.
EXCUSE ME??????? Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am. I suggest, being fairly new to the forum you get to learn who the posters are before making such bold statements. I don't have bias...I have the TRUTH and the truth is sometimes a painful thing to be reminded of as it shatters pundit's utopian fantasy and brings them back to reality. But I can unequivacably say that the posts you have posted since you've join this forum are borderline FAR left and you have been frequently insulting of those conservative or conservative minded.

And just so you know. A lie is only a lie when one can prove intentional deception. If that can't be demonstrated, then all you have is incompetence...and I can find incompetence in our lawmakers on BOTH sides of the aisle.

poornate
09-09-2008, 02:48 PM
EXCUSE ME??????? Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am. I suggest, being fairly new to the forum you get to learn who the posters are before making such bold statements. I don't have bias...I have the TRUTH and the truth is sometimes a painful thing to be reminded of as it shatters pundit's utopian fantasy and brings them back to reality. But I can unequivacably say that the posts you have posted since you've join this forum are borderline FAR left and you have been frequently insulting of those conservative or conservative minded.

And just so you know. A lie is only a lie when one can prove intentional deception. If that can't be demonstrated, then all you have is incompetence...and I can find incompetence in our lawmakers on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Aaaahhh... did that slake your thirst DK?

:lol:

Mr772
09-09-2008, 05:50 PM
EXCUSE ME??????? Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am. I suggest, being fairly new to the forum you get to learn who the posters are before making such bold statements. I don't have bias...I have the TRUTH and the truth is sometimes a painful thing to be reminded of as it shatters pundit's utopian fantasy and brings them back to reality. But I can unequivacably say that the posts you have posted since you've join this forum are borderline FAR left and you have been frequently insulting of those conservative or conservative minded.

And just so you know. A lie is only a lie when one can prove intentional deception. If that can't be demonstrated, then all you have is incompetence...and I can find incompetence in our lawmakers on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Settle down, no need to yell. When insults become the by product of the truth I cannot be faulted. So when has disagreement with Bush become FAR left? One step from right to left leaves me in utter disagreement with Bush's fear tactics.

I never said there wasn't enough fault to go around both sides of the isle but you Sir, specifically referenced only those that are of the left mind resort to name calling and insults when conservative's do the same thing, thus my bias remark it was pointed to a specific post you made and I stand by it.

"Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am." This statement goes both ways. Yet you elude that my repute of Bush policy makes me borderline far left?

Sir the truth is on my side as well. Tis a shame we do not know it all since most of it has been shrouded in secrecy behind the corruption of the closed door bush administration. Refusals to testify in hearings and total disregard for the constitution seems to be the norm for Bush cronies. Maybe we should just call him King George.

And just so you know, the reason Colin Powell resigned is because he didn't like being lied to and used by the Bush administration. And yes it was very much intentional.

ohall
09-09-2008, 07:54 PM
Settle down, no need to yell. When insults become the by product of the truth I cannot be faulted. So when has disagreement with Bush become FAR left? One step from right to left leaves me in utter disagreement with Bush's fear tactics.

I never said there wasn't enough fault to go around both sides of the isle but you Sir, specifically referenced only those that are of the left mind resort to name calling and insults when conservative's do the same thing, thus my bias remark it was pointed to a specific post you made and I stand by it.

"Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am." This statement goes both ways. Yet you elude that my repute of Bush policy makes me borderline far left?

Sir the truth is on my side as well. Tis a shame we do not know it all since most of it has been shrouded in secrecy behind the corruption of the closed door bush administration. Refusals to testify in hearings and total disregard for the constitution seems to be the norm for Bush cronies. Maybe we should just call him King George.

And just so you know, the reason Colin Powell resigned is because he didn't like being lied to and used by the Bush administration. And yes it was very much intentional.

OK please, this you have to expand on.

Blackocrates
09-09-2008, 08:17 PM
I don't have bias...I have the TRUTH and the truth is sometimes a painful thing to be reminded of as it shatters pundit's utopian fantasy and brings them back to reality.


