74 responses so far ↓

• 1 quincyconscience // Aug 30, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/women-more-skeptical-of-palin-than-men.html
  interesting analysis of the attempt on women by McCain

• 2 mark connete // Aug 30, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  well..this is pretty easy……..Palin was a brilliant choice……she has more exec. experience than obama and biden put together………if you dont count the days obama has been running for president.he has a total of 118 days in the senate..pretty weak.so its kinda silly for the obama camp to claim she isnt experienced..better yet..she has actually negotiated with foreign govt’s….{russia, canada}…..obama’s negotiations?.0 zip.nadda………..palin’s numbers are about right…based on ideaology alone…..her positives still outweigh her negatives.another interesting thing ….biden was given the slot to be the attack dog……..if he attacks palin in the debate.he will risk the ire of female voters………..and after hillary was snubbed…women are just itchin to vote against obama….so.mccains aim was to get more female votes.he just did……and.with the race this close.he doesnt need many……..does obama really be the one women blame for keeping 2 women out of the white house?..{clinton. palin}…just remember.women are just as anxious to get a woman in the white house..just as bad as blacks want obama to be in white house……….absolutely brilliant senator mccain………….ps.did I mention that palin is gorgeus??? that doesnt hurt the votes either…….

• 3 mark connete // Aug 30, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  p.s. fivethirtyeight is a biased site…….Id take everything they say with a grain of salt.

• 4 mark connete // Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58 am

  this is pretty http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll amazing…………

• 5 mark connete // Aug 31, 2008 at 11:02 am

  fivethirtyeight.com is very biased toward obama.lets get a good balanced look at the race..post-convention…..the link above tells a far different story about whats actually happening in the race for the white house……palin not only increased the conservative vote by 6%….she also got mccain 10% among women independents..a very strong poll number.so thats the basic facts……..as the race stands …fivethirtyeight is fraud……..they only wish they had the reputation that rasmussen has……..

• 6 mark connete // Aug 31, 2008 at 7:21 pm

  dear 270 staff.did you get a look at the cnn/time poll?.it has obama up 13% over mccain.in your opinion is this an outlier?….or a biased poll?……time has consistently been pro obama {tank dwelling actually}…and cnn is bad as well…….{90%} registered dems from cnn actually donate to the democratic party……..what do you make of their polls?………..thanks.

  270toWin: This poll was in New Mexico, which you mentioned in your subsequent note to us. We did address those polls in a different post.

• 7 William // Sep 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  Neither party’s choice of running mate was to give the candidate a strategic advantage in a particular state. Alaska went from red to crimson, and vice versa for Delaware.

  McCain had the right idea to try to get disgruntled Hillary supporters with Palin, but it’s backfiring on him now as I type. I’m interested to see how the social conservatives react to Palin now. Althought they are rumored to not like each other, I think Romney would’ve been a safer play for McCain.

• 8 mark connete // Sep 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  william.the social conservatives love her………mccain pulled in 7 million the day after he picked her…….the palin pick hasnt backfired.the main stream media took aim at her…the only problem is this:……they thought palin was going to be a shrinking violet.turns out she is pretty tough……….she took out a sitting republican governor.{no easy task}………got the att. general of alaska fired for corruption…turned in a fellow board member in alaska for corruption.The lady can fight back…….I cant understand your logic for saying she will have trouble with conservatives.{unless you get your information from abc, nbc, msnbc, or cbs}……….ive actually been to over 100 right leaning conservative blogs…………..98% of them are quite positive and enthused………p.s….kennedy and johnson hated each others guts……………

• 9 william // Sep 2, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  That’s my point; Kennedy and Johnson didn’t like each other, but running together, they at least won. You’d think McCain would take a page from Kennedy’s play book.

• 10 mark // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:28 am

  it wasnt a “playbook” johnson forced his way onto the ticket……..typical democrat fashion

• 11 William // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Call it what you want. The fact is that the GOP hasn’t gotten their message out at the Convention yet because of the media blitz on Palin. Joe Leiberman pleading with Democrats to switch sides is a joke. He has no rapport left with the Democratic party.

