Quote: "Completely incorrect. The exit polls were inaccurate because they only polled metropolitan areas, pre-vote polls clearly show that the vast amount of un-exit-polled small communities had 80-100% Bush support"
That's just bad math and right-wing spin. I assume you got it from some radio talk show/partisan hack site. Or was it Fox news? Let me explain.
1. The vast majority of people live in metropolitan areas. The 25 inbred Bush lovin people living in out in the sticks aren't going to drive the statistic for the million people in the cities that much --even if they were 100% pro-Bush.
2. Pre-vote poles are never anywhere near as accurate as exit polls, because there's no telling who's really going to get out and vote, wheras you can be fairly sure the exiting voter voted. When we monitor elections in other countries, like the Ukrane for example, exit polls are the primary tool for judging veracity, yet we're OK with them being so off in our own country.
3. Assuming your flawed logic (not taking into account population density + giving any weight to pre-vote polls) is correct, then how come they were never innaccurate before? (Always within 1-2 percent +- the mean) In this election they were 7-10% off (and only 1-way). It's not like they exit polled Rural areas in the 90s, but didn't do it the last 2 elections.
4. How come they weren't off in non-battleground states like California or Idaho? By your logic they should have been.
Your argument makes no sense.
Quote: " Please provide 1 example "
In Warren County, Ohio, election officials took a rather unprecedented action on November 2: They locked down the building where the votes were being tallied, blocking anyone from observing the vote counting process. President Bush won 72% of the vote in the county. --AP
Quote: " Incorrect also "
Oh. You said "incorrect," so it must be incorrect. Very compelling argument indeed, you must have given that a great deal of thought before reaching your conclusion.
Quote: "
This man regularly threatens to attack Kuwait and refers to its inhabitants as subhuman."
Attack with what? Spitballs? When we invaded, he lacked the weapons or money to attack even Kuwait (which btw was part of Iraq only 35 years ago), he could threaten all he wanted. Plus Kuwait isn't exactly a democracy --it's a monarchy and only 10 percent of it's population are considered citizens. So they treat 90% of their own population as sub-human. We sent troops in harms way to restore that why?
Quote: "He believes he should rule the world."
You have ESP? He never actually said this, but if you can read minds that's pretty cool. But then I know lots of people who believe they should rule the world. Please don't bomb them.
Quote: " He regularly slaughters hundreds of non-criminals in his own country."
...You mean like we're doing now?
Quote: "He uses illegal biological weapons in warfare."
...Provided by the Reagan administration, thank you very much --but he sure didn't have them when we invaded.
Quote: "He attacks other countries without provocation."
...What's wrong with attacking other countries without provocation? It's OK GWB does it.
Quote: "Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. who are now dead would be alive today. ""
Or maybe if the republican senate in the late 90s would have let the 200 FBI agents they had investigating Monica Lewenski actually do their job, or if during the 9 months GWB was president he would have spent any time at all on terror threats...
I'll just add up all the Americans killed by Arab Terrorists during the 8 years Clinton was in office and add up those killed when GWB was in office to tell who's better at national security.
