President Obama Says We "must" Condemn "those who slander the prophet of Islam," Among Others
Today, President Barack Obama delivered four pretty good paragraphs to the United Nations about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the underlying principles of free speech and tolerance-of-minority-viewpoints it reflects. In the as-prepared transcript of the speech, the good material in question can be found starting with the sentence "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video," and concluding with the accurate kicker, "There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."
I would be inclined to quote more, if it weren't for the Obama administration's own sorry record of video apologetics and premature blame these past two weeks, and for the fact that the president's welcome-if-overdue remarks today were bracketed by some assertions that can best be described as heinous. First, the noxious preamble:
In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
Then, the worse postscript:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.
As with every empty political speech or newspaper editorial, focus here on the authoritarian if blustery word must. In order:
in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
Let's see, I love freedom for myself (and others); am I somehow compelled to ask myself how much freedom I can tolerate from my fellow residents of the United States? Hell no, I'm not. We have a mostly free system that can and should be much freer, but there is no requirement to have this conversation, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It deteriorates rapidly from there:
I believe [the video's] message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
So many things wrong in so few words. Why this video, and not Theo Van Gogh's Submission, or Lars Vilks' animation of Mohammed wanting to go to a gay bar, the "Super Best Friends" episode of South Park, or Funny or Die's "How to Pick a Pocket"? Is it the degree of the insult, the craptasticness of the production values, the size of the release, or the vociferousness of the outrage expressed?
Given the track record of our past two administrations, I think we know the answer to that question, which suggests another thing terrible about this sentence: As Eugene Volokh recently pointed out, "Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated." If all it takes to earn a White House call for global condemnation of a single piece of expression is some violent protests outside a dozen or two diplomatic missions, then the perpetually aggrieved know exactly what to do the next time they pluck out some bit of cultural detritus to be offended by.
It is not any politician's job, and certainly not any American politician's job, to instruct the entire world on which films to criticize.
And speaking of that favorite State Department word, rejected--isn't that a word to describe what you do to something that gets in your face, or body? In medicine, the body "rejects" organs or other dissonant substances that have been introduced within it. In basketball, not every blocked shot is a "rejection," mostly those that come when the offensive player is driving aggressively toward the vicinity of the hoop. Innocence of Muslims didn't get all up in someone's grill, it lay forlorn and neglected on YouTube until some people (pro and con) decided to get excited by it. Even then, it is a remarkably easy piece of culture to avoid coming into contact with. "Rejected" implies a cultural potency that "Sam Becile" (or as I prefer, "C'est imbecile") could never dream of.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Not your call, dude. Also, not my "prophet."
Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.
Even though you can see what the president's getting at in terms of equivalent outrage, he's still way off base here. It is not our job to condemn blasphemy of any kind, period. As individuals we might criticize a few bits here and there, but we mostly ignore the vast ocean of what various people may consider "hateful" or "offensive" speech, and rightly so.
There was much else to criticize in Obama's speech today, most notably a deeply incoherent depiction of America's role in the world. But it’s certainly worth noting that a president who thought he was making a profound defense of American freedom of speech has continued his administration's two-week assault on the very notion.
Bruther, puhleeze. :)ReplyDelete
It was a perfectly serviceable speech, calling for tolerance, and a push-back against violence.
One Sixth, or somesuch, of the World's population is Muslim (and, a bunch of them live in the Persian Gulf/African Countries that the world depends on for much of their energy.)
He is POTUS because Grandpa McCain is 250 years old, and he would have been only a heartbeat away from letting Palin into the Oval Office.ReplyDelete
Bush being in office when the Global Economy Crashed didn't help any, either. :)ReplyDelete
Israel has threatened a military strike against Iranian nuclear installations, but Obama insists there is still time to solve the dispute through diplomacy. He has vowed, however, to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear arsenal.ReplyDelete
Outside the U.N., Alex Mohammed, 40, a restaurant manager from Chicago, stood next to a mock jail cell with a noose next to it, and a cartoon of Ahmadinejad standing under a series of hanged Iranians' legs and the inscription: "We don't have political prisoners in Iran — anymore."
"It's getting worse in Iran, because the dictator is taking away more freedoms, including freedom of speech, and jailing journalists," said Mohammed, who has family in Tehran.