Come on TDK as you like to say, let's keep it real. You have a conservative bias, I have a liberal bias. Every poster on here has a bias. The truth in your eyes are at times lies in others.

Mr772
09-09-2008, 11:23 PM
OK please, this you have to expand on.

OK here it comes:

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the opposing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of “mushroom clouds” over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

“The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons,” said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. “Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.”

Some of the major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim—later found to be based on forged documents—that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the administration as bogus before the president’s speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA.

Later Powell confesses that the Bush administration was pushing the aluminum tube argument relentlessly and Cheney went with that argument instead of what Powell’s own staff wrote. He criticized Bush’s State of the U speech saying that it was a big mistake. Powell said he didn’t need Wilson to tell them there wasn’t a Niger connection because his staff already knew there wasn’t a connection.

Bush/Cheney had an agenda and ignored the facts and hid them from the American people Powell saw this all this first hand.

Here is a link for the quotes of the INR report I know someone will try to blame the liberal media without this link. (You should like it though it has some Fox News quotes in it.) It's interesting the differences between the classified findings and the bush/cheney admin massaged version that was released as a white paper. To you the American people I submit (although this is really not new information) Just more deception from our lying administration.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

ohall
09-09-2008, 11:31 PM
OK here it comes:

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the opposing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of “mushroom clouds” over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

“The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons,” said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. “Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.”

Some of the major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim—later found to be based on forged documents—that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the administration as bogus before the president’s speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA.

Later Powell confesses that the Bush administration was pushing the aluminum tube argument relentlessly and Cheney went with that argument instead of what Powell’s own staff wrote. He criticized Bush’s State of the U speech saying that it was a big mistake. Powell said he didn’t need Wilson to tell them there wasn’t a Niger connection because his staff already knew there wasn’t a connection.

Bush/Cheney had an agenda and ignored the facts and hid them from the American people Powell saw this all this first hand.

Here is a link for the quotes of the INR report I know someone will try to blame the liberal media without this link. (You should like it though it has some Fox News quotes in it.) It's interesting the differences between the classified findings and the bush/cheney admin massaged version that was released as a white paper. To you the American people I submit (although this is really not new information) Just more deception from our lying administration.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

I have no issue with that. That is why we vote for a President. We ask them to listen to all sides and all the data at hand and make a decision based on that data. You have to ignore some data, that IMO would be obvious to anyone. God I hope it is!

It is not the President's job to inform the public of all the data at hand. That would be an idiotic move for any President to make. I can't believe anyone would actually think any President would go there. It's quite a scary thought to me in fact. It would be idiotic for a president to not frame his reasons for wanting to go to war.

20/20 hindsight thinking IMO is simply lazy. I won't partake. I will listen to what we find out after fact and try from learn from it. However I have lived enough to know things always look a little different after the fact. That doesn't make your decision at the time any less correct.

My issue is with the left who uses reality to politicize the Iraq issue. They act as if when we have gone to war in the past we have always gone with 100% agreement to go to war. There were ppl who said we shouldn't have gone into WWII for goodness sakes.

FYI I see nothing in there that proves why Mr. Powell left the Bush Admin for the reason you say he did. I see opinion based on very weak evidence. That is your right, but it doesn't make it a fact either.

Mr772
09-10-2008, 12:11 AM
I have no issue with that. That is why we vote for a President. We ask them to listen to all sides and all the data at hand and make a decision based on that data. You have to ignore some data, that IMO would be obvious to anyone. God I hope it is!

It is not the President's job to inform the public of all the data at hand. That would be an idiotic move for any President to make. I can't believe anyone would actually think any President would go there. It's quite a scary thought to me in fact. It would be idiotic for a president to not frame his reasons for wanting to go to war.

20/20 hindsight thinking IMO is simply lazy. I won't partake. I will listen to what we find out after fact and try from learn from it. However I have lived enough to know things always look a little different after the fact. That doesn't make your decision at the time any less correct.

