Yeds, but you haven't given it a chance here, lol. I don't want to be king forever...

I want three to five years of unfettered access to legislative and executive power, as long as said power does not take any permanent power from the constitution. I just want to make legislation and pass laws that cannot be repealed by a liberal pres or congress for ten years, then have at it. And after my tenure as dictator/king, you can have your democracy back, if you even want it.

No theocracy, no totolitarianism, just a real, sensible plan for putting us back where we need to be. Bush is on the way to putting us where we need to be, but the Congress is going to hold too much back, and pundits and advisors are talking him out of too much and making him too soft on some key issues.

(personally, if I thought OBL was really in Tora Bora, I'd have dropped a nuke.)

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
Yeds, but you haven't given it a chance here, lol. I don't want to be king forever...

I want three to five years of unfettered access to legislative and executive power, as long as said power does not take any permanent power from the constitution. I just want to make legislation and pass laws that cannot be repealed by a liberal pres or congress for ten years, then have at it. And after my tenure as dictator/king, you can have your democracy back, if you even want it.

No theocracy, no totolitarianism, just a real, sensible plan for putting us back where we need to be. Bush is on the way to putting us where we need to be, but the Congress is going to hold too much back, and pundits and advisors are talking him out of too much and making him too soft on some key issues.

(personally, if I thought OBL was really in Tora Bora, I'd have dropped a nuke.)

I like your OBL plan that would have been great. Its not like that mountain was near any cites or towns it was in quite a remote area.

I guess a king wouldnt always be a bad thing but you really need a King that would serve the people and not grow drunk on power which often happens. A King like that of King Arthur that ruled with a fair and just hand to bad that King Arthur was never real.

Everlasting - where does America need to be? I will allow that America needs to be free to pursue its prosperity and happiness and play a good role in world affairs... but should America replace the UN?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by RANT
3 for 3 Baby!

Internet polls aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Wait till the scientific polls come out.

Really appreciate all the advice on how polls work from everyone. I didn't pick all that up in my career as a Marketing Research professional that specialized in transitioning traditional CATI to interactive and IVR polling methodologies.

Again I state from the political perspective: The flashes (though they are what they are) and worth a hell of a lot to your guy in the post debate spin game. There'll be no scientific non self selected polls for a while. Probably 72 hours. Until then, THIS is what the pundits repeat.

And Kerry's in the high 70's or 80's everywhere I'm looking.

He's doing the worst on FOXNEWS:

Who won Friday night's presidential debate?
a. President Bush
(30%)
19,553
b. Senator Kerry
(70%)
45,634
c. I did not watch
(0%)
204
d. None of the above
(0%)
138
65,529 total votes

But still leaving one heck of an impression when they repeat the numbers.

If none of this matters? Why are FReepers over at FR crying on their keyboards right now? Surely not just for my amusement?

Kerry Lost. He said simple and plain, Saddam would "not necessarily" still be in power. Yet he claims he is steady and unchanging in his position on Iraq. The guy is a limp liberal who needs a poll to brush his teeth.

He claims we should have let Weapons inspectors in Iraq do their job. guess what ... they did. NO WEAPONS. Now what John???? Saddam "not necessarily" would still be in power, yet John is Resolute in his stance on Iraq.

Originally posted by RANT
Really appreciate all the advice on how polls work from everyone. I didn't pick all that up in my career as a Marketing Research professional that specialized in transitioning traditional CATI to interactive and IVR polling methodologies.

Clipboard at a mall? (I started running before I even posted this)

Seriously, any online poll is a "canine calling card", if I was going to my put stock in one, it would be worldnetdaily.com's (Bush is at 81%), but that's just me.

worldnetdaily.com's poll
If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
George W. Bush – Republican 81.01% (8075)


Michael A. Peroutka – Constitution 7.33% (731)


Michael J. Badnarik – Libertarian 5.40% (538)


I'm not voting for anyone – I'm voting against Kerry 2.81% (280)


John F. Kerry – Democrat 1.63% (162)


No one – I'm so frustrated, I'm not voting for president 0.86% (86)


I'm not voting for anyone – I'm voting against Bush 0.36% (36)


Ralph Nader – Independent 0.30% (30)


Other 0.26% (26)


David K. Cobb – Green 0.04% (4)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL VOTES: 9968

Something just seems to be amiss, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

Low Blow Monkeys, not just for political debate anymore...

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by RANT
Really appreciate all the advice on how polls work from everyone. I didn't pick all that up in my career as a Marketing Research professional that specialized in transitioning traditional CATI to interactive and IVR polling methodologies.

Clipboard at a mall? (I started running before I even posted this)

Never once thank God. Not even in the early years. And refused to field 'em, passed on every bid (wait)... okay, never passed on a bid... but they payed dearly.

Low incidence tobacco? Sure. Hire a mall. You can screen smokers by smell.

Fox news just reported their poll results, they are as follows:

Approximately 179,000 votes
Kerry 62%
Bush 37%

Please keep in mind this is Fox, so if they say Kerry won. You can probably take it to the bank. My personal opinion, is that Bush did alot better then the first debate. He didn't stammer near as much, as the first debate. On the other hand. He sounded like he was yelling at the people in the audience. He still came across as VERY arrogant, again.