On this date in 1960, the first televised debate between two presidential candidates took place. Legend says those listening on the radio thought Vice President Richard Nixon won, while those watching on TV thought the winner was the young senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy.ReplyDelete
Gramps is only 150.ReplyDelete
Found: Another Religious Group to Hate
("I HATE ALL religions, they ALL make things worse.")
So saith our Sage and Wise One Rufus, Keeper of the Key, Seer, Secular Prophet and Red White and Blue Moron.
Wife hired four Amish to fix some stuff, tried to get them to vote for Romney
"We don't vote."
ah! These terrorists, always making things worse, don't vote. Just want to be left alone. Great workers, fair, competent, with immaculate houses, white with black shutters, two stories, kids clothed in such a way you can't see their butt crack, and wonderful farmers, they may well be THE LAST ONES STANDING when Obama gets through.
All together now -
Hate The Amish!@
Let us continue with this discussion about ALL RELEGIOUS GROUPS making things o so much worse.Delete
Consider the century just fled. It was the ATHEISTS who killed over ONE HUNDRED MILLION, and if they Nazis had won, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST THE BEGINNING.
Excepting the muzzies, a special case, actually, even including them, this figure dwarfs that of the religious in the last century.
But, Ruf HATES ALL religions, they only all make things worse.
Let us consider too the Valladolid Debates -Delete
where the question was could the Christians enslave the Native Americans (South and Mexico mostly).
Much talk was had over whether the Indians had souls or were merely beasts fit for burden to be buried or burned quickly upon death as a sanitary measure. The Christian ruler at the time ruled that Christians must not enslave the Indians, even though they were barbaric and had not the Gospel, cause, they had souls made in the likeness of God.
Lacking the means to enforce the decision it meant something profound anyway. There had been nothing like it before.
We also recall that "Wilberforce freed the slaves." Wilberforce was a Christian who worked his entire life to this end, and succeeded too.
We should recall that it was the Christian influence in the early centuries of the era of our Lord that eroded slavery in Europe, replacing it with serfdom.
If you have a choice between slavery and serfdom, by all means choose serfdom.
The Cherokees had souls! It was now official in Spanish Christiandom. Though the Cherokees didn't seem to care one way or the other, as they kept on enslaving others.
What I am really trying to say is: Rufus is full of shit.Delete
Some Cherokees owned slaves; ergo, Rufus is full of shit?Delete
Rufus is full of shit because he said that ALL religions should be hated and are always only making things worse.
Our own blood soaked last century of mass industrialized violence by his presumably beloved atheists argues strongly something else.
Our check to the Amish was made out to something Farms, LLC.Delete
They may not drive but they seem up to speed legally.
And paid a nice driver who does rodeo.
And, one made the cryptic and mysterious multipably interpretable comment:
"Someone should take Obama coon hunting."
I do not know what this means.
Sure you don't. Obama is a "Coon," so those "fine religious folk" think that "someone should take him Coon Hunting.Delete
FIIiiiine religious folk.
A girl realised that she had grown hair between her legs.ReplyDelete
She got worried and asked her mum about that hair. Her mum calmly said- "that part where hair has grown is called Monkey, be proud that your monkey has grown hair"
the girl smiled. At dinner, she told her sister - "my
monkey has grown hair"
Her sister smiled and said - "that's nothing,
mine is already eating bananas".
The importance of having an occupation after retirement.ReplyDelete
As we get older we sometimes begin to doubt our ability to "make a difference" in the world.
It is at these times that our hopes are boosted by the remarkable achievements of other "seniors" who have found the courage to take on challenges that would make many of us wither.
Harold Schlumberg is such a person:
THIS IS QUOTED FROM HAROLD:
"I've often been asked, 'What do you do now that you're retired?'
Well...I'm fortunate to have a chemical engineering background and one of the things I enjoy most is converting beer, wine and whisky into urine.
It's rewarding, uplifting, satisfying and fulfilling. I do it every day and I really enjoy it."
Harold should be an inspiration to us all.
I can't understand what is illogical about this:ReplyDelete
We know both Obama and Michele stated in various way and various forums earlier in his Illinois political life that he was born in Kenya.
Now, they say he was born in Hawaii.
They must be liars. Either earlier, or now. Because, it doesn't seem possible for the same man to have been born in both places.
And, therefore, it is just as reasonable to suppose he was born in Kenya, as in Hawaii.
Help me out, Quirk.
