Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: US Presidential hopefuls

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT: US Presidential hopefuls

    http://www.presidentmatch.com/

    I saw this quiz in another newsgroup and thought it would be interesting to
    take it since I have no idea who any of these men are apart from the
    incumbent President, of course, and I don't have any view on their
    personalities or media image to colour my opinions..

    Actually, I have to admit that in the last US presidential election (well
    past the primaries when I might have had an excuse not to know) I naively
    remarked to my husband, "George W. Bush... is he any relation to
    past-President Bush?" The dear man opened and shut his mouth a few times
    before falling about laughing and letting me in on the secret the rest of
    the world had known for years.

    (Query: Are you sure the US citizenry really doesn't want a monarchy?)

    Anyway, I enjoyed doing this matching quiz and thought others might too. My
    results were as follows:

    Dean - 100%
    Kerry - 99%
    Edwards -96%
    Sharpton - 94%
    Clark - 94%
    Kucinich -90%
    Liberman - 82%
    Bush - 44%

    But what does that all mean? Apart from the fact that the first seven are
    Democrats, that is! Have I just confirmed my pinko lefty socialist liberal
    image? lol

    Tai



  • #2
    OT: US Presidential hopefuls

    "Tai" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    http://www.presidentmatch.com/ I saw this quiz in another newsgroup and thought it would be interesting to take it since I have no idea who any of these men are apart from the incumbent President, of course, and I don't have any view on their personalities or media image to colour my opinions.. Actually, I have to admit that in the last US presidential election (well past the primaries when I might have had an excuse not to know) I naively remarked to my husband, "George W. Bush... is he any relation to past-President Bush?" The dear man opened and shut his mouth a few times before falling about laughing and letting me in on the secret the rest of the world had known for years. (Query: Are you sure the US citizenry really doesn't want a monarchy?) Anyway, I enjoyed doing this matching quiz and thought others might too. My results were as follows: Dean - 100% Kerry - 99% Edwards -96% Sharpton - 94% Clark - 94% Kucinich -90% Liberman - 82% Bush - 44% But what does that all mean? Apart from the fact that the first seven are Democrats, that is! Have I just confirmed my pinko lefty socialist liberal image? lol Tai
    Mine was Kucinich 100%, then Kerry at 95%
    Bush was 21 %. What a surprise. Not.

    Comment


    • #3
      OT: US Presidential hopefuls

      [Apologies for top posting]

      This was surprising to me (I didn't give party affiliation). I wonder how
      accurate it is.

      1 Kerry Score: 100%

      2 Kucinich Score: 96%

      3 Edwards Score: 96%

      4 Lieberman Score: 95%

      5 Sharpton Score: 93%

      6 Clark Score: 86%

      7 Dean Score: 83%

      8 Bush Score: 64%

      -Tony

      On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:19:03 GMT, Tai
      <[email protected]> wrote:
      http://www.presidentmatch.com/ I saw this quiz in another newsgroup and thought it would be interesting to take it since I have no idea who any of these men are apart from the incumbent President, of course, and I don't have any view on their personalities or media image to colour my opinions.. Actually, I have to admit that in the last US presidential election (well past the primaries when I might have had an excuse not to know) I naively remarked to my husband, "George W. Bush... is he any relation to past-President Bush?" The dear man opened and shut his mouth a few times before falling about laughing and letting me in on the secret the rest of the world had known for years. (Query: Are you sure the US citizenry really doesn't want a monarchy?) Anyway, I enjoyed doing this matching quiz and thought others might too. My results were as follows: Dean - 100% Kerry - 99% Edwards -96% Sharpton - 94% Clark - 94% Kucinich -90% Liberman - 82% Bush - 44% But what does that all mean? Apart from the fact that the first seven are Democrats, that is! Have I just confirmed my pinko lefty socialist liberal image? lol Tai

      --
      "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
      to fertilize your lawn!"
      Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
      Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

      Comment


      • #4
        OT: US Presidential hopefuls

        "Caren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected] om...
        Mine was Kucinich 100%, then Kerry at 95% Bush was 21 %. What a surprise. Not.
        I got Kucinich and Sharpton as the two highest.

        I'd vote for Al. Just to shake **** up


        Comment


        • #5
          US Presidential hopefuls

          Great Quiz.. I too was clueless on the candidates...


          Kerry 100%
          Kucinuch 100%
          Clark 93%
          Sharpton 92%
          Edwards 90%
          Dean 88%
          Leiberman 84%
          Bush 30% NO SURPRISE HERE!



          Kass


          "Tai" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          http://www.presidentmatch.com/ I saw this quiz in another newsgroup and thought it would be interesting
          to
          take it since I have no idea who any of these men are apart from the incumbent President, of course, and I don't have any view on their personalities or media image to colour my opinions.. Actually, I have to admit that in the last US presidential election (well past the primaries when I might have had an excuse not to know) I naively remarked to my husband, "George W. Bush... is he any relation to past-President Bush?" The dear man opened and shut his mouth a few times before falling about laughing and letting me in on the secret the rest of the world had known for years. (Query: Are you sure the US citizenry really doesn't want a monarchy?)
          Anyway, I enjoyed doing this matