I think so, but the truth is I am so confused by these polls at this point that I am not sure of anything.

Terrye on November 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Disregard the polls, the in-the-tank media are trying to supress turnout for McCain by making it look as the Obambi has the election in the bag!

The only thing you have control over and be sure of is to get to the polls and vote, that’s the best way to give the middle finger to the MSM and Obambi’s socialist agenda!

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27470464#27470464

Vote McCain/Palin ’08 !!!

Dick Morris says yes, and lays out a possible McCain win.Essentially, Morris counts on all of the undecideds breaking for McCain. Sounds like a tall order, but it’s not without precedent. This late in the game, he says, most undecideds……

Well, this thread is more pleasant than the Gallup thread. Wonder why that is?

fossten on November 3, 2008 at 3:11 AM

For one thing, the trolls are more active on the Gallup thread.

I spent 8 hours with 2 selfless actors – John Ratzenberger and Jon Voight – this past Friday. They could have been on the beach in Malibu, but instead they were visiting GOP campaign headquarters with Mitt Romney, boosting morale of phone bank workers and precinct walkers, signing autographs, taking photos, giving hugs, giving great informal talks. I helped with security and convoyed with them from Reno, to Gardnerville, to Carson City – elbow to elbow in adoring, enthusiastic crowds.

Monday (today!!) I help at Gov. Palin’s appearance at the Reno Livestock Center (huge rodeo venue). My THIRD Palin rally.

We will win!!!

herself on November 3, 2008 at 4:04 AM

Same here. I’m so turned off by the Obama hype that I just don’t discuss politics, with pollsters or anyone else. I’ll do all my talking in the privacy of the voting booth.

What does this mean for the election and the veracity of the polls?

McCain is a stud.

You get a look at those chics hanging with him?

He makes Barry look like a boy in knickers carrying his schoolbooks and a Tito the Builder lunchbox.

Saltysam on November 3, 2008 at 12:56 AM

I think that ride is above Barry’s paygrade ;)

For all you boys and girls, here is Johnny’s ride.

Fly, Johnny…….FLY!

Limerick on November 3, 2008 at 12:45 AM

That made my night.

You Texans are alright.

I solemnly believe that the reason that slavery was not resolved peaceably can be found in the rogue decision of the Taney court, influenced by Calhoun.

I think it speaks volumes about legislating from the bench.

For all you boys and girls, here is Johnny’s ride.

Fly, Johnny…….FLY!

…slavery could have been ended in a much more adult manner, as in Britain…but the folks at the time were too head-up to do the right thing…each side was too head-up to win the argument…pure and simple….
….
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Unfortunately, many still believe the War Between the States was just about slavery. Slavery was only one of the issues. The old South had become almost a different country. Where the north’s economy was based on manufacturing and sea trade, the south’s was based on King Cotton. The north wanted high tariffs on imported goods, to encourage people to buy goods produced by their own manufacturers; the south wanted low tariffs to have lower prices. It’s too long to go into, but virtually every thing the south wanted in national policy was contrary to the interests of the north. And as the north grew in population, the south’s interests suffered. This caused tremendous frustration in the south, who felt almost like they were colonies of the north, with laws passed for the north’s benefit at the south’s expense.

Slavery was the tinderbox issue that sparked the conflict, but it was not the principal cause of the conflict in the minds of most people.

So I don’t think it’s a surprise that the US didn’t solve the slavery issues peaceably. The differences that led to the War Between the States were a stew of disputes and disagreements over a couple of generations. If slavery had been the only issue, it probably could have been resolved peaceably, if not painlessly. Some sort of sharecropping system might have replaced the slavery. The black sharecroppers would have been just a few steps above slaves at first, but having the freedom to move to another state or sharecrop for another farmer would have eventually lead to greater prosperity and a healthier economy throughout the south for black and white alike.

But the differences were so much deeper that I doubt slavery could have ever been solved separately from those issues.

None of which changes the fact that a great number of people were very exercised about the evils of slavery, and took a lot of steps to fight against it.

Oh yes, because daring to call out a blatant lie (that again, makes us look stupid) MUST mean I have my head up Obama’s ass. After all, AP must also be a democrat-plant.

Fact is that you posted a story as if it was true that was a BLATANT LIE. Literally FIVE SECONDS of research could have told you that, but you decided to be a little sheep and believe whatever you want to believe.

At the end of the day, one politician is only more sympathetic to us than the other. We have to keep an eye on all of them.

America is a noble place…and our foul history of slavery, on all sides, has nothing to do with it….

Puritan1648 on November 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM

It was the formation of the US Constitution that marked the beginning of the end of the slave trade in America. For all intents and purposes, it was an Old World institution. In the context of epochs of history, as America shook off her European identity, she discovered her vision of liberty and righteousness.

Frankly, I’m getting tired of Europe and all their holier than thou crap. Maybe if they need protection from enemies with missile shields and whatnot, they can start doing it themselves. We ought to just pull out and tell them to deal with Russia and any other potential threats on their own.

Peace. Out.

t.ferg on November 2, 2008 at 9:44 PM

+1