He could have been born in Antarctica for all that matters. His mother was an American citizen, so he is an American citizen. Case closed.Delete
But first -ReplyDelete
Romney Pulls Ahead
By Dick Morris on September 25, 2012
The published polling in this year’s presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama’s massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney’s margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I’ll tell you who you’re voting for and I’ll be right at least two times out of three!
Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He’ll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama’s main demographic groups).
Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.
In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate’s partisan preferences.
Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can’t get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won’t ever get there in the actual vote.
So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:
• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).
This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…
• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)
• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:
• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher
• The GOP field organization is better.
That’s the real state of play today.
$2,500.00 on Intrade, today, will get you $10,000.00 Nov. 7th.ReplyDelete
Go for it.
In Mein Kampf, in fact, Hitler professed that "faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude," and that other moral systems "have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds." In his Reichstag speech of 1938, Hitler boasted, "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." Martin Luther, in fact was one of Hitler's dearest heroes.ReplyDelete
Nor should we ignore the religious predilections of other prominent Nazis. For example, Alfred Rosenberg, German race theorist and Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, employed biblical passages liberally in 1930 in order to support his opinions in The Myth of the Twentieth Century: An Assessment of the Psychical-Spiritual Struggle of our Time. In fact, Rosenberg's goal was to purify Christianity, fusing New Testament and Germanic mythology, dubbing the result, "positive Christianity."
It was Christian scripture, of course, that initiated a long and consistent history of discrimination against the Jews. Religious and secular experts agree that such Biblical sentiments profoundly influenced not only the Crusades, but both Hitler and his Nazi cohorts as well.
According to Alfred J. Eppens, Adjunct Professor of History and director of the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies, the "doctrinal roots in support of [the eleventh century Crusades] existed in the earliest Christian writings." The professor refers to letters attributed to Paul, including those represented in Galatians 3:10-11, 6:15; Romans 3:20, 9:31, and 11:28, all of which have been interpreted to support anti-Judaic views.
The Crusades, argues Eppens, "set in motion the 'first holocaust' of European Jews." Closely following the Council of Clermont on November 25, 1095, Jews were reportedly attacked in Rouen, France. As the Christian Crusaders departed in 1096, Count Emich of Leiningen mercilessly assailed Jews in Speyer. One Jewish . . . . .
Some of what you say there is true, but -Delete
The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by Pope Urban II and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. Jerusalem was and is a sacred city and symbol of all three major Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The background to the Crusades was set when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem. The Byzantine emperor, Alexis I feared that all Asia Minor would be overrun. He called on western Christian leaders and the papacy to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a pilgrimage or a crusade that would free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Another cause was the destruction of many Christian sacred sites and the persecution of Christians under the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim. -
the crusades were mostly against the muzzies, attacking the Jews along the way was secondary.
They were defensive in nature many have argued.
Quoting Hitler on 'faith' is a laugh.
It is true that, in the words of W.H. Auden, the words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.
Jesus could hardly have been anti-Jewish.
There was a big to do between the first Christians and the synagogues. They were I think for the most part expelled. Parts of the New Testament are truly tragic in the trouble they have caused, and surely don't reflect Jesus. How could they?
What has any of this to do with HATING ALL religions? and claiming they are all of bad influence in the world?
Again, the atheists in our time made up all the mileage and much much more.
And, it was the Judeo/Christian influences that finally freed a lot of the world of slavery.
If you believe you're part of "God's People," you can't place much value on the "Others." Monotheistic Religion is just a form (a very dangerous, and destructive form) of mass hysteria.Delete
If you believe you're part of "God's People," you can't place much value on the "Others."Delete
That's the way I viewed Israel too.
Until I realized that to be choosen is to be cursed with an expectation of G_D to suffer for Him.
And look how the Nation has suffered & continue to "take the heat", so to speak.
RCP puts Ohio in the Leans Obama catagoryReplyDelete
RCP missed the '08 election by 0.1%.
The issue has also sparked attempts at humor on China's Internet.ReplyDelete
One popular joke—tweaking the well-known taste of China's officials for luxurious foreign brands and sometime confusion over what is a Japanese brand as opposed to a different import—has one government functionary protectively asking his assistant whether anything he owns is Japanese. No, the assistant replies: His watch is Swiss, his clothing Italian, his car German and his mistresses Chinese.
"In that case, let's unite the people and boycott Japanese goods!" he says.
