CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
7/27-29/08; 914 RV, 3%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviewer
Obama 51, McCain 44 (June: Obama 50, McCain 45)
Obama 46, McCain 42, Nader (i) 6, Barr (L) 3, McKinney (G) 1
Oh, but wait, I thought "Undecided" said that there was no bounce after the europe trip?
Posted on July 30, 2008 5:15 PM
Darn. Been breaking 50 in a few polls lately. Lead is still holding at 4% at least. What the heck is MSM going to talk about tomorrow? Surely not that JM does not speak for the JM Campaign?
Maybe they can cut up one of BO's speeches to make it sound like the opposite of what he said? Naw - that would be dishonest. There must be something...
Well they can always check in on how our troops are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq or those that have returned home. No? Not enough ratings?
I got it! A 3-part in-depth investigation into whether BO really is more popular than Britney in USA. Complete with montages of her and him in such close sequence it seems as if they are actually together. Slightly less dishonest than cutting and pasting a speech.
Posted on July 30, 2008 5:25 PM
I don't think that he hasn't had any bounce to be honest. All I have noticed is that things are very, very stable, almost no change in every major poll, except Gallup of course, since last month. I think people are mentally tired of the primaries and are not going to tune in until after the conventions. Good thing that the conventions start at the end of August!!!
Posted on July 30, 2008 5:34 PM
@TheVoice99: (99 instead of onelight?), if the numbers are nearly the same as they were in June then there is no bounce...The 1% diff is meaningless on this sample. Things are stable except that Nader seems to be increasing slightly.
Posted on July 30, 2008 6:21 PM
still waiting for the bounce from obama's tour.
I think if there will be one it will show by friday/saturday polling
Posted on July 30, 2008 6:41 PM
Careful with CNN polls. They are historically one of the least accurate of the "non-partisan" pollsters.
In addition, in recent elections the Democrat often leads the Republican in pre-convention polling because the Democratic party has more "activists". Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all lead there GOP opponents in pre-conventions polling and by semi-healthy margins. McCain and Obama are probably somewhere around 46 each...which is quite astonishing since this cycle heavily favors the Dems, Obama really should be ahead by 10-15 points. The fact that its close in pre-convention polling is not a good sign for Obama supporters, especially since the historical trend is for the GOP nominee to do much better in post convention polling.
Posted on July 30, 2008 6:43 PM
As for the bounce, I think that it has happened, but that it's just not observable when comparing today to a month ago. He got a bump after clinching the nomination, then he sank, now he's back up. Check the pollster national graph and you'll see what I mean.
This is the first poll I've seen where the third party inclusion hurts Obama.
I'm starting to think that Nader's childhood was spent ruining other kids' birthday parties, for the sake of gaining an ounce of self-righteous glory.
Posted on July 30, 2008 6:57 PM
"Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all lead there GOP opponents in pre-conventions polling and by semi-healthy margins." I really don't know what you mean by "semi-healthy margin," but in 2004 at the end of July when the Dem. primary had just taken place, Kerry was leading Bush by 2%, 47.5% to Bush 45.5%. I wouldn't call such lead nothing near healthy, 2% in so within the margin of error. To my surprise, I found that the only poll given Bush a 4% lead at the time was CNN, Bush 51% vs. Kerry 47%.
Sadly the country has become increasingly divided that races stay pretty stable, in line with party ideology. At the end, everything will depend on turnout, what party is more energize, and the beloved Independents.
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:01 PM
I meant at the end of July when the CONVENTION had just taken place. LOL!!!
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:02 PM
How about 2000 race? Remember Bush and Gore.
"Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all lead there GOP opponents in pre-conventions polling and by semi-healthy margins."
According to gallup/UsaToday, "A poll June 23-25 showed Bush with a dramatic 50%-38% lead." On July 18th, 2000 it was still "Bush leading Gore 45% to 43%."
"The survey also found that Gore was picking up support among traditional Democrats who have been tepid in their backing of the party's choice. Only 77% said they favored Gore last month; the figure rose to 86% in the new poll."
As time goes by, more and more party faithful rally around their nominee. They sort of "fall in line."
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:11 PM
You are both correct. I don't consider USA Today polls valid, but nevertheless you are correct. There are so many polls espeically since 2000 showing so many different things, its tough to keep accurate track. "Personally" I thought the mood was Gore ahead in summer of 2000, Kerry ahed in summer of 2004 and now Obama ahead in summer of 2008. I think we all agree though, they don't mean much until after the conventions. Both of them should get a small bounce from there VP picks which should wash out in the end, unless one of them goes nuts and picks Hugo Chevez or soemthing.
The country is very divided, 48/48 with about 4 who kind muddle and bounce back and forth. Not since Reagan in 1984 have we seen the country really united behind one man....Clinton never broke 50 in iehter of his wins.
These are crazy times and it should be one entertraining election of politcal junkies!
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:43 PM
there are many questions about this. but it is a poll so take it for what it's worth.
for one thing the number of undecideds has faded. sure it is a poll of exclusively registered voters so it's harder to ferret these slippery devils out. but they're there and cnn has failed to cull them.
also, it's summer. people are hot, they're outside, who cares about politics?
secondly, the poll of poll suggests a virtual tie if you scroll down. hey it's like asking a talking head on cnbc if this is a bear market and they answer, "yes, based on the recent action but i dont believe it's here to stay."
anyway, no major news here except the third parties nipping at the leader's heels which is weird.how do that many people even know about them. i couldnt pick them out of a line up or tell you who they are once i get up and move away from this url!