My issue is with the left who uses reality to politicize the Iraq issue. They act as if when we have gone to war in the past we have always gone with 100% agreement to go to war. There were ppl who said we shouldn't have gone into WWII for goodness sakes.

FYI I see nothing in there that proves why Mr. Powell left the Bush Admin for the reason you say he did. I see opinion based on very weak evidence. That is your right, but it doesn't make it a fact either.

Once again a false gesture of empirical evidenced facts that I never claimed. Is it to much to expect a little common sense to go along with the prevailing consensus of the day.

A few things to think about here; Bush ignored hard solid intelligence, neglected to inform congress of it, and pretty much made up his own reasons to go to war that directly contradicted the best information he was given. You make assumptions in other posts that Dems and Reps were for this war but you fail to acknowledge that Bush withheld information from them. That part is a fact, (I know you love those facts) and it's in more than one report.

The difference between your argument and mine is I presented evidence and elaborated with some opinion you only offer opinions.

All it takes is very little research to see Powell was in strong objection to Bush policies, how many dots does it take to draw a logical conclusion?

"General Powell said that he had “never seen evidence to suggest” a connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the regime of Saddam Hussein, unlike Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who has made such a claim."

If I'm not explaining this clearly enough maybe its my fault, to make up for it maybe I can get you a seat on the annual Cheney hunting trip.;)

ohall
09-10-2008, 12:16 AM
Once again a false gesture of empirical evidenced facts that I never claimed. Is it to much to expect a little common sense to go along with the prevailing consensus of the day.

A few things to think about here; Bush ignored hard solid intelligence, neglected to inform congress of it, and pretty much made up his own reasons to go to war that directly contradicted the best information he was given. You make assumptions in other posts that Dems and Reps were for this war but you fail to acknowledge that Bush withheld information from them. That part is a fact, (I know you love those facts) and it's in more than one report.

The difference between your argument and mine is I presented evidence and elaborated with some opinion you only offer opinions.

All it takes is very little research to see Powell was in strong objection to Bush policies, how many dots does it take to draw a logical conclusion?

"General Powell said that he had “never seen evidence to suggest” a connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the regime of Saddam Hussein, unlike Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who has made such a claim."

If I'm not explaining this clearly enough maybe its my fault, to make up for it maybe I can get you a seat on the annual Cheney hunting trip.;)

I suggest you look up the meaning of what a lie is.

Mr772
09-10-2008, 12:20 AM
I suggest you look up the meaning of what a lie is.

This is the best you can do? :foundout:

ohall
09-10-2008, 12:30 AM
This is the best you can do? :foundout:

Do about what?

It's obvious you have no idea what you are going on about. You spew opinions as facts. Opinions are not facts. I tried to help you. Go look up the word "LIE" That, if you're honest with yourself should help a lot!

The_Dark_Knight
09-10-2008, 06:49 AM
Aaaahhh... did that slake your thirst DK?

:lol:
OK, I know it's only 5 letters, but don't use big words like "slake". I had to look it up!! :lol: You KNOW I are simple person! :tongue:

And yes...that did QUENCH my thirst! :beer1:

The_Dark_Knight
09-10-2008, 07:04 AM
Settle down, no need to yell. When insults become the by product of the truth I cannot be faulted. So when has disagreement with Bush become FAR left? One step from right to left leaves me in utter disagreement with Bush's fear tactics.

I never said there wasn't enough fault to go around both sides of the isle but you Sir, specifically referenced only those that are of the left mind resort to name calling and insults when conservative's do the same thing, thus my bias remark it was pointed to a specific post you made and I stand by it.

"Sir, you have NO IDEA who I am." This statement goes both ways. Yet you elude that my repute of Bush policy makes me borderline far left?

Sir the truth is on my side as well. Tis a shame we do not know it all since most of it has been shrouded in secrecy behind the corruption of the closed door bush administration. Refusals to testify in hearings and total disregard for the constitution seems to be the norm for Bush cronies. Maybe we should just call him King George.