• 12 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:18 am

  william………the media blitz.as you call it.was why over 30 million people watched gov. palin’s speech last night………..her speech was a home run………consider the message.delievered

• 13 William // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:50 am

  Message?? What message?? She was like Anna Kournikova, fun to look at, but couldn’t play tennis to save her life; or put more simply, Palin said nothing of substance.

  Or as those single cell organisms we call texans say, she’s all hat and no cattle.

• 14 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  pretty funny.but doesnt cut it…………….whats your problem/…..please keep it up.the sexism can only help mccain………palin was right.americans in scranton dont like it when obama goes to san francisco and tells them.” they cling to their guns and their bibles”……………lol.william…. so I implore you keep up the .”she’s fun to look at”..riff…….the view that she.’cant play tennis’………tell that to the mayor she beat.the sitting governor she beat……….and tell it to the people of alaska with her 86% approval ratings…………….anything else?……….ps.the media vetted bristol palin.when do they vett obama/.my guess is sooner.rather than later.

• 15 William // Sep 4, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  Sorry, you’re wrong yet again. My opinion of Palin isn’t going to help McCain. Just like feeble attempts at tying Kwame Kilpatrick to Obama and other such nonsense won’t make much difference either. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-armey_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

• 16 Alex // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:15 pm

  Rasmussen is a biased site you know, they have always leaned to the conservative side.

• 17 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  well.on a side note;.kwame{race baiter} will resign in the next 2 weeks……..he will spend 4 months in jail…….he will be on 5 years supervised probation………..michigan must be sooooooo proud of him…….lol.nice poll…..NOT……..I guess obama didnt really mean it when he said kilpatrick was a……..”great leader and a great friend”………will obama throw him under the bus next to rev. {goddamn america} wright.or bill {american terrorist} ayers.or perhaps his own grandmother.{typical white person}….does senator obama think his grandma clings to guns and religion?….

• 18 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  alex……….rassmussen is hardly biased…they consistently rank in the top 3 of all pollsters……………so please tell me where I can find the evidence of rassmussen bias……If you can show me.Ill print a retraction…………….deal?

• 19 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  william…………I just went to your link that you provided…………it was a story about dick armey and the “bubba” vote…….whats your point?..p.s. what does a communtiy organizer do?

• 20 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  so..you get upset that I linked obama to kilpatrick.but not a peep about his friend the american terrorist.bill ayers…….interesting……

• 21 QuincyConscience // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  Palin was not at all a play on Clinton supporters. Palin was the most conservative (politically) choice for VP. Huckabee is a closet populist, Romney can not choose a side, Gulianni is pro-choice (the horror), Thompson doesn’t seem to be bothered to be anything, Jindal needs time to foment, etc. Palin, despite having a hooh-hooh, is pro life, even in cases of rape or incest (said she would be anti-abortion rights even if her own daughter were abused) pro gun to an extreme degree, anti-environmentalist (I can’t think of a nicer term for her environmental stances, but your welcome to try), she is even flimsy on whether hate-crimes should exist, at all. This was an appeal to the cash holders of the republican party, evangelicals, economic libertarians and the like. For once I believe a politician when they say gender had nothing to do with this choice. She simply is THE conservative in the running for VP that wouldn’t terrify the voting populace, and is expendable enough to risk in the possibility of a loss VP candidacy. Remember who Bob Dole’s running mate was? How about Dukakis’s? yeah Jindal does not want to be one of those names.

• 22 William // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  Nice try Mark.

  Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was in the weathermen. Any attempt to link Obama to events that happened 40 years ago is laughable.

  I would also mention that that smear ad was solely funded by Harold Simmons, a nefarious individual who also funded the swiftboat vets. Yes, the swiftboat vets who even lil bush sheepishly denounced. Simmons has been in trouble before for violations of campaign finance laws, including forging signatures.

  So, not really credible information.