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:52 PM
Totally agree Stillow. In these days winning by 6% could be seen as a "landslice." How sad that the US has become so divided :-(
Posted on July 30, 2008 7:55 PM
I've had to repeat this a dozen times already. 6% popular vote win is a landslide. At 2% there is a 90% chance opf an electoral vote win, 3% is a 97% certainty. If a candidate leads by 6% on election day, he will have an electoral vote landslide of Kennedy proportions.
As for the country's division - sure we are. Despite the record deficit, the removal of longtime professionals in favor of political appointees in every area of government, the crash of the housing market, the attacks of 9-11 despite all the warnings, the destruction of the US Constitution, New Orleans, torture, 4,000+ of America's best and brightest killed in an unneccessary war we were lied to about - DESPITE ALL THIS - Bush still has an approval rating hovering between 25-35%. Think about the population of this country and how many people that really is, that will readily say - "Oh George, yeah, he's doing a great job."
As for the earliness of polls - there is some truth, but not the same as 4, 8 or 12 years ago. Look at what we're doing now, (blogging)without a thought. Look at the number of Obama searches on Google (fivethirtyeight.com discussion this afternoon. People are not only engaged, they are educating themselves to an extent not before seen. I don't think you will need to wait long to know what is happening in the race. The OH poll following the first debate.
Posted on July 30, 2008 8:42 PM
Exactly. We live in a relatively dumb and uninformed country. I doubt someone like Bush would have been elected in any other nation (perhaps as a dictator through force in a third world nation or a monarch of some sort - but even then those types are usually somewhat educated/intelligent).
It really has to do with religiosity and that effect. In most educated and advanced countries, religion doesn't counteract science like it does here. A foreign leader would never question science and defer to religion like Bush. Evangelicals don't have a huge say in other countries like they do here. That is part of the Republican problem - they are on the side of ignorance and religious fundamentalism. The problem is the young are coming out more and more informed, turning the tide on evangelical/Christian zealotry. 2008 will be a continuation of the movement that started after 2004 in response to Bush - you saw the effect in 2006, and you'll see it in 2008, and most especially in 2010 and 2012.
Taking credit for this awakening is (in part) the internet, as it becomes difficult for the truly ignorant to stay that way. When the rest of the world openly mocks you and your country, you begin to realize that they may have a point, or at least you may ask why they do so. Those that don't are, well, part of the 26% that still support Bush and/or refuse to use the internet for nothing other than porn and fox news.
Of course there are still large numbers in certain areas that still think evolution is a myth, that the world was created in 7 days, that global warming may be a good thing, that offshore drilling is the answer to high gas prices, that the Iraq war was a good idea, that blacks are subhumans, etc etc. And so, is it any surprise that McCain is getting 40% in most polls? An educated, highly intelligent population doesn't choose to vote for someone like McCain or the republican brand.
The numbers from Europe showing Obama winning by ridiculous margins (80-10 in some cases) demonstrates this quie effectively. There are certainly conservatives throughout Europe, and they support Obama as well. Why? Because conservatism here has become convoluted and untrue to its origins. When you are on the side of record budget deficits, "kill first, ask questions later" foreign policy, anti-science religious zealotry, then you aren't really conservative anyway. Some conservatives here just don't realize how ludicrous and demented the republican party has become. Kinda sad really.....
Posted on July 30, 2008 9:44 PM
Republicans are "ludicrous"? yes we can look to "ludicrous" (Obama's Ipod fav and buddy) for Obama's opinion of Hillary, Bush, McCain, and a lot of Americans. Great song. I look forward to hearing it in October in a swift boat loop.
Posted on July 30, 2008 11:29 PM
FYI... I noted that the polls said that Obama was LOSING HIS BOUNCE after the overseas trip... I in fact agreed there was a Berlin Bounce.
Since these are REGISTERED voters it would be fair to make a generalized comparison of this poll with the July 27-29 Gallup Daily Tracking results which is also RV... Obama/McCain
July 27 = 48/40
July 28 = 47/41
July 29 = 46/42
Notably the CNN poll sampling error puts it within the ballpark of the Gallup Daily Tracking results.
P.S. Of course a bounce can not be discerned except in more frequent polls. Monthly does not work in these cases.
Posted on July 30, 2008 11:37 PM
Ludacris sure belted out a heck of a song in favor of Obama. Reminds me of Reverend Wright dialogue. With Obama friends and supporters like Ludacris and Wright, the GOP does not need to go negative. The work has been done for them... and it is all conveniently recorded and available on DVD, CD, and download.
Posted on July 30, 2008 11:51 PM
A point that needs to be mentioned is the "undecided" voters.
Typically, you'll have anywhere from 4 to 12 percent of poll respondents "undecided". And that will continue right up to the weekend before the election.
Historically, the undecided crowd tends to break in favor of the opposition. Since the Democratic party is the "opposition" in the presidential race, a tie or a 1 to 2 point lead in the polls for McCain would be bad news for him, depending on the number of undecideds.
Or, to put it in a little different wording, McCain needs to be leading in the polls by at least 3 percentage points nationally, to offset the expected movement of undecideds toward Obama.
