Neuron said:

Still doesn't explain why you'd use polls to "add" to your argument, when in fact, it retracted substantially from it.

I agree with Gastro, your initial posts seem rather educated, till you spiral downwards in efforts to save face.

Sorry.

---

Gastronomicus said:

Entropymancer said:

So Hitler is good because Stalin was worse? Awesome, I had no idea you supported Naziism

---

If you're only comparing the two of them than yes. But they were both terrible compared to Gandhi.

---

Gastronomicus said:

Anyway, fivethirtyeight called the presidential election withing single diget electoral votes, and it takes into account all the polls. Nate does formulate opinions and applies them to the statistics but he's actually pretty sharp and about as unbiased as they come. Usually it helps wade through the bullshit inherent in all polls. Like Rasmussan.

---

Salomon said:

RON PAUL 2012

---

Neuron said:

For political 'debates' like this thread, it HARDLY adds credibility to whatever argument you were trying to form on your thread

---

Gastronomicus said:

I doubt much will change at midterm elections, what with the party of No rockin a baller 23% approval rating. We'll see about the war, I don't know why you seem to think he can just wave his Kenyan witch doctor stick and take care of shit in one day. I believe he has a sound strategy, we'll see if I'm validated in a few years.

---

Quote:

Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now.

---