• 23 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:50 pm

  Im linking obama to the man who committed the crimes.I realize obama wasnt there.{duh}……..and..i dont know this harold simmons, but i wouldnt try that argument……tony rezko ring a bell?…I question anyones judgment who befriends an admitted terrorist…especially someone who wants the most powerful job in the world..He sat on a board with him in chicago.{annenberg challenge} that board was responsible for over 100 million in public and private grants for the sole purpose of “helping” chicago minorities…..The board was disilved after it was determined to be a failure…Some of this money magically ended up with rev {goddamn america} wright.father michael flagger also got funds as well….for your next point….The swift boat veterans for truth were men who actually served with sen kerry………were you there?……..senator kerry also claimed he was sent to cambodia by president nixon.great story.but nixon wasnt even president yet.senator kerry also claimed to a congressional panel that he “witnessed” war crimes by american soldiers” turns out….he later said that they were actually things kerry had.”heard from others”…………next….you claimed this harold simmons guy had some campaign violations.possibly like .fred baron.the man who has and is still giving money to john edwards mistress.reille hunter.and another man who claims to be the father of her baby……..{fred baron also was edwards campaign finance director.guess who was with obama in denver and is now a money bundler for obama……..fredddy baron……….if you have anything else please feel free to post some more………p.s. obama gave 800,000 to a group called.
  A.C.O.R.N. they have numerous violations of campaign law.just this year.in ohio…4 were sentced to jail for guess what???.forged signatures…….verify this information….if you can stop drinking the kool-aid long enough………next?

• 24 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  and.obama claimed in the debate with george stephanopolous thats ayers was just.” a guy in my neighborhood”……..I guess he forgot that he served on the woods board with ayers.he forgot to mention that ayers appointed him to chair the annenberg challeng…….slipped his mind right?…….I guess he also forgot to mention that he worked with another terrorist….bernadidne dorn in a law firm when he got out of college…….bernadine dorn is married to {small world} bill ayers…………I guess obama;s memory is shaky……Obama also claimed that.”their kids played together”…….trouble is the ayers kids are in their late twenties…..and Im assuming you know how old obama’s kids are….right?…..now why would ayers grown adult children play with 4 and 10 year olds??.I guess obama just got confused.right?……..Just like obama sat in a racist church for 20 years and didnt hear “all the sermons’….the man obama said..” i can no more disown him than i can my white grandmother”…then {new world record for throwing under the bus} 1 month later obama says……well.you get the picture…..william…I am quite versed on mr obama…..please get your information in order..it would make the debate so much more challenging……..thanks…

• 25 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm

  its not very scientific to claim that sarah palin is anti-environment.the facts just dont bear it out………..gov palin has increased funding for alaska’s environment…the greatly misunderstood cairbou population has almost doubled…….the pipeline installed under watch didnt have a single spill…{knock on wood}….ans she is in a state where I would estimate that 98% of all homes have a gun…{polar bears got awful hungry}……and then there are the wolves..{which are thriving}….but I guess you could wait for a state trooper to ride by on his snow machine and shoot the offending carnivoure……..or possibly get a restraining order ……and by all means.lets talk about the woman’s..”hooh hooh” thats really gonna drive up the female vote……..did I cover everything?

• 26 Alex // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  Mark

  I say that Rasmussen is biased because on their website there are links to that say:

  “Invest in victory McCain/Palin Donate $50″

  This is found on numerous webpages within the site. The website also has numerous pictures of McCain plastered on several webpages.

  I have seen no webpage with a picture of Obama or a link to a donation page on the site. Also a majority of the article links are about McCain, Palin, and other facets/members of the GOP.

  This may not seem like factors of bias to you, but I see those factors as biased.

  All in all these things do not really matter. There are polling websites that are heavily liberal and others that are heavily conservative. None of this is of course unusual. Just like how CNN is very liberal and Fox News is heavily conservative. All of this is a known fact and just another part of our society.

• 27 mark // Sep 5, 2008 at 7:31 am

  alex………..thats a great theory……except that its wrong…..ive seen obama ads on rassmussen…its called advertising…or….”getting out the message……hell,.even mccain runs ads in the new york times.and as you know…the new york times is very liberal……..and the new york times sponsors several polls………..