Posted on July 31, 2008 12:48 AM
From your comments I presume you lean left. I am always amazed how the left compares us with other countries and assumes we must be doing something wrong because we are not more like them. The rejecting science comment also amazes me, I assume you are referring to many on the Right accepting creationism. I know many on the left think its obsird to hold htat viewpoint. I however think the opposite. I find it “insane” to think the Universe was just a small ball of matter the size of a softball which just happened to show up one day….and then for no reason just decided to blow up and then for no reason create allthe particles of life and then for no reason create enrgy, etc, etc. The only thing that makes sense is that some “intelligent” creation was at hand. Someone or something had to create this ball of matter that just decided to explode. Science still has no explanation of what makes up the human soul, why do we possess intelligence, why do we possess self awareness. I simply cannot accept that one day a chunk of energy just appeared out of total nothingness and decided to blow up leading all the way to the 2008 election on this tiny planet.
And why does the left constantly require us to be beholden to other countries cultures? The US is by far the greatest force of good and decency in the history of the world. If you were to give our power to China, Russia, Iran, etc, the world would be a much different place. And these European countries, while they are our cousins have no room to talk down to us. We have saved there skins on numerous occasions. It was us who saved Europe and the world from the Nazi’s. Had we not intervened people of Obama’s color probably would have been exterminated by now. It was us who deployed our evil missiles in Europse to stop the advance of the Soviets. It was strong military minded presidents like JFK and Reagan who stood up the red army and eventually defeated them. The world should look up to us for the sacrifises we make for it. It aggrivtes me as an American to know that much of the world spits on us for our sacrisfises, my grandfather who fought in WW2 use d to tell me stories about it……..America is a great place, yes we have problems, but we should not look to other countries on how to run our society, because the way we do run it has led to us being the most powerful country in the history of mankind….and thank God it was us who got that power and not a country like the Soviet Union….because despite our problems, we are the single greatest last hope for freedom to thrive on this planet.
It also aggravates me that the left looks to the government to solve all of our problems. There was a reason Reagan was so popular and won in landslides….because he talked about smaller government, getting them off our backs and out of our way so we can succeed. Where the left takes the opposite approach, it wants more g’ment and more control over our lives. The core of the liberal philospahy basically dictates that people are not smart enough to know whats best for them so the g’ment need sto do it for them. Liberals created welfare, and like all liberal ideas, while good intentions were at the heart of it, the simple fact is that programs like that do not work. Most of the major cities in this country, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, etc etc have been run by liberals for decades and they are almost all in economic ruin, because over taxation in an effort to fund programs to help people end up hrting people. The way the left treats blacks is awful in my opion, they have been preaching to blacks for 40 years that they cannot make it, they cannot succeed without the aid of a government program. What is the solution they put in place to assist? Welfare where they give just enough moneyto survive on.
Obama’s whole mentality is tax and spend. We are already and record debts and deficits and Obama is proposing nearly a trillion dollars in more spending. And yes I will concede the GOP is also to blame for this financial mess. But surely educated people must see we simply cannot continue to pay for these programs, it has bankrupt us, our dollar is nxt to worthless, our economy on the verge of collapse. We have gone a credit binge since ht emid 1990’s. The great economy of the 90’s the left points to was all paid for by our visa cards. We have become gready, selfish nad arrogant. The left has taught us that God is bad and that the moral guidelines he has given us are wrong. So God has been eplaced by condom distribution to 3rd graders. The flag is now burned instead of saluted. Our military who saves this planet time and time again and who keeps the peace on this planet to this date is ridiculed instead of loved. You say it’s the right who tramples our Constituion, I say no sir, it is the left and there misguided view of how things would be better. Your side has radically changes this country and things are getting worse. Our entire education system is controlled by the left, most of our media is also and both entities unleash a constant bombardment of liberal ideaology on people….and a constant stream of anti-american nonsense to our young people. Where once our young people were taught the glory of this country, they are no taught our past is full of hatred and imperialistic events of abuse of power.
As liberals gain more power, and I believe they will, this country will inch closer to its eventual downfall economically and militarily. And if you look at the other countrie in the world, if we fall, there will be no country on Earth able to stand up to the next Adolf Hitler.
Are we perfect, no, are we a great country, yes. I’m sorry for rambling, sometimes I lose control. I’ll leave with one of Reagan’s greatest lines….forgive my typos to, I have two broken fingers thanks to an accident at work
“Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”
Posted on July 31, 2008 1:59 AM
Nader at 6%? Don't buy that for a second.
Posted on July 31, 2008 5:25 AM
stillow - dont worry about your long piece.
you are welcome to voice your views especially on this rather obama-esque site.
while i dont agree with a great deal of your thoughts, i certainly decry the inability of the left to consider with equanimity any other points of view.
one comment stands out for me in the above postings that is so ho hum about Bush. it is the old 'dumb' comment.
had that person been as keyed up in the '04 election they would have remembered that
bush and kerry both attended yale. one posed as an intellectual the other as a flunkie.
one never proclaimed academic brilliance the other stoked that fire.
when the transcripts were finally dredged up, Bush HAD better grades. Kerry had quite the smattering of failing grades and c's.
then they found the IQ records. It seems the 'idiot' was significantly higher in that as well.
which brings me to the Obama mystique of intellectual wonder. where are his occidental and columbia grades? i mean, if he got into harvard NOT AS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION candidate but on his own steam (minus of course the legacy of dad) they must have been stellar at Columbia.
