fayfreethinkers.com

Being buds with a terrorist is not good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEeHl0h3NBo

Obama is behind by 20 points in Arkansas and 5 points nationwide.

Biden says Obama is not prepared- But McCain would be awesome.

Sorry "thinkers". He's going down....hard.

You can't make stuff like this up. Oh the humanity!

Your Pal,
John Galt

I like Biden actually- very honest about Obambi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8&e

This is getting good.

Your Pal,
John Galt

DOUG
Galt is a typical conservative. Short-sighted. That's why they don't know how to run a country.

Galt, don't you know that when McCain picks a running mate, probably from among his former rivals, there will be plenty of anti-McCain rhetoric available from that guy?

Of course, we don't have to look far to see someone criticize McCain's position. We just have to look at McCain!

Note from January:
Here's McCain saying that timetables are bad. He accuses Romney of wanting them. Bad Romney!
=========
ORLANDO — John McCain accused Mitt Romney of wanting to set a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, drawing immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival who said: "That's simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize."
See here.

Here's McCain thinking timetables are OK.
First the Iraqi government gave Senator Barack Obama a boost by seeming to embrace his proposal for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Now could Senator John McCain, who built his candidacy in large part on his opposition to such a schedule, possibly be following suit?

...Then, asked why he thought Mr. Maliki had called 16 months a potentially suitable timetable, Mr. McCain gave his enigmatic answer.

“He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground,” Mr. McCain said. “I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground. This success is very fragile. It’s incredibly impressive, but very fragile. So we know, those of us who have been involved in it for many years, know that if we reverse this, by setting a date for withdrawal, all of the hard-won victory can be reversed.”

See here.

Doug wrote:DOUG
Galt is a typical conservative. Short-sighted.

DAR
And dishonest, and a coward. He can cut and paste but he never defends his stuff. I wouldn't either. No one could. It's not clear he even reads or understands what he posts. Until he changes I am not going to waste time on his nonsense.

D.

Obama is behind by 20 points in Arkansas and 5 points nationwide.

Isn't the same poll that had Kerry ahead by 5 pts just before the 04 election. Zogby I believe.

But Kerry could have actually been ahead by 5 pts. With Diebold and other BushSystem voting schemes the old German is
still correct:
"He who casts the votes decides nothing: he who counts the votes decides everything."

Additionally Galts linked video is a lie. Ayers was with first SDS which splintered and became Wearthermen Underground but Ayers did not do all the things alleged in the youtube hit piece.
See wikipedia. Ayers had gone underground and was not around for many of the events described in the dishonest
video. He had participated in one violent event.

"William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born 1944) is an American professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, known for his work in school reform and community organizing. While a radical activist during the political upheavals of the 1960s, Ayers went underground for eleven years starting in 1969 as a co-founder of the violent and radical Weatherman group."

"Ayers was tapped by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to help found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform program.[26] Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established in 1941. This became controversial in the 2008 United States presidential election, as Barack Obama had served on the board until 2002, with overlapping times of service with Ayers."
wikipedia

oh by the way "While underground, he and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn married, and the two remained fugitives together, changing identities, jobs and locations. By 1976 or 1977, with federal charges against both fugitives dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct, Ayers was ready to turn himself in to authorities.

DAR
Good debunk Larry. When one investigates and unpacks a Galt claim one always finds the same thing, shiny on the outside, poo poo on the inside.

D.
-------------------------------
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
--John Stuart Mill, letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March 1866)

John Galt wrote: Obama is behind by... 5 points nationwide.

DAR



His lead is not nearly as high as it should be for proper comfort levels... but if you average the above, Obama is up 5.4% nationwide. Who would have thought Galt would cherry pick a poll?

I thought the whole convention was great. Republicans should just cancel theirs and give it up.

I switched from CNN to FOX for a little bit. Hume was lying and saying McCain was tied or a little ahead in polls. But I noticed something interesting. During Obama's main speech, the video looked washed out and drab on FOX. It wasn't even in good focus. It looked like CRAP. And Obama looked a little darker. On CNN however the video was completely different, it was incredibly more crisp and clear and the contrast was turned up. It looked great. This is not a close call. There was no comparison. And this doesn't seem normal to me. Usually FOX has it's contrast way up and the colors are screaming like a cartoon.

I wonder if anyone else will notice this. I'll try this again when McCain is speaking.

D.

I put very little stock in any of the polls these days, because of cell phones. People with cell phones only are not contacted by a pollster. Only people with land lines get polled. The young demographic is overwhelmingly supporting Obama and are the ones who have only cell phones. So the polls are skewed to exclude the younger generation which taints their credibility.

Betsy wrote:I put very little stock in any of the polls these days, because of cell phones.

DAR
I haven't had a land line in probably 5+ years. I heard this same put forward in 2004 and I put some hope in it. I hope you are right.

D.

I haven't had a land line in about five years, either. Nor do most of the people I know, that I can think of....so who do we know who still has a land line? Our parents! And their friends! A bunch of 60-70 year olds are answering these polls!

DAR
Hmmm, see:

Cellphone only, it holds little sway in polls.

The only thing in that article that means anything is that it says polling companies are now calling cell phones. But then it didn't give any more information about how many, or how they get the numbers (random guesses?) or what ever else to back up that claim. If about 15% of the public have only cell phones, that's a pretty significant number of people we don't have any polling information from.

Whether or not it will make a difference will be interesting to see.