• 28 QuincyConscience // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  If we start talking about election law violations, the right is probably gonna win that argument. Of dead voters registered in 2004 in Ohio less than one percent were republican, no independents according to the ACORN scandals that came out of it. McCain advertises online more, although I really don’t know why. Rammussen counts wrong though. If they interview ten people, 8 of whom belong to party A and 2 of whom belong to party B they will not count every person as one person, but as a surrogate for their party. In this example if 2 As supported B candidate and both Bs supported B candidate, then Rasmussen would report an advantage in their polls to party B. weighting based on party is idiotic and this year it makes the republicans look better, but this effect oscillates based on the year. So its not that Rasmussen is biased, its that they have over-thought their polling method. Obama made friends with everybody on the left in Chicago in record time, obviously this results in Ayers-like friendships as Chicago politics is (grammar?) one of the most intense state politics in the nation. Not a defense, but it explains some issues he has with ridiculous people. 538, clearly a pro-Obama site has more McCain ads on it all the time, in fact I have only once seen a pro-obama ad. Historically women vote for women less than men vote for women, the only demographic group I know of to have such a weird dynamic to it. Women have been the majority of the electorate for a while, it is not men keeping them out of the Whitehouse. If you don’t protect your own state reserves as Governor you are clearly not all that environmentalist. She argues against the Endangered species act all the time. This is not really an attack so much as the fact that she is an enemy of the environmentalist left.

• 29 Alex // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  The whole drilling for oil in the wildlife preserves of alaska is a debate that has been going on for at least six years. I remember writing a paper on it in my high school biology class back in 2002.

• 30 mark // Sep 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  alaska currently is running a huge surplus……..gov palin sent the good folks of alaska 1000 bucks.on top of the royalty checks they already get from the oil companies………she argues against the endangered species act because its out dated…………nothing wrong with that.as far as “protecting resources” goes…………..thats the tax payers money……….when possible it needs to go back to them…………as sarah palin has done……….unless you are using the word “resource” to describe oil, polar bears and snow…………….just saying he made friends fast.doesnt account for his poor judgement in keeping those friends.and it doesnt excuse him saying.”he is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood”………clearly a lie intended to deceive voters…….as well as the lies about rev {goddamn america} wright…….next post…we will get into obama’s association with palestinian org. who give money to hezbollah and hamas………as well as tony rezco.{syrian national}

• 31 Alex // Sep 6, 2008 at 9:28 am

  exactly how far to the right are you mark?

• 32 mark // Sep 6, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  Im not far right at all…………I believe in a certain set of principals………such as little govt……..low taxes and I believe in the constitution……I believe that govt should not in the business of punishing companies because they think they make too much money . I believe in the capitalist system, {which made us the greatest nation on earth}..I believe in letting parents decide which school is best for their children.not the govt…….liberals love to say they are pro choice.except when they arent…so I guess that makes me a conservative……….I was pretty angry when bush and co. decided to go on a spending spree.i also didnt like the war..but it seems foolish to retreat and surrender the gains we have made.I also recognize that the people of Iraq and afghanistan have a far better chance at living free thanks to george w. bush and fine military.If liberals had their way saddam would still be in power and his son’s rape rooms would be standing room only……….I dont feel im far right………i feel like a realist………………..take the recent smear campaign against sarah palin………..for decades liberals advocated pro choice policies.and I get the feeling they are pissed at gov palin for making her choice to not have abortions and yet still manage to be highly successful…so all along it wasnt about womens rights.just liberal womens choice………….they burned their bras’.gov palin wore hers and still did great….

• 33 Alex // Sep 6, 2008 at 10:45 pm

  When you talk about “the gains we have made” what gains are you referring to?

  Are you talking in terms of strategic military gains, economic gains, reputational gains, etc…?

  Just for the record i am registered a republican, but I a moderate. I also put myself into the realist school of thought when it comes to politics and international politics.

• 34 mark // Sep 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

  the .”gains” are self evident but I will list them for you……..there were twice as many killed in chicago then there were in iraq over the last month {maybe chicago needs a surge} the iraqi parliment passed 4 times as many laws than pelosi and co………economic gains are sharply up………..our reputation is that of having liberated over 40 million iraqi’s…….and a democracy in the heart of the middle east is a huge bonus for our national security……..obama claims.” no one in their wildest dreams thought the surge would work”.he forgets john mccain staked his political future on the surge.he thought it would work while obama said.and I quote.” having 20,000 or even 30,000 troops wont make a difference’………..clearly obama was wrong.he voted to cut off funds for troops in harms way………..there is no way I can forget that…………this is just a sample of the gains that have been made……..