But they are no where to be found. Furhtermore, Obama himself refuses to divulge them. why?
the same goes for occidental. you'd think he'd have had an A average to transfer to columbia.
where are those as well? I suspect, we are dealing with the same liberal myth of the the intellect versus the republican dunce. it is a myth that obama people are fearful to deflate as was the case with kerry and it took him down a few percentage points. it made him a poseur and a liar.
as a graduate of a number of these schools myself, it is feasible to obtain these transcripts. certainly, high grades at columbia
is noted at graduation in the printed material. and harvard keeps everything they have maybe even the application records.
as for columbia..he certainly would have made phi beta kappa and graduated with honors. but
has he ever made that claim? never. so how did he get into harvard?
btw: phi beta kappa at columbia is not a killer to make. if his grades were above b+ he would have been mentioned for honors, etc.
finally, i mention this because of this arrogance regarding democrats about their mental prowess. if he wants to perpetuate the myth and the affectations of an intense mind, show us the beef!!!
otherwise, come out and say, "thank you america for the affirmative action program that allowed me to get into schools i might not other have attended, both for myself and michelle. it was a terrific opportunity."
Posted on July 31, 2008 7:34 AM
oh yeah boskop, just as Bush should say, "Thank you America for the affirmative action program that allowed me to get into schools i might not other have attended, both for myself and all the other trust fund babies that were so effing stupid that we got a C average in undergrad despite going to the best prep schools, and also admittance into Harvard MBA school despite said C average."
Of course, Dubya could never construct a long sentence such as that, he would just grunt and go, "ugh, uh-uh, um, thanks or something".
Posted on July 31, 2008 9:24 AM
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Perhaps a degree from a higher education institution (not a junior college) is required. Please seek this education, it does a brain good.
Just for the record, NO respectable university even considers creationism to be viable. Not Harvard, Yale, Cornell, UCLA, USC, not even UTA. And no, it isn't an American phenomena either - contact Cambridge, Oxford, the Sorbonne, etc. People will laugh in you face when you ask the question actually. It is so sad that some people are so ignorant.
If you aren't informed about something, it is better to keep your mouth shut. An if you can't see the nuance between WWII and the Iraq War, then all is really lost for you. (Neo-cons don't bother with little "details" like the fact that we (or our allies) weren't attacked by Iraq)
So it is no wonder that your rant is filled with plain BS throughout? Good God, it is like a sewage pit of lies. Yikes. I'd refute them all, but why should I educate you? You will die off with your pathetic ideas/half-truths/lies and will be replaced by those "intellectual liberals". The trend is just beginning.
Btw, I don't have a problem with most conservatives who know what conservatism actually is - this retarded brand of bush "neo-cons" is what is making this country look like garbage throughout the world.
Real conservatism lives in Britain (& other nations) and is actually half-way respectable.
Posted on July 31, 2008 9:44 AM
Again, if you and pople like you wish to beelive you came from a small ball of energy which just happened to create itself one day, so be it. Science is frustrated by religion because religion answers questiosn science has no answers for. Where did we come from, why are we here, who created us, etc, etc. I love it when hte left point sto "higher" education....as though only those who attend liberal institutions and drive compact cars are "educated". Liberalism is great in theory, however it has no practical foundation. At the heart of liberalism is the controlling of people's lives....everything from banning smoking, to banning bottled water, banning SUV's, banning handguns, banning transfats, banning the standard 100 watt light bulb. Everything liberals do result in the erosion of personal freedoms. I notice yet again in your reply you point out what other countires have and are doing. The modern liberal movement would not have fought WW2. They would have backed down. The modern liberals today could not stand up to any enemy. Because modern liberalism teaches us that its America which is to blame, it is America which is fundamentally flawed. Liberals always tell us we need to be more like Europe....why? The Democratic party used to be a good and proud party, but it has been hijacked by the far left which has a dangerous strain of socialism in it. Liberalism trhives on making thigns woerse, because it cannot exist without creating a victim. There always has to be victim, some one who is disadvantaged. And then liberals step in and try to make there lives better by pandering and offering them services which do nothing but end up making them worse off.....where as Conservatism forces you to take control of your life, it actually forces you work for what you want and you get rewarded for your efforts...liberalism requires nothing from anyone, except to stay a victim and let a small group of liberal elitists i nthe government take care of you by giving you scraps fro mthere table, let them tell you to drive small Yugo's why they drive around in Limozines and private jets. Let them tell you to conserve energy while they themselves own mansions with electric bills that would make us normal folks cringe. Liberalism has taken full control over the media and theeducation system, so it sno wonder why people like you display such anger towards this country and beleive it to be flawed and embrace things like your so called "educated" points of view. Liberalism serves one purpose, to erode as mch personal freedom as possible and do it in the name of "what's best for you" because you are to stupid to know. It was not liberlaism that made this country great, it was conservatism....and as we become less conservative our country has been faultering. The whole tax the rich scheme is just that, a scheme. America for the longest time was about being successful and getting rewarded for that success, liberals see success as an obstacle to them achieving total power which is why they want to punish the wealthy by forcing them to pay insane tax rates.
I am no Bush fan at all, the guy spends like a liberal. Liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, yet the hatrid foropposing points of view if of the charts.