And just so you know, the reason Colin Powell resigned is because he didn't like being lied to and used by the Bush administration. And yes it was very much intentional.
Yes sir you can be faulted. You can have debate without resorting to insult. MDFINFAN and I do it ALL of the time. He and I both know we form our opinons based on facts and although we may not agree, we never insult each other and I don't ever recall him insulting those of the conservative persuasion nor write juvenile quips which add nothing to the arguement. I endeavor to do the same.

Disagreeing with the President does not constitute being far left however labeling those who agree with conservative politics as "Rove minions" or "Bush cronies" insults the intelligence of individuals who form their OWN opinions based on their OWN values and beliefs and what they hold to be true. Not everyone in the world is a lemming.

Now, in regards to your last paragraph, can you provide a link from ANYTHING of the former Secretary of State in which he states he KNOWS the President lied and can prove it? Anything at all? If you can, I'll entertain it. If not, I can only chalk it up as yet another person disgruntled and merely repeating what has been alleged, yet not proven. Anything at all????

And of course, Common Sense 101 dictates that if there was evidence...ANY evidence and not mere speculation the President LIED, that would be grounds for impeachment...least charge of all being Treason.

poornate
09-10-2008, 07:18 AM
OK, I know it's only 5 letters, but don't use big words like "slake". I had to look it up!! :lol: You KNOW I are simple person! :tongue:

And yes...that did QUENCH my thirst! :beer1:

There is no way you can use "slake" to accuse me of being sesquipedalian. :lol:

The_Dark_Knight
09-10-2008, 07:48 AM
Come on TDK as you like to say, let's keep it real. You have a conservative bias, I have a liberal bias. Every poster on here has a bias. The truth in your eyes are at times lies in others.
I've never claimed not to hold any conservative ideals. I've always described myself as conservative leaning independent, but that doesn't change the fact that the truth is the truth. There's no such thing as two spearate truths.

Mr772
09-10-2008, 05:17 PM
I've never claimed not to hold any conservative ideals. I've always described myself as conservative leaning independent, but that doesn't change the fact that the truth is the truth. There's no such thing as two spearate truths.


Your own words: "I don't have bias"

You say to different things and claim to have the truth. Are those your seperate truths that don't exist?

I would describe myself as conservative leaning populist. I don't think our fundamental views are that different but there is wide gap on our views of the extreme right wing politics of the last 7 years. And yes Palin and her book banning views are extreme.

The_Dark_Knight
09-11-2008, 07:32 AM
Your own words: "I don't have bias"

You say to different things and claim to have the truth. Are those your seperate truths that don't exist?

I would describe myself as conservative leaning populist. I don't think our fundamental views are that different but there is wide gap on our views of the extreme right wing politics of the last 7 years. And yes Palin and her book banning views are extreme.
CBS news already debunked the story as not being true 772. :rolleyes2:

The truth is the truth...whether I like it or not. And as for my views of the extreme right wing politics over the last seven years...you have no idea what my views over the last 7 years are and you're already making this assumption? :sidelol:

poornate
09-11-2008, 07:41 AM
CBS news already debunked the story as not being ....


They have debunked the list of books... but not the fact that she inquired about banning books... it speaks to her mindset...

Clipse
09-11-2008, 08:27 AM
Hmm. Just noticing all the Virginia Finheaveners live in the Political forum.

poornate
09-11-2008, 08:33 AM
I think from VA i'm the only one... MD is in, well, MD... which is a lot closer to me than the Noke...

Mr772
09-11-2008, 09:40 AM
I'm in Charlottesville, VA Originally from Smith Mountain Lake, just outside of Roanoke and I have lived in Richmond as well.

I think VA is going to play as key state in the upcomming election.

poornate
09-11-2008, 09:57 AM
I'm in Charlottesville, VA Originally from Smith Mountain Lake, just outside of Roanoke and I have lived in Richmond as well.

I think VA is going to play as key state in the upcomming election.

You're like an hour from me... some of my best friends live in C'ville... I think that outside of Ohio perhaps, VA is the most important state going forward... i know i am hard at work supporting my values and beliefs about what the nation needs...