• 35 Alex // Sep 7, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  What website gave you the information about more people being killed in Chicago than Iraq over the last month? I find it very hard to believe that one city can experience more deaths than an entire country who has 3x the population level of that city.

  I would not say that the economy is sharply up. The DOW was at 13000 and is now around 11200. The british pound is getting 2 to 1 on the dollar.

  Seeing how democracy functions in the middle east as opposed to democracy here in the west will be interesting to observe. I do not believe that democracy is the best form of government for every country. But it will be interested to see how it plays out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  As for the reputation of the United States, I think we have seen no change overall. The way we are viewed really depends on the people of the country you talk to. In western Europe we are viewed with more negativity than before (although they have never viewed us well). What is interesting however is how much the nations of eastern Europe view us in a positive regard. It is basically a crap shoot in terms of reputation for this country. Some like us and some do not. Invariably those that view the country as a postive will view it as a negative and vice versca.

• 36 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:44 am

  alex…………..you asked me about Iraq.I was talking about the gains made in Iraq………their economy is up sharply……….they currently have {estimate} 90 billion in surplus…….the death total in baghdad was twice as low as chicago during the m onth of august……what do you mean.”democracy isnt the best form of govt for some countries?…..is that a tacit approval for dictators like saddam hussein?………as far as our reputation goes……….the major countries liked us well enough when we were saving their asses in ww1 and ww2……….those were the gains we were talking about……..sorry you got confused.let me know if you need help with anything else……..

• 37 QuincyConscience // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:15 am

  mark could you please stop, instigating the partisan garbage of other blogs should not happen here. I feel as if I am witnessing the fall of man from our little internet eden. remember non-partisan conversations we used to have (e.g. will the NE or ME splits matter?). This blog is not a policy blog which is why I liked it. take it to the comment section of national review, seriously man.

• 38 William // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:21 am

  Baghdad is still the most dangerous city on earth, not Chicago. Haven’t heard about any asassinations of political leaders, or IED’s killing troops or civilians in Chicago.

  Right now, Iraqis can get electric power for just a few hours a day. That’s got to be some sort of economic indicator.

  From a diplomatic standpoint, it would’ve gone over a lot better if we didn’t invade Iraq under false pretenses, but we did. yay neocons.

• 39 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:21 am

  william….exactly what makes baghdad more dangerous than chicago?.if you go strictly by death count.chicago is far worse………you can spin it with emotion…but regardless.the facts remain.in the month of august there were twice as many killings in chicago……..next:…….your assumption “thats got to be some sort of economic indicator”.where did you get that?.your imagination?….. hardly scientific of you.more like wildly throwing around talking points without any backup whatsoever…………stick to the facts.they will never fail you…………….as to your “invaded under false pretenses’…….lets assume you are right………carry that thought out to a logical conclusion………would you prefer that saddam was still in power………if the answer is no……….then why take the position that after all the blood and treasure we have given……..just let iraq fall into terrorists hands…………thats a pretty wild idea……..so.the better diplomatic standpoint is clear…………america has liberated 40 million iraqis and given them a real shot at freedom……….p.s …………..Im having trouble believing you are a moderate republican……….but in case you are……you might want to recalibrate your thinking

• 40 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:33 am

  quincy.I havent instigated anything.I am responding to questions and false assertions………unlike you.I can back my post’s up with facts……….unlike you.I am not a hit and run poster…….since when is telling the truth.”partisan garbage”………..garbage seems to imply an untruth ………..I dont recall posting anything untrue.and will gladly redact anything that is untrue……….next: censorship isnt very becoming ..i will not be intimidated by you or anyone…………..I suppose we could talk about obama’s steep decline in the national polls.from obama up 6-8 % to now down 54-44.{usatoday/gallup} thats very remarkable.or is that more “partisan garbage”.???.you make the call….