The left is no doubt getting stronger as older more conservative and traditional folks die off and the younger people who have had liberal ideaology beaten into them in schools and by the media being to take over. I fear for the future of this country, I see a country full of citizen who have no rights, no freedoms and who are "taken care of" by the all knowing and all mighty federal g'ment. The land of the free will take on a whole new meaning. My only hope is that the last time the country had a liberal in the white house was Jimmy Carter who had a liberal congress and after four years this country ran so fast away from that by putting Reagan in twice in two of the biggest landslides ever. Then the conservative revolution of 1994.
I feel genuinely bad for the left and there view of the world, always so angry and bitter....it mus tbe sad to live that way I don't think I would like it, being so angry all the time or feeling ashamed of my accomplishments, feeling bad because I have a bigger house than my neighbor....who cares if I worked for it right? Punish me, chop my house in half and give it to another family in need....so while I am out working all day they can sit in hte other half of my home and receive there g'ment checks at the end of each month.
I simply feel bad for you. I know, I know you think I am the crazy one.......perhaps I will now to study the big bang theory and how we all came from nothing one day and all the complexities of life and our souls are just by dumb luck.....afterall its silly and insane to beleivve there is a creator isn't it? Do you think maybe I can get a pilll to help me see the light? If only I were given condoms at age 8 I would be so much more enlightened, I guess I should blame my parents for teaching me that there just might be soemthign bigger thn what we can see....if only they had beleived in abortion the world would be better off without my right-wing nonsense.....so I guess, its all there fault and in a way I am a victim of society pressures.......can I get a check now?
Posted on July 31, 2008 12:13 PM
You have no idea about the meaning of science or liberalism. No wonder republicans are mocked around the globe.
Yup, all the retards are right about religion and all the scientists and historians with much higher IQs are wrong. That's the ticket. I'm glad the republican party is so in line with the retard faction. They should run on that.....oh, wait, they already have.
Really, go to school....any school really would be helpful to you at this point.
Here's a clue for you though, religion answers NOTHING. It just makes **** up and asks you to have faith. Of course, which religion will you believe? They conflict you know, or do you not even know that???
Science has NEVER claimed there isn't a creator or creative force. There just isn't any evidence for it (at this time), therefore God "exists" in a state of existential neutrality. Since you don't know what science is about, maybe you should stop using the internet. Or at least use it to look up the definition of science.
Science is based on FACTS, you know those silly little things republicans have a hard time with. Religion is based on BS some people wrote in a book eons ago when they knew nothing. That's why science has destroyed religion everywhere. (The world isn't flat as the bible implies, nor are we the center of His creation.)
Historians, philosophers, biologists, physicists all know NOTHING though, right? Scientific facts are meaningless. The bogus bible is correct. Let's follow it verbatim shall we, since it is infallible of course. What a joke republicans have become.
By the way, Reagan was a pathetic JOKE. Iran-Contra anyone - oops, that didn't work out so well, huh? People are still waiting for the trickle of his trickle-down economic policies. H. W. Bush was much better actually. He actually knew how to govern somewhat.
You really need to stop with the lies, guy. No one wants to give condoms to 8 year olds. And your BS about liberals taking away personal freedoms is a joke. Which administration spies on you without warrants? Who strip searches you at airports? Who is going through your mail right now?
And another thing......oh, why even bother? I might as well try to teach calculus to a retarded chimp. What's the point??
Posted on July 31, 2008 12:46 PM
Your defending your points using absolutes. There are many many scientists who beleive in creation and many many who do not. Someone like you who proclaims God as the creator is stupid is just crazy. I read your comments and do you see how angry and bitter you are? That was my point, I can see why you wish to take away freedoms from people thru liberal ideaology, it allows you to attempt to even the palying field between your anger and jealousy to htose of us who are actually happy and like our country.
If you feel Reagan was an idiot, that is fine. 80% of people disagree with you, but its all good, your a liberal so surely you cannot be mistaken about him.
And FYI, I have a 9yr old son and last year he came home with a parental permission slip requesting he receive condoms and instructions on their proper use. At the public school he goes to parents can refuse up until age 12, at which time the school is permitted to distribute them and display htere proper use. So do not lecture me on things you know nothing about.
Your arogance and pompass behavior is exactly the attitude of a typical liberal. You claim moral and educational supremecy based on what? What some left-wing socialist college instructor taught you? Learn to think for yourself....stop focusing on your anger and focus on soemthing positive, you will see you become a much happier person and lvie a much mor fulfilled life.
This is getting hard to type this much, I'm an IT Manager and was putting some new PowerEdge 2900 rack servers in and two of the clips snapped and the server crushed to of my fingers, I do apologize again, its hard to type with 3 fingers on your right hand.
But in all seriousness, why can liberals not engage in a healthy debate without name calling or acting like a child? Calling names like retards is weak....usually name calling is the result of having a weak argument. Nobody opposes science and nobody should oppose Religion as plausible. Yes religion requries faith, but so does science to an extent. People of good will can disagree on things like creationism, abortion, etc and still maintain a healthy relationship without name calling. I personally do not want a country that is all liberal or all conservative, somewhere in the middle is the answer that works for everyone.
I am no fan of Bush, I voted for Clinton in 96 and will probably vote for McCain because Obama's spending will bankrupt this country which is already financially devastated by overspending on everything fro mthe war in Iraq to food stamps.
I don't understand....and I guess I never will understand why liberals are so angry all the time, why do they name-call intead of debate, liberalism does have some good points...just a few!
Posted on July 31, 2008 1:22 PM
Who said I was angry? Liberals are WINNING the war on stupidity and ignorance.....or haven't you noticed?
