NEED ANY WOOD?

blogic, that is strange.... you are the one refering to the Gallup Poll. The Gallup poll has repeatly reported that Bush is the more likeable person, and Bush is the one tough enough for the job (result from both debates). So when do you say "America is not reassured... who are you refering?"

You know, I always wondered what kind of people sit around and watch "Queer eye" and "fashion police", and I think I know now. People who have nothing better to criticize someone they hate about.

Write as many of these as you like Blogic, you aren't influencing anyone and the quality just gets worse. If this is a "million monkeys" thing to see if you can randomly make a good article you need a few more monkeys..

Aw, go easy, Baker.

This furious backfilling is kind of fun to watch. And you gotta give blogic high poll ratings for tenacity.

Cheers,
Daiwa

People who want to follow -- or contribute to -- the discussion regarding Gallup's poll of viewers of the second debate (Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") should go to Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2

To sum up: Not only did Bush snap at harmless Charlie Gibson, but "his performance in the first debate was -- at best -- erratic and to many appeared angry and unhinged. His eyes rolling, furiously blinking, scowling in the background as Kerry responded to questions" and the Associated Press had this to say about his appearance in the second dabate: "President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator."

"...should go to Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2"

That should read: "If you want more lies and misrepresentations go read Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2".

Blogic has officially lost it. He's resorted to lying and tabloid-style articles.

"(Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") "

Mr. Gallup??? COuld you post a link to this statement? The aticle you quote says the debate was a tie. That's not another LIE is it???

Is there even a "Mr. Gallup"? I thought it was obvious that the may-not-even-exist Mr. Gallup wouldnt say anything like that anyway. Agree with me or not, I nearly always cite my sources so you can judge for yourself.

Then why the hell would you say what you did?

And a link to a credible source.

, that is a LIE... Gah...

The question to the people polled was "REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU SUPPORT, who do you think won the debate."

Your title says they favor Kerry, and you know it. You tagged the word debate as a half-hearted attempt at honest, but it isn't close. You could have easily as said "Gallup Sez Indpendents Strongly Declare Kerry Debate Winner" or something, but you didn't. You said they FAVOR Kerry.

This isn't something you need told to you, blogic. You know exactly what you are doing, you are just trying to see how much you can get away with.

I don't think JU should allow people to abuse it in this way. At some point you have to say, "If you are going to use this site to lie and spread misleading information, there's the door."

Blogging is a new thing. If people like blogic continue to use it as a type of war-propaganda, then what little respect it enjoys now won't last long. This crap reflects pooly on blogging and poorly on JU.

I've enjoyed your posts in the past as well, blogic. That's why this sudden shift is so lurid, I think.

"perhaps it's the lack of depth and length in this post Bakerstreet is irked by..."

*boggle* Do you eaven read what you are talking about, anymore? No, it was the fact that the articles in question bore no resemblance to the truth...

Jeez...

, I'm sorry if I was snippy, but you were accusing me of making a big deal about falsehood because I was really irked by lack of depth and length. If I was irked by lack of depth I would try and show lack of depth. What bothered me was the "Bush said X", when Bush didn't say X, or "Gallup said X" when Gallup's poll say anything of the kind.

Again, sorry if I am being antsy, but this is a circumstance when someone lied, not made a mistake, not accidently misquoted, LIED. Then, when they tried to tone it down, they, again, LIED. Go read the articles in question Deference.

Blogic, I don't want you to be banned, or want you to leave, or even for there to be any turmoil. When you say things that aren't true, though, you have to expect people to be put off.

I am. I think it is a symptom of the whole climate, though. What bothered me was that after it was pointed out that it didn't seem to matter to Blogic.

'nuff said, i"m over it. Things should get back to normal after the election, unless whoever loses contests the election for a year ...