McCain-Gustav '08
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since I'm an angry white coward, I'm done talking with you.
Wrong, sport. That poll is already old, having concluded on August 30th.
Looking at trial heats concluded on August 31st, we see that Obama is still in the lead:
http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Tracking polls ending on Monday, September 1st (today) have Obama at 47% and put him up to 49% when you include leaners.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
But if you want to go by ollllllllld polls you go ahead and do that.
The point is, Obama should have had momentum coming out of the convention, and McCain's choice of Palin and the timing of the announcement have nullified that momentum.
How is she a potential "hypocrite on ethics [and] family values", and why does that matter? How is she a potential "complete imbecile on science"?
It seems you are purposely assuming the worst about her unless and until proven otherwise. Can you say shifting the burden of proof?
And your basing this absurd conclusion on what? Nothing more then wishful thinking and denial on your part, I imagine...
Everything I have seen indicates that in fact McCain has stolen Obama's thunder coming out of the convention and nullified any momentum he has had in the polls.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Total convention bounce for Obama (per the Gallup poll): THREE POINTS.
Expected bounce was FIFTEEN POINTS.
Expected bounce was FIFTEEN POINTS.
Nevertheless, he's still ahead. McCain's still behind. And you wish differently. Wishing won't get you there.
see appeal to Ridicule and straw man fallacy...
Ad hominem attack and, again, appeal to ridicule...
Care to make a reasonable and logical argument, instead of a fallacious one?
Also, Lincoln only had 18 months of formal eduation, yet is considered one of the wisest president's we ever had. I dare you to prove that a higher level of education equals wisdom, which is arguably the most important intellectual quality in a potential president.
Not really. Statistically, they are even. The lead is within the margin of error in the vast majority of those polls...
You are the one trying to draw more from the facts then is waranted. Who is the one working mostly on wishful thinking?
Obama is leading in the polls as of today. I'm sure this is going to go up and down until election day. I think he (Obama) will win this election.
That being said, McCain's choice of Palin didn't really do much for him. Republicans were going to vote for him anyway, and this choice didn't put him ahead of Obama. Look what happened at the convention, the Republican convention. They canceled part of it thinking that John McCain would get publicity being down near the hurricane. Instead of the McCain campaign being covered at the storm, three issues were covered for most of the day: Palin's daughter, Palin's hiring of an attorney to defend her in the ethics investigation, and coverage of the actual weather. It's not looking too good for Palin today and only time will tell how she fared the day in the eye of public opinion. Nevertheless, McCain got nothing of what he wanted and more than what he bargained for.
When you count the leaners, Obama is now at 50% leading outside the margin for error.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Obama is ahead of McCain. For now at least.
Care to provide links? I am pretty sure you are misrepresenting that info. She may consider herself a creationist, but is she is advocating teaching creationism in the classroom, that would be the first I have heard of anyone advocating that.
More likely she is advocating the presenting of the alternative scientific theory of intellegent design in the classroom. And yes, there is a difference as has been thuroughly discussed on this board in other thread.
A lack of a degree hardly means you are an "intellecual lightweight" and having a post-grade degree (or more) hardly means you are an intellecual "heavyweight". That is a huge non sequiter.
Again, remember Ab Lincoln.
"Your point #3 is lame, and your source is a demagogue that nobody takes seriously. How about this one: Your candidate's executive experience consists of...uh...um...well..."
Now you are attempting to move the goalposts!
Having some executive experience is much better then none and a stronger qualification then having none. Whether or not that experience is at the federal level or not is beside the point, and you know it.
If we run with your demand that someone have federal executive experience to run for president, then the only people elegible are presidents and former presidents. Maybe we should re-elect Bush again, eh?
"when you count leaners"... so when the poll is made irrelevant, Obama is ahead...
Actually, I made a mistake. The last poll didn't include leaners. It was a trial heat with Obama at 50. My mistake.
If you get a chance, read "the myth of the independent voter", and you'll see why political scientists count leaners towards either party as a pretty solid guarantee. If I can dig up the article I'll post it here.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nope, you don't dare think that, because otherwise Obama and Joe would be out the door. :bowrofl:
Actually, according to the article, all she said was, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
As to weather the "both" she was talking about was actually evolution and creationism that is exceedingly unclear.
Most of the mainstream scientific community refuses to distinguish between ID and creationism; often mischaracterizing ID as creationism.
The only talk at all of creationism here is from the article itself, not from any quotes of her's. It is most likely that the question she was responding to was about ID and evolution. Why else would the article follow up her quote with the point that...
The latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism.
It seems that the working definition of creationism for the article was one that is so broad as to encompass ID as well; which is a mischaracterization.
There has been no movement in recent years to teach "creationism" in the classroom, but instead to include ID in the curriculum. the MSM has mischaracterized ID as creationism. It seems that is what is most likely going on here as well...