If you're going to believe the polls released from CBS/New York Times this morning -- you know, the polls the media's currently using to beat Romney senseless and to depress Republican enthusiasm, you have to believe that the turnout advantage for Democrats over Republicans will blow away every previous record and common sense.ReplyDelete
It's that simple. Because these polls are not only telling us that Romney is losing OH, PA, and FL by insurmountable margins; these polls are also telling us that Democrat turnout is projected to blow away every modern record.
But these media polls don't headline what they're seeing as far as the Democrat turnout advantage because no one would believe it. In fact, no one believes Obama will match the D+7 nationwide advantage he enjoyed in 2008. And no one certainly believes he will surpass it.
Oh, except this non-stop litany of media polls being wielded like weapons by the corrupt media.
Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:
In 2004 the vote was R+4.
In 2008 the vote was D+3
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.
In 2004 the vote was R+5
In 2008 the vote was D+8
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9
In 2010 the vote was D+3
In 2008 the vote was D+7
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.
Again, why won't the media report the dramatic news that Democrats are expected to turnout in record numbers against Republicans?
Because the media doesn't believe it.
And yet, that's exactly what media polls claim will happen.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
I admit to a little unease over all this however. I just can't imagine how the country could be so senseless as to re-elect this so obvious fraud and incompetent again.
Then, I think of Quirk.......
Dean Chambers, founder of unskewedpolls.com, is expanding his empire after receiving calls of encouragement from Republicans this week.ReplyDelete
Since his website caught fire this week for ‘unskewing’ presidential polls — Chambers re-weights national polling data on the assumption that more Republicans will vote than poll results show — the blogger has purchased two additional domain names: unskewedpolitics.com and unskewedmedia.com.
The websites will “essentially unskew the bias present in political events and media coverage of political events,” Chambers told BuzzFeed. “And not only will I continue with the [polling] project, I’ll be growing it too,” he said.
The latest New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac Poll shows Barack Obama trouncing Mitt Romney by 9 percentage points – 53 percent to 44. But is there a single objective political professional in Florida who actually believes Obama is leading by 9 points? In Florida?! Maybe I’ll eat my words on Nov. 6, but I loudly echo Florida GOP Chairman Lenny Curry’s sentiments on Twitter earlier today: “If you believe this mornings Fl Q poll I have swamp land to sell you. Come on man! This is Florida.”
So this brings us back to a complaint we’ve heard constantly from Florida political consultants on both sides of the aisle: Too many polls are based on an assumed electorate that has zero chance of occuring and therefore give a flawed view of the political landscape.
[HUGH HEWITT]: Michael, the reason I called is the latest round of Quinnipiac polls for the New York Times shows Barack Obama with big leads in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. But it also shows a sample of plus nine Democrats in a turnout model for Ohio and Florida, and plus eleven Democrats in Pennsylvania. How do you assess the predictive validity of these polls?
[MICHAEL BARONE]: Well, I think, you know, I think there’s some serious questions about them. You know, we have to put this in context, Hugh. There’s some real problems with public opinion polling as an instrument. First of all, it’s inherently inexact. You know, random selection theory tells you that there’s an error margin, and that one out of twenty polls is outside that error margin. So let’s always keep that in mind. Second, there are low response rates now, which are a real problem. The PewResearchCenter reports that only 9% of the people that it calls are responding to polls. That’s way down from historic levels, and it raises the question are those people representative of the population as a whole that they’re trying to sample? You know, one thing that polls can’t tell you is the characteristics of people who won’t be polled. So that raises some serious questions. Are we getting skewed samples? We know from the exit poll phenomenon over the last many cycles that the exit poll results tend to come in more Democratic than the actual vote does, and measured at the same precincts. So there’s a question there. And third, we have an increasing population of cell phone only individuals, or households, who are probably tend to be younger, and probably in this election more Democratic than the population as a whole. Pollsters cannot use robocalls to call these people. They have to make expensive calls to cell phone exchanges, hand dialed, and this poses a real problem for public opinion pollsters. It’s more expensive. How many cell phone only people do you call? If those, if that population is, as the pollsters believe, significantly more Democratic, the decision on how many you call is going to affect the outcome of your poll. So and the fact is that we don’t know, because we’ve had an increase in the cell phone only population, what percentage of the voters they will turn out to be.