Do you have a source for that 80% or did you just make that up?? Reagan had a good rating at the time, but the effects of his policies came later, and even now. Again, remember Iran-Contra, or did you conveniently forget that fiasco?
Who said I don't love the US? Same ole tired BS, lying about liberals hating their country. Just because we don't go around shouting "Murica man, yee-haww, murica number 1, yeah, let's kick some arab ass, yee-haww", that makes liberals unpatriotic?
A patriot wants their country to be the best it can be and doesn't settle for rubbish like Bush shredding the Constitution. A patriot questions their government at every turn. They don't green-light bogus wars and the killing of innocent people. Republicans have used patriotism as a political tool to drum up votes for too long. It will end soon.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"
Posted on July 31, 2008 1:36 PM
I say your angry, because angry people often use name-calling to express themselves. Liberals do not like America as it exists today, granted its my opinion, but that is how I feel. At every turn I see some liberal group out there telling me what I am doing wrong, telling me I need to accept htis and accept that. I shouldn't dirve my brand new Nissan Armada LE, I shouldn't supersize my meals at McDonalds. Liberals teach us no personal responibility requred, the g'ment will help us. This bogus bail out housing bill as an example. Well I played by the rules, I was smart, I have a fixed rate and only bought a home I can afford, do I get a bail out too? Liberals constantly tell us what is wrong with this country and I never see them embrace what is good about us. As a liberal can you tell me what are you proud of your country for? I can give you an endless list. Liberals don't beleive in indivudal rights....they have to group people in to victim based groups. Blacks are supressed, gays have no rights, women are held back, the poor need more income redistribution, children need to be taught about sex at age 8.
How can you not see it, liberalism all it does is take away, why is always liberals who want to take away my handgun? I am a law abdiding citizen who owns one for home defense, why do liberals oppose that? Because they don't like me having the choice.......you say your a patriot as most liberals do, but then its liberals who go and burn the flag, a symbol of sacrifise and freedom.
We should always question our g'ment, but we need smaller g'ment, then it won't take so much of our time to question it. G'ment gets i nthe way. Liberals want to tell me what to do and tell me how to live my life all the time, is that what you want? Do you really think the g'ment can run your life better than you? Because as I have stated, the whole liberal agenda consists of what we are doing wrong, what can we take away from people in the name of the world-good......its easy to pick up the flag and wave it, its another thing to pick it up and wave it proudly. Liberals like the ACLU prosecute groups like the Boy Scouts, but defend groups like NAMBLA. Yourpriorities are messed up, your views of right and wrong are way off and I just think you lack common sense. You can be the smartest person i nthe world at reciting dates or historical events, but can lack basic common sense.
I agree liberlas are gaining a lot of power and influence, thedecision decades ago to take over the media and school system has proven a very good one for liberals. I really think for the country to get back o nth right track Obama does need to be elcted with a liberal congress, cus like I said last time that happened was Carter and the country couldn't run fast enough after just four years. There will come a point when people see liberlism for what it is, an effort to contro ltheir lvies, and take away their freedoms and you will another right wing uprising similar to 94 when people had gotten fed up with decades of liberals representing them in congress.
I don't mind liberals, but howcome you always want to tell me what i can and cannot do? Howcome I can't own a handgun? Maybe I like fatty foods and I personally do not msoke, but why can't I smoke? Why can't I drive my SUV? Why can't my kids be taught math in school instead of sex? If you'd stop tryng to control everyones life, then we'd all be happy.
Posted on July 31, 2008 2:10 PM
Allright, you seem to be a bit confused by the term, "liberal". Maybe there are some whack-jobs out there that want to "control" you, but they aren't representative of liberals.
I could say the same thing about KKK members being republican. Or lump neo-cons with all conservatives.
1- I didn't favor the housing bailout either. But who signed it? Yup, Bush. But there were elements of regulation that needs to take place. It was precisely due to a lack of regulation that we have the housing crash that now exists. If lenders are allowed to take advantage of stupid people who can't understand the terms of their mortagage, everyone (including you) suffers. So you do need govt regulation in some form - no matter how much you want govt out of your life, it is necessary in many ways. Or do you like the fact that your home price is plummeting?
2 - You said that "I shouldn't drive my brand new Nissan Armada LE, I shouldn't supersize my meals at McDonalds. Liberals teach us no personal responibility requred, the g'ment will help us."
Now this doesn't even make any sense. Your first sentence implies that personal responsibility IS required (that liberals are yelling at you NOT to do certain things), and in your second sentence, you argue the opposite. Huh? Which one is it?
Okay let me address a few things:
By all means, drive that SUV. But don't complain about high gas prices then. See, when demand outpaces supply, gas prices go up - a basic economic principle.
By all means, eat that triple super duper big-fat burger from mickey-dees, but don't expect government healthcare (including medicare). Why should responsible people pay for your irresponsibility? Obesity is a leading cause of health problems (another fact). Now, if you are saying that you exercise extensively too, then there isn't a problem. But when billions of our dollars go to fighting fat peoples' diseases, that means billions less for anti-terrorism, education, energy , etc.
As far as the recurring flag burning argument....again, huh? I think there were some left-wing nuts (maybe a handful) that burned a flag a few decades ago because they were high or something. I can tell you that not one liberal I ever met anywhere has burned a flag or even talked about burning a flag. Maybe your point is that the flag shouldn't be allowed to be burned. And I believe the counterargument is that we are a free country and anyone should be free to burn a flag. It's odd to be that you argue that liberals want that freedom since it is a libertarian view of near complete freedom that implies flag burning as being okay. (Kinda like your argument against people telling you what you can and can't do.)