Why would she be asked in a debate about creationism and evolution when the debate is between ID and evolution?
She answered the question on creationism. Fox news reported she is a self described creationist. She is a member of the Pentecostal church, a well known fundamentalist sect with a belief in creationism. Those are the facts.
She answered the question on creationism. Fox news reported she is a self described creationist. She is a member of the Pentecostal church, a well known fundamentalist sect with a belief in creationism. Those are the facts.
You have yet to provide any proof that she was questioned about teaching creationism in school. Simply assertions made by you and effective equivocation on the blog you posted. Care to find a transcript of the actual question she was responding to, instead of some bias article paraphrasing (and mischaracterizing) the question being asked of her?
If it is truly "on the record" then show that record. Because all the info you have shown suggests a confusion between creationism and ID. There is no movement to teach creationism in schools in this country, but there is a movement to allow for the teaching of ID. Why would she be asked about creationism being taught in schools instead of ID?
John Kerry had a six point lead coming out of the DNC convention in 2004.
It was a 50/44 race.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html
It was a 50/44 race.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
A few points:
1. Max is now on record citing Fox News as a credible source.
2. Max - Many of us on this forum not only accept creationism as well-supported by science (as does fully two-thirds of the country), but some of us have actually done the research. We're not going to turn this into another evolution/creation thread, but understand this - ridiculing Palin for her creationist beliefs is not going to score any points with most people here. In fact, you're more likely to alienate mainstreamers with your nasty rhetoric.
3. Shag - I applaud your yeoman-like effort to distinguish ID from Creationism, but who are you kidding. I'd rather ID'ers quit nibbling around the edges and playing the P.C. game and just take the bull by the horns and call it what it is. Evos can mock creationism all they want, I don't care. I'm satisfied with the level of research I and others have done, and I find no holes in it. Maybe I won't convince the most hardened believers, but then half the country (including teh Oprah) believes Obama is the Messiah, too, so take that for what it's worth.
1. Max is now on record citing Fox News as a credible source.
2. Max - Many of us on this forum not only accept creationism as well-supported by science (as does fully two-thirds of the country), but some of us have actually done the research. We're not going to turn this into another evolution/creation thread, but understand this - ridiculing Palin for her creationist beliefs is not going to score any points with most people here. In fact, you're more likely to alienate mainstreamers with your nasty rhetoric.
3. Shag - I applaud your yeoman-like effort to distinguish ID from Creationism, but who are you kidding. I'd rather ID'ers quit nibbling around the edges and playing the P.C. game and just take the bull by the horns and call it what it is. Evos can mock creationism all they want, I don't care. I'm satisfied with the level of research I and others have done, and I find no holes in it. Maybe I won't convince the most hardened believers, but then half the country (including teh Oprah) believes Obama is the Messiah, too, so take that for what it's worth.
"Case in point: Can you name your state senator without looking up his/her name?"
Bill Stachowski. I've been involved in politics in my area for 30 years. Originally ran against him as a Republican. Try again next time.
I will assume from your comments here that you lost in your run against Stachowski, if in fact, this is true. Regardless, in reading through your comments here, things become perfectly clear.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Anderson Cooper interviewed Obama about his lack of experience last night:
So basically he has executive experience due to his experience campaigning.
No wonder he smiled when he said it.
So basically he has executive experience due to his experience campaigning.
No wonder he smiled when he said it.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
A Decided Lack of Erudition, Regardless of Protestations
Maxie, I note with interest your chest-pounding regarding your education. If I'd carried-on as you have, I'd be more careful about the spelling and word use in your posts.
In your post above, (cut off so it doesn't show here)---
Weather usually includes sunshine and rain and so on.
Whether, while somewhat archaic, suggests alternatives.
I believe you meant whether. Educated people don't make such mistakes. You make yourself out to be an illiterate by such a silly error.
As I observed in another thread, Pentecostal is a generic term. Your use of it as if it were specific suggests rather profound ignorance.
This is a tough forum. Enter at your peril.
KS
She answered the question on creationism. Fox news reported she is a self described creationist. She is a member of the Pentecostal church, a well known fundamentalist sect with a belief in creationism. Those are the facts.
Maxie, I note with interest your chest-pounding regarding your education. If I'd carried-on as you have, I'd be more careful about the spelling and word use in your posts.
In your post above, (cut off so it doesn't show here)---
Weather usually includes sunshine and rain and so on.
Whether, while somewhat archaic, suggests alternatives.
I believe you meant whether. Educated people don't make such mistakes. You make yourself out to be an illiterate by such a silly error.
As I observed in another thread, Pentecostal is a generic term. Your use of it as if it were specific suggests rather profound ignorance.
This is a tough forum. Enter at your peril.
KS