• 41 William // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  You’re confused, Alex said he was a moderate republican, not me.

  Read the first sentence - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/opinion/edzorpette.php

  It’s not science, it’s common sense. In this day and age, the availability of electric power greases the wheels of commerce.

  In the rankings, Baghdad scored lowest in personal safety and quality of life - http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1307990

  You’re right, Iraq is better off without Saddam, bit it doesn’t follow that electing Obama will ensure Iraq will fall into turmoil. He’s stated that he will listen to his commanders on the ground.

  I think McCain would be a good commander in cheif as well. Militarily speaking, he would be far superior to cheney/bush and their loyalists.

  Otherwise, for issues that are not Iraq, it’s disturbing how often McCain sides with lil bush.

• 42 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  Im sorry I confused you with Alex……..my bad…………do you need direct obama quotes?………”I will pull troops out in 16 months”…doesnt sound like thats doing any listening……..william…….the point I was making is that Iraq’s economy is growing rapidly……..I guess Ill concede the electricity thing………….My points are still valid..all of them and ive seen the show lil bush….funny …….p.s. if you look at obama’s record….he voted with sen majority leader harry reid…97% of the time…….and we know mccain voted with bush 90%………{most votes in the senate are unanimous}…….Id say its pretty disturbing that obama sides with harry reid and nancy pelosi most often….Isay obama hasnt been honest with the voters.{william ayers, campaign finance reform, fisa,tony rezco}………Rest assured that I have lots of problems with mccain..{immigration, mccain feingold, cap and trade emmissions}…….but I have yet to catch mccain in a lie……..that matters to me…………and yes.I kinda like that drilling for oil thing thats the “power that greases the wheels.” in my humble opinion……

• 43 Alex // Sep 9, 2008 at 12:26 am

  Mark can you provide me with the link that states Chicago is more deadlier than Iraq and provides facts for this comparison?

  ”democracy isnt the best form of govt for some countries?…..is that a tacit approval for dictators like saddam hussein?………

  My statement is not an approval for dictators like Saddam Hussein. The fact is that some countries are not ready for democracy. The way certain cultures have developed overtime and the thinking of the populace in that country naturally clashes with our idea of what democracy is.

  I would like to also point out that for years the United States government has supported numerous dictators throughout the world including Saddam Hussein. As long as that Dictator was serving our devices we maintained friendly and supportive relations with that country.

  I also applaud the way you backpeddled and then rephrased your statement about America’s reputation gains. You diverted from the modern day and went back in time to the eras of world war 1 and world war 2. The truth of the matter is that we were better liked during those times than we are today.

  In all honesty I sincerely hope you are not trying to be insultive in some of your posts. When you are spinning statements, voting records, or any other material about a candidate or a politcal party you should avoid coming off in an agressive insultive manner. Doing this cheapens your results and makes others view you as an agressive attack dog for one side only.

  The thing about writing on a blog is that people have to guess at the attitude you have in your post. We do not have the luxury of fact to face communication. So in the future just be a little more mindful or how you are coming across to those that read your posts. And I am not trying to be insultive or talk down to you. This is something that I have been guilty of and have seen others been guilty of it as well.

• 44 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 7:46 am

  alex.I liked your post…http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

• 45 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 7:53 am

  I have posted a link about chicago…….and yes.we have given support to dictators in the past…….”when it served our interests”…….all countries do that……..as far as being liked by the world.all I can do is quote ronald reagan..”it is sometimes better to be feared than respected”………Is it really back-peddling to remember when the united states saved europe.twice………..and just for historical flavor………….5200 soldiers died in the first hour at the landing at normandy……….more than have died in 5 years in Iraq………..ask yourself a question…”what does the “world” have against liberating millions of people”………and lastly………if I seem insultive.I apologize…………

• 46 QuincyConscience // Sep 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Alex and William. Stop feeding the troll. This serves no purpose. We can let it be known that Mark thinks its moderate to believe things are going well in Iraq and all the other things he asserts. No one but people who already believed that will change their mind. This is pointless. let it go, look at my past posts. It will not get you anywhere no matter how objective your information. you can’t convince everybody and Mark is obviously long past being able to do this with. Also a lot of your own assertions are not well researched, but lets not do partisan blather and send those who do to sites like realclearpolitics and other cluster****s of self important narcissists. This is supposed to be just about polls, it was the one place I could just stare at all the pretty pols without listening to lies from both sides.