You keep bringing up gun control and sex-ed. Both those issues vary greatly from state to state and district to district. Again, there may be some on the left wing fringe that want to ban all guns, but most do not. When slick willy had a dem congress back in the early 90's you didn't see an all-out ban on guns, did you? Many liberals don't want assault weapons on the streets. Imagine what the police would be up against.
There are hand gun bans in places like Chicago and DC because many kids have been shot at schools by gang-bangers and drug-dealers. In a perfect society, we would need these bans, but when crime is rampant and killing is the norm, something needs to be done to curb it.
Just as a side note, in countries without guns, gun deaths are nearly non-existant. That tired, false argument that criminals will get guns regardless is untrue. It is shown in the statisticss from England, Europe and Australia. An additional factoid - that handgun in your house is more likely to kill an innocent person than it is a criminal breaking into your home. Maybe liberals want to make society safer....did that ever occur to you? Now, if you want to cite the 2nd Amendment, then we should be allowed to own all guns and weapons, even nuclear bombs, under strict reading. Are you in favor of that?
As far as sex-ed, don't you think your kid deserves to know about what options are available? Why don't you teach them your views? The effort to inform kids about contraception is aimed at curbing stds and pregnancies. Kids will have sex - there's nothing anyone can do about that. Why not have them informed? What is so terrible about educating kids about sex? Is it because it makes you feel uncomfortable?
You said "I really think for the country to get back on th right track Obama does need to be elected with a liberal congress."
Okay, then you know what you need to do - vote Democrat all the way down the ballot in November.
Posted on July 31, 2008 3:18 PM
I am enjoying this back and forth.....
I think you are getting confused between Demorats and liberals...and Republicans and Conservatives. The KKK thing was good, however they have no place in the modern GOP party, people like David Duke and been pushed aside for normal thinking people. But i nthe Democratic party you have the far left gaining control over it, thru groups like MoveOn or Code Pink, the ACLU, etc, etc. You can see my point by looking at most large cities who "ban" things....they are all controlled by liberals. If, or possibly when Obama is elected he will have a liberal Congress run by Pelosi and Reid....You will see pushes to ban more things, guns will come up again, Global Warming libs will make a push to band or heavily tax suv's. There's pending legislation in California to have the g'ment actually control your thermastat in your home to combnat warming. The city of Chicago is about to heavily tax bottled water. Heavy taxation is the first step to banning soemthing. Lookat smoking,first you tax it, then you ban it. Your gun argument is a good one, but I have seen stats enforce both sides of this issue.
Conservatives do not disagree with sex-ed, what we disagree with is sex-e to 3rd graders, again my son who was 8 last year has no business getting condoms....can't we just let kids be kids for a while?
Clinton was not a lib which is why you did not see major liberal pushes from him
I am glad we agree on the housing bail out, I am tired of bailing people out of their own stupidity. If you're lazy nd fat, then pay your own medical bills, don't send them to me to pay for you. Being fat can be cured by getting off the couch once in a while.
Like I said, liberals have very good intentions, but the programs simply do not work. Social Security is a great example, it is bankrupt and it will not be there when I retire, anyone who thinks that program will survive is smoking soemthing. Everything the g'ment runs is a disaster with very very few exceptions such as the military. Our education system is a joke and we spend more per student now than ever before. Who controlls it? Liberals. The old Democratic party is almost gone. If JFK were running today h would be running as a Conservative. Liberals have gotten to much power over that party.
You seem to be in denial about the root of what liberals want. They want a huge g'ment with massive regualtions. Putting the social issues aside, like guns and abortion, etc....and just looking at economics, liberalism simply cannot sustain itself. It ha s no way to fund its desired burocracy, tax the rich is counter-productive since hte rich own businesses and invest. The more you take from them, the less jobs they can create....
I don't whine about oil prices, the market will correct itself....I think oil is a bubble and will adjust, just liek the stock market bubble clinton left us with corrected, housing will correct. Market forces always prevail....So if you don't want to spend so much on gas, buy a bike, but don't tell me I can't drive my SUV...and I promise you there will be heavy taxes and the attempt to ban some suv's when libs get control. I'm tired of paying for everything for everyone else, leave me and my money alone.
Yes some g'ment is needed and some regualtions are needed, but not in the way libs want it. This country has the best doctors in the world because our doctors compete with one antoher, those stories of wealthy Canadians coming down to the US when they need medical services are true, because its horrible up htere. I have a cousin who lives in Vancouver and suffered from chest pains, he had to wait 4 and a half weeks before his g'ment appointed doctor could see him, do you not see the insanity in that?
I'm orginally from California and that state is a joke now....its in massive debt, to the tune of like 35 billion I think because of all its entitlements, its run by liberals...they even booted out Davis cus its such a disaster there, what did they do? They vote in a republican yes, but a liberal one.
We'll never agree on much or convince each other, but its been a pleasure to debate with you.
Posted on July 31, 2008 4:12 PM
Well, I think the at the heart of most of your arguments is the rather enduring and complex dilemma of personal freedoms vs. the well-being of the citizenry. Now, as I mentioned in the previous post, in would be great in a perfect world to allow no bailouts and guns for all. But it is more complex than that, and one has to accept that positions can be nuanced.