When he interrupted Charlie Gibson, I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone! He reminds me of the guy on Lost, who was fighting the Iraqi guy on the island because he was a "terrorist". Then when the fight was broken up, started yelling at everyone else around. Bush doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks. Who he attacks, etc.. I remember one shot of Bush that was a reaction shot, looking into his eyes. He literally looked like he couldn't see straight, he was so riled up. I actually had to concentrate on my own breathing while watching him, because I could feel his anxiety!

Kerry was a photo copy of the first debate. Relaxed, to the point. Much more presidential in nature. So while I do think Bush did better. It still wasn't much of a contest in my opinion. For the record once again, I am not a fan of either of these two candidates. But Kerry definately won, again.

Tom Sawyer

Bush made some interesting comments.

Our military is more facile.

There was an upstate 'lackawanna bust.' (I assume he meant Lackawanna County, which is a NE PA county he recently visited).

'It's about battling green eyeshades.' <----- WHAT THE HELL WAS HE TALKING ABOUT? This came after a question about fiscal policy and was totally out of the blue and left field.

He was asked a direct question. "Out of the thousands of decisions you've made, can you list three?" He could not.

Kerry was asked a direct question. "Can you look in the camera and say you will not raise taxes for those who make under $200k a year?" He looked in the camera and said just that.

I think Bush lost heavily. Actually, on every question he was body slammed repeatedly by Kerry.

Bush actually asked if he was out of time once. Well, that's what the green, red, and yellow light's for. A debator who asks if his time is up has not much to say.

When Kerry was asked about the tax question, he dragged it out for awhile and I thought he'd blow it by not addressing the question. Then he answered directly in the negative at the end of his time.

Bush only won one round and that was the abortion round. Every other round was owned solidly by Kerry.

Bush lasted about 15 minutes, and then just fell to pieces.

"Battling green eyeshades." My girlfriend had it Tivo'd and we rewatched that a few times. It was as if his brain misfired. That weird comment was totally out of the blue and makes no sense whatsoever.

"Wanna buy some wood?"

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

I guess a king wouldnt always be a bad thing but you really need a King that would serve the people and not grow drunk on power which often happens. A King like that of King Arthur that ruled with a fair and just hand to bad that King Arthur was never real.

There have been a few great leaders who were truly great. Only problem is they are more rare than diamonds.

I think Bush definitely did better than last week, although he could have done better. Kerry is palying his same old BS cards, "It was wrong to invade Iraq" and "I will make a better president."

I can say that. I want to know what Kerry wishes to do, instead of opposing Bush all the time. That's easy to do if a person hasn't got an agenda.

Originally posted by RANT
3 for 3 Baby!

Here you go RANT:

NOV. 3, 2004-BUSH/CHENEY: TWO for TWO

[edit on 9/10/04 by Intelearthling]

Technically, wouldn't that be 2 for 2? Or are you using some Bush fuzzy math?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
'It's about battling green eyeshades.' <----- WHAT THE HELL WAS HE TALKING ABOUT? This came after a question about fiscal policy and was totally out of the blue and left field.

Green eyeshades - It's a really, really, really old term for the shades accountants use to wear.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Technically, wouldn't that be 2 for 2? Or are you using some Bush fuzzy math?

I caught it as soon as I posted it!That one's on me!

Independent voter here would like to say that Bush was repeatedly body slammed every round, and only won one round, that was the abortion round. Every other round he had his ass resoundedly kicked, hard.

Who won? from cnn.com

President Bush 20% 61525 votes

John Kerry 78% 236047 votes

Evenly matched 2% 6559 votes
Total: 304131 votes




[edit on 9-10-2004 by taibunsuu]

Originally posted by taibunsuu
"We're talking battling green eyeshades." "Cops in upstate New York made a Lackawanna bust."
.

Lackawanna is in upstate New York near Buffalo.

A federal grand jury handed up indictments charging six Americans of Yemeni descent from the Buffalo suburb of Lackawanna with providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

I noted this a couple of posts ago - old term for the eyeshades accountants used to wear.

Have a good one.

Lackawanna sale. Checked it on Tivo.

Also the 'Battling green eye shades.'

Both of those were from left field and hard to apply immediately to a debate. Thanks for explanation.

Lackawanna County's next to my county of Luzerne in PA.

I think Kerry lost a few favorite son votes from Boston Red Sox fans with this line from the debate:

KERRY: Boy, to listen to that -- the president, I don't think, is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment.

Now, if you're a Red Sox fan, that's OK. But if you're a president, it's not.

It sounds to me like Kerry thinks that anybody who thinks the Red Sox can win the World Series isn't living in reality.

At least that's the way I'm going to spin it to some of my Democrat friends. That's all it will take to swing their vote.

Bush was on something. Some kind of upper did any of you notice how he couldn't even sit down! Now what that something was I have no idea.

[edit on 9-10-2004 by DiRtYDeViL]

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Bush was on something. Some kind of upper did any of you notice how he couldn't even sit down! Now what that something was I have no idea.

Oh, that's easy...he was eating John Kerry's lunch!