Expect another "TERROR ALERT!"

[Frankie]

Has anybody else noticed there has been no Terror Alert during the mythical Bush bounce?! Well, you can expect one anyday now!


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ign_polls_dc_3

Two New Polls Show Deadlocked White House Race

1 hour, 38 minutes ago

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two national polls on Thursday showed the race between President Bush (news - web sites) and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) deadlocked as Bush's convention bounce faded, although the president has made headway in key swing states.

In polls certain to buoy the spirits of anxious Democrats, the Pew Research Center and Harris Interactive found equal levels of support for the White House contenders as Kerry rebounded from the withering attacks he faced at the Republican convention that ended on Sept. 2.

The new surveys followed two other polls in recent days, by Investor's Business Daily and a Democratic group, Democracy Corps, that found the race essentially even again, just as it was for months before the two parties held their nominating conventions.

"Some of the negative attacks against Kerry are wearing off and he has stayed in the game because people are discontent with Bush on Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

"Unfortunately for Kerry, he's been unable to tap into that unhappiness, especially on Iraq," Kohut said, noting Bush still beats Kerry 52-40 percent on who was favored to lead the war in Iraq. "It's a mixed picture for Kerry, but that's better than what he had a few days ago."

Several other recent polls have shown Bush, who bounced to a double-digit lead in two polls after the Republican convention, holding a four- to seven-point lead over Kerry.

A flurry of new state polls, meanwhile, showed Bush moving ahead in key states like Florida and Nevada and challenging Kerry in Democratic strongholds like New Jersey.


VOTERS UNSETTLED

"We went through a period for months where there was no air between these candidates in the polls ... and now it's the opposite," Kohut said. "I think it shows the voters are unsettled, their thoughts about Kerry are unsettled and they are going back and forth."

A new National Annenberg Election Survey earlier this week found Bush gaining ground as a leader and in the war on terror, but his approval ratings among undecided and "persuadable" voters dropped below levels from before the convention.

Kerry has sharpened his message and gone on the offensive against Bush this week on Iraq and the economy, challenging the president's credibility and his leadership on both issues.

The new focus came as he faced a chorus of complaints from fellow Democrats about his failure to develop a coherent message and respond quickly to attacks on his record in Vietnam.

"I feel very comfortable with where we are," Democratic Party boss Terry McAuliffe said. "As it relates to the battleground states, I think we're in a very good position."

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the campaign always expected a close race and nothing has changed.

"We've seen polls over the past week that show the president ahead, some well ahead and some slightly ahead, or tied," he said. "What we are planning for is a close election, potentially as close as 2000."

The Pew survey sampled voters in two waves. The first poll of likely voters, taken Sept. 8-10, found Bush ahead by 16 percentage points. The second poll on Sept. 11-14, which had a 3.5 percentage point margin of error, found Bush with a statistically insignificant one-point lead. Among registered voters, it was deadlocked.

The Harris poll, which was conducted Sept. 9-13 and had a 3 point margin of error, found Kerry with a one-point lead. A Harris poll in June gave Bush a 10 percentage point lead.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Chochise,.. that's pure BUllSH!t and you know it. You either never read my posts about that or you are, as common with Bush and his followers, engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. I vote for the latter. I NEVER said what you are implying here. I challenge you to find any definitive post on my part that says what you insideously misquoting me on. And when you don't, I expect you to be man enough to retract. All I said there was that there were no proof (at the time of my posting) that it was done by terrorists. I pointed out the awful history of those planes and the notorious corruption of Russian officials (of which the bad fuel could be a byproduct) does present another couple of scenarios to consider.

The tape is somewhere around here. Give him a couple of weeks and he'll limp back and offer a qualified retraction, I'm sure.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Frankie

If it were terrorism, by now some group would have claimed responsibility. I think it's just the sucky planes....

Originally Posted by Frankie

Usually, within 24 hrs of any terrorist attack some group takes credit for it. Unless I missed the news about such a report, I would bet comfortably that this was NOT a terrorist attack.

Now, I actually applaud you for not jumping to conclusions.

I remember when that plane went down over Rockaway in November 2001. Everyone freaked out and immediately concluded that it was terrorism. Simple fact: planes crashed before 9/11 and they will continue to do so.

But, two planes crashing at almost exactly the same time? Simple mathematics should have led you to presume that these were NOT accidents. Yet, you chose the less likely assumption.

I wonder why that is.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Chochise,.. that's pure BUllSH!t and you know it. You either never read my posts about that or you are, as common with Bush and his followers, engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. I vote for the latter. I NEVER said what you are implying here. I challenge you to find any definitive post on my part that says what you insideously misquoting me on. And when you don't, I expect you to be man enough to retract. All I said there was that there were no proof (at the time of my posting) that it was done by terrorists. I pointed out the awful history of those planes and the notorious corruption of Russian officials (of which the bad fuel could be a byproduct) does present another couple of scenarios to consider.

hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l) n. - A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in "I could sleep for a year" or "This book weighs a ton."

But anyway, while you're pondering that most modern literary convention, I'll set a reminder in my palm pilot to come back in 2 weeks and offer a half-assed not-really retraction.

**edit - damn, Baby Lee beat me to it.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I actually saw on bartcop the musing that;
1. The Soviets had deposited suitcase nukes in major US cities in the 60s.
2. Those nukes were still in their hiding places.
3. Al Qeada knows where they are and have dispatched sleepers to cover them.
4. The sleepers are instructed to detonate them xx hours after confirmation of Osama's death.
5. The govt is letting Osama continue to live until they can track down these sleepers and/or suitcase nukes.

Bottom line, who do you trust more with the "top secrets" that must be kept in order to secure the country? Kerry, who would sell out his own brother vets to advance a political career, or George W Bush who has removed two sets of Talliband whacker regimes that have supported terrorists that have struck us.

Yes, Abu Nidal had struck American Interests. Salmon Pak was used to train terrorists how to hijack planes. Yes Sodamn insane paid terrorists to blow up themselves in Israel. He is gone, the Tallywhackers are gone, the world is safer. Who's next?

[Cntrygal]

It's easy to believe that it's easy to miss seeing someone at a NFL game, state fair or amusement park.... but it's difficult to believe that a group of guys wanting to stay hidden in an uncontrolled environment over a large area can't be found. Intresting.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Donger

....
But, two planes crashing at almost exactly the same time? Simple mathematics should have led you to presume that these were NOT accidents. Yet, you chose the less likely assumption.

I wonder why that is.

If they had indeed drunk the same 'bad' fuel, it would not have been the less likely assuption. I did not choose one assumption over another. I just pointed out that there were a couple of alternate possibilities and we wouldn't know until the evidence came out. Seems I, as usual, was the only one making the logical argument at the time on that subject, when everyone was absolutely sure, without evidence, that it was terrorism.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Frankie

[Seems I, as usual, was the only one making the logical argument at the time on that subject, when everyone was absolutely sure, without evidence, that it was terrorism.

You, as usual, were wrong.