The thing you're missing, dumbo, is that, largely as a result of the expanding Latino population, the proportion of non "white male" voters IS increasing every cycle.ReplyDelete
This election is pretty much over; the crazies lost.Delete
If you must watch polls, watch Rasmussen -ReplyDelete
eptember 26, 2012
Polls, if you must
Jared E. Peterson
Jay Cost today in The Weekly Standard should provide more than a little encouragement to conservatives who've prematurely taken to drink because of Romney's current alleged poll deficits. Cost's central point - and he is among the most prescient of poll observers -- is that most major polling organizations are oversampling Democrats, based on an assumption that the 2012 electorate will demographically match 2008's, when blacks, Hispanics and under thirty's constituted record percentages.
In discussing Ohio, for example, Cost points out that if this year's electoral demographics turn out to be a compromise between those of 2008 and 2004 -- a reasonable assumption, he thinks -- then this year's Ohio electorate would contain only a one to two point Democrat edge, which in turn would produce a razor thin outcome that would be determined by independents. But in its current poll of Ohio showing an alleged eight point Obama lead (52-44), the Washington Post sample is based on a seven point Democratic voter turnout advantage.
Whatever one thinks of the polls in general, it is a fact that in 2008, Rasmussen's call at the end was the most accurate. Today Rasmussen's polling organization has it 46-46 (actually, 48 Romney/46 Obama, with leaners), and the following are Rasmussen's most recently published numbers for six battleground states:
Ohio: Obama +1 (at 47%)
Florida: Obama + 1 (at 48%)
Virginia: Obama + 1 (at 49%)
Colorado: Romney +2 (Obama trailing at 45%)
Iowa: Romney + 3 (Obama trailing at 44%)
New Hampshire: Romney + 3 (Obama trailing at 45%)
For conservatives these are far from wrist-slitting numbers, and they come from the polling organization that has proven itself least partisan, most methodologically sensible and, in general, most reliable. More encouraging than the razor-thin deficits in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, and the slightly better Romney leads in Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire, is Obama's absolute percentage in every Rasmussen poll: below the 50% threshold that an incumbent needs to reach to feel any measure of security given that the undecided or undeclared vote almost always breaks against a presidential incumbent.
If you have to watch polls, watch Rasmussen. Better still, stay engaged, stay positive and -- especially if you live in battleground state or have friends or family who do -- keep trying to influence those who can be reached.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/polls_if_you_must.html#ixzz27dZoJwha
Police fired stun grenades and tear gas at protesters yesterday as tens of thousands poured into the streets of Athens as part of a nationwide strike to challenge a new round of austerity measures that are expected to cut wages, pensions and healthcare once again.ReplyDelete
Concern about the Spanish economy drove a sharp rise in the interest rates that investors charge to lend money to Madrid yesterday, increasing fears that eurozone crisis was worsening.
The high rates come in a crucial week for the Spanish economy, with the government due to unveil its draft budget for 2013 today, and an audit of Spain's banks expected to reveal how much money will be needed to prop up the country's ailing lenders on Friday.
The NBC/WSJ Poll is 42/37 D/RReplyDelete
The Fox News Poll is 42/36 D/R
You think Fox is skewing their poll for Obama?
As for Rasmussen, he always skews Right until a week or so from the election. He's a Republican pollster (and, he doesn't call cellphones.) One assumes he adjusts for that in the last week.
The British bookmakers are offering 4 to 1, and Intrade is at 25 - 75. Give it up, bubba, the loons are crashing and burning.
The Bloomberg poll was 37/33 D/R.Delete
Obama is also making progress with elderly voters.
Madonna has comes out supporting him.
In "Likely" voters the Wash Post Florida poll favored Dems by 33 Dems, 32 Pubs, and 31 Ind.ReplyDelete
You need to find a new guru, Bob. The bubbleplumb guy ain't gittin it.
I mean, really, did you think some party was magically going to win a national election by running against the poor, the women, hispanics, gays, AND the Elderly?
And, by promising the middle class a tax increase to pay for a tax cut for the rich?
Is that what you thought? Is that what the fine nutjobs at American Thinker told you? And, you bought it?
That's what Romney gets if the election is held today. And, that's probably about what he'll get Nov. 6th
(that is if he doesn't dick around and lose Arizona, and Missouri. Wouldn't That be a kick in the nuts?)
Prosecutors in Italy have called for a group of scientists to be sent to prison for four years each for allegedly failing to give adequate warning of the L'Aquila earthquake in 2009 that killed 309 people and injured hundreds more.ReplyDelete
The trial of the seven experts has proved immensely controversial, with the international scientific community saying that earthquakes cannot be predicted and that the experts are being made scapegoats for an unforeseen natural disaster.