• 47 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm

  Things arent going well in Iraq?……….says who?……………as for your personal attacks on me………I can understand why you want to run away……….if you dont have a case.argue the law.if you have a case.argue the facts………….as far as.”the rest of my assertions”……..I find it curious you cant refute them………just blindly dismissing them is very unscientific……….have some courage……

• 48 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/2008_09_05topline.html since you want some polls

• 49 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html ok.here is the scientific undisputable facts.cant be denied in your face proof

  270toWin: It is worth noting that this is a bit of an apples-and-oranges article, as one refers to everyone killed in the city while the other refers to soldiers. Most likely, if all Baghdad was included, the outcome might be different. In any case, it seems like it would be more fun to spend time in Chicago in July than Baghdad, but that’s just our opinion.

• 50 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/09/the-numbers-are-devastating-to-obama/ you want poll information.you got it……..

• 51 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx and yet more polls

• 52 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  dear 270 staff.thats a valid point..about the deaths…but again…I was pointing out american deaths……{which was the topic}. I happen to love chicago…………….GO CUBS!!!!!!!

• 53 Fred // Sep 9, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  Sorry Mark, while you may have meant just American deaths you never said that. You just said there were more deaths in Chicago than Baghdad. As for that being undisputable proof, let me ask this. How many Americans are in Chicago? How many in Baghdad? What’s the death rate per capita?

• 54 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

  I re-read my post………..and I will redact only one thing………I claimed it was in the month of august…..it was actually over the entire summer……The rest is quite accurate….{and if it is over the entire summer, my point is just reinforced due to a longer time frame with which to work}………you asked for death rates………the comparison was clearly just death rates due to violence….heart attacks, cancer, lou gerhigs disease were not included……..
  I will submit that there are twice as many weapons in Baghdad……and yet chicago still had a higher rate of violence associated with death…..so think clearly…..twice as many guns and yet.1/2 as many deaths in Baghdad……..That is a clear indicator of my original statement…………..

• 55 Fred // Sep 9, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  According to http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10195540.html there were about 34,500 US troops in Baghdad in March. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago the population of Chicago is 2,833,321.

  So that’s 2 times as many people shot and killed in a city with about 82 times as many Americans. While my numbers may be off a little, not sure how accurate they are, I think they are close enough. Seems to me that Chicago is safer.

  That’s why when they compare murder rates they go by population, not just by number of murders.

• 56 mark // Sep 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  ok………I would like to point out that your time frame of march is not even clost to the summer.but lets not quibble……….my main point is still intact……..and by any reasonable standard.Iraq is much more under control…….I dont want to get lost in the weeds……..I love chicago..Iwent to basic training at the naval training center by chicago……I would love for chicago to be safer than it currently is……..I dont see the need to continue this line of discussion………kinda played out.dont ya think???

• 57 Fred // Sep 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

  I don’t doubt your love of Chicago. I’m just saying you are wrong about Chicago being more dangerous. There are alot more Americans in Chicago than Baghdad. If you take the number of mureders per American in each city I believe you will find that it’s higher in Baghdad. And unless the number of troops in Baghdad went up about 1 milllion then the March numbers are valid. Even if there were 100,000 there over the summer the rate per person is still much higher than Chicago.

  You complain about people not having facts to dispute your claim, then when I give facts you deicded there’s no point to continue.

• 58 mark // Sep 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

  does the fact that chicago isnt loaded with sunni and shiite terrorists factor in?…………I know chicago has gangs but last time I checked there hasnt been any beheadings at the local mosque……..is chicago the central front in the war on terror?………..I will concede the numbers argument………………..yes.per capita chicago is safer…….chicago also isnt a war zone..I think any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that with Iraq being a war zone {canada hasnt invaded chicago} and the fact that chicago isnt under a mandatory night time curfew plays into the argument.along with the fact that baghdad is over loaded with weapons……..{I have no way to verify that, but its a matter of common sense}…….so take all those factors into consideration……..so strictly speaking chicago is safer.the point I was attempting to make is how remarkable things have changed in Iraq since the surge…………..so.you win fred……….

• 59 Alex // Sep 10, 2008 at 9:01 am

  If we had taken the Republican Guard up on their offer to help, the situation in Iraq would be entirely different from what it is right now. More than likely the fighting would be at a minimum, our troop losses would be significantly lower, and Iraq would be stable.

• 60 mark // Sep 10, 2008 at 9:49 am

  alex.huh? that entire post makes absolutely no sense………unworthy of a response

• 61 William // Sep 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  Personally, I’d like for McCain/Palin to say something about the issues. Their inability to say anything of substance is telling. They will not do well at the debates methinks.

• 62 Alex // Sep 10, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  see mark it is that easy, just keep making those kind of statements and no one will take you seriously when you post.

  As for my post on the Republican Guard, I was referring to the opening days of the Iraq War. During the first few days of the war our military forces received a message from the Republican Guard. The message stated that they would offer no resistance and help us handle security in Iraq during the time of transition. If the invading forces refused the help of the Republican Guard, they promised to began waging guerilla warfare and undertaking acts of terrorism. The American forces were given three days to make up their mind. During that period of three days the Republican Guard promised not to attack. We did not seek their help and as a result the Republican Guard kept their word.

  From my point of view if you are invading a country and that country’s own military offers to join forces with your army, you should always take them up on it. Iraq would probably be a very different place and perhaps our troop casualties would be lower.

• 63 mark // Sep 11, 2008 at 7:09 am

  alex……………thats ridiculous………first of all……….in your post you make the claim that “fighting would be at a minimum”….guess what.it already is…and has been going in the right direction for the last 6 months….{the surge}………..second:……..the republican guard was corrupt.no way to trust them…….by the way.where is all this intense fighting you claim is going on?…………you need to worry about your own credibility……..any level headed analysis shows that Iraq is more stable….and gets more so.every day…………..Iraq’i forces are in control of 90% of all military operations.hell.we just turned over anbar province.or did you forget?

• 64 Alex // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Mark I have numerous friends in the military and do not rely on fox news for information about the intensity of combat going on in Iraq. If you sincerely believe that Iraqi forces are in control of 90% of all military operations, then should be able to provide supporting evidence.

  The Republican Guard hated Saddam and the Baath party, they would have helped us. Only a very few number of troops was loyal to Saddam.

• 65 mark // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:35 am

  alex……….you are quite the kool-aid drinker……….have another shot…..

• 66 William // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:27 am

  Tell us about the bang up job bush has done (and McSame would do) in Afghanistan. You know Afghanistan? … Where our real enemy was…

• 67 mark // Sep 12, 2008 at 11:47 am

  I’d be happy to inform you………but its probably a waste of my time…….

• 68 mark // Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49 am

  william..what do obama and usama bin laden have in common?………..they both have friends that bombed the pentagon.{bill ayers}…………ouch………thats gotta hurt

• 69 Alex // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:57 pm

  Well mark you have made it painfully obvious that you are to close-minded, misinformed, and lack the maturity to discuss these issues in a non-hostile manner. Perhaps when you grow older we can reopen the dialogue.

  Respond to this if you want, but I am not gonna take the time to return to this conversation. There are more interesting discussions going on in other parts of this website.

• 70 William // Sep 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  you didn’t inform me the first time b/c there’s no tenable argument for you to make.

• 71 mark // Sep 12, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  like I said.enjoy your kool-aid

• 72 QuincyConscience // Sep 14, 2008 at 3:01 pm

  You guys are serious? just stop posting and we can move on. Mark can’t help himself, just stop everyone else

• 73 william // Sep 14, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  What is it with the Kool- Aid??? Jonestown??? Was that 1979???

• 74 mark // Sep 15, 2008 at 8:37 am

  I understand your frustration………Its really amazing….you cant debate on the merits……..so you attack …..sort of like obama.

Leave a Comment