You can believe in a free market economy as a pure form of capitalism but what happens without regulation of some sort - well, you saw it with the Depression. People (especially the rich) need to be checked as greed runs their actions. You did not answer my last question with the home prices though - are you okay with housing prices that are plummeting? Yes, I know the market will correct itself, and they will go back up in 2 years or so, but what happens next time? I detested the fact that a lot of stupid people got off scot-free after making idiotic mortgage choices. But the industry had to be propped up so a cascade like failure wouldn't spread throughout the markets. Apparently this was the case for bear-stearns as well.
I don't know that schools here distribute condoms to 8 year olds - that seems kind of warped. But I do know that 11 and 12 year old girls have gotten pregnant, so that seems an appropriate age.
Now, I don't know where you get your ideas about liberals running everything. There are plenty of conservative teachers and districts out there. Are you saying that because creationism was banned most everywhere and teachers have to teach science? That is in the Constitution with the whole "separation of church and state". Another aspect that Bush violated with his whole faith based initiatives crap. Listen, you can believe what you want, smoke what you want, play with whatever guns that you want, but do it in your own home. That stuff shouldn't interfere with anyone else or come into the public sphere...period.
I don't know if I buy the whole tax first, ban later argument. Taxes do go to funding things.....something many conservatives routinely fail to recognize. How do you think we spend billions killing random people in Iraq?
As far as taxing cigarettes, I think you should double the taxes on them. Yes, they should be banned in public places. Haven't you heard, they cause cancer. Yes, even second hand smoke.
You sound more like a libertarian than a republican/conservative. See, the conservative platform has too many contradictions whereas libertarians make at least some sense. Conservatives believe in pro-life and are pro-war and pro-death penalty. That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Actually the death penalty itself is a logical contradiction (I know, there I go with logic again). You can't say killing is wrong and then allow state sponsored killing. That's why most civilized, advanced countries have banned it. Same with pre-emptive war. It really doesn't make any sense and leads to anarchy.
As an aside about taxation - I do believe the rich (apparently you) should be taxed more than the poor. Now, Obama's plan really only hurts those in the over 250K category the most. Those making millions should bear more of a burden than those barely getting by. That isn't socialism, that's common sense. If you didn't do that, in a few ceturies you would be ripe for a revolution a la the the French in the 1800's. The poor would get poorer and the rich richer. Of course it would take awhile for the revolution to happen but why risk it?
I'm not sure the New Deal with FDR wasn't the best thing to happen to this country. I highly doubt FDR and JFK would run as conservatives today.
As a counter to your Canadian example, look at the French system. Yes it is expensive but they get comprehensive care with the best doctors. People here routinely die from lack of care. Just check out the rankings, Canada is ahead of us :
Should the only superpower be ranked Number 37. 37?!?! If we can spend billions killing, we can spend billions taking care of our own people.
I doubt anyone is going to tax SUVs, they tax themselves. Ford/GM is already retooling to change the market....
Just remember, your actions have consequences. If everyone drove an SUV, then the arabs would have us by the short and curlys - even more so than they do now.
I can guarantee you that oil will never be below $3 again. It will flucuate between 3 and 6 over the next few years and then go up as India and China increase demand. That is why offshore drilling will do absolutely nothing - by that time demand will have skyrocketed outpacing supply significantly. The only hope is a radical change in energy policy. We need alternative fuels, and we need them now. Electric cars may be here soon so that may help a bit....
I think responsible politicians know that you can't spend what you don't have. Look at Clinton - he actually had a surplus.
You can't lump liberals all together and say they all want the same thing. I doubt Obama is going to spend like Bush, in fact I think you will be surprised by the next 4 years......make that 8. I see a real shift coming. It will be rather satisfying after 8 years of darkness.
Posted on July 31, 2008 6:32 PM
Well, we can agree to disagree. We'll keep an eye on these polls and see how they develop. You are absolutely right though, a shift is coming, the country is trending left right now.
One last comment, most politicians are not responsible, Clinton had a surplus because he was held in check by a Republican Congress. It wasn't until Bush took office the GOP decided to really start spending and try to out pander the left.
Politicians are just that, they live for the moment, they pander to the present, very few offer any real vision of the future, Obama talks a great game and if he gets his shot we will see who he really is, I just view him as a typical politican preeching change to an audience who really wants change.
The GOP became corrupted when they controlled both Congress and the White House, I suspect the Dems will do the same, because unchecked power like that is usually to tempting for 9 out of 10 politicans.....
God help us!
Posted on July 31, 2008 8:05 PM
Americans are brilliant! They voted for Bush TWICE and McCain (the C student who was 5th from last in his class) is still close in the polls. No wonder China, India, Europe and the rest of the world are taking all of the jobs and buying all of the USA property and businesses.
The world is laughing at Americans.
If you like high gas prices, losing jobs to India, losing your homes, not having enough $ to send your kids to college, closure of banks, going to war, etc... then VOTE MCCain. He's YOUR man.
And remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
The world is watching and laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted on July 31, 2008 9:13 PM
NYC Ind - thanks for rubbing it in.....
stillow - Yes, time will tell exactly what Obama can get done. With what people expect of him, he is almost guaranteed to fail some people. I don't know of another politician who has faced so much in terms of sheer expectations - maybe JFK or RFK?
Posted on August 1, 2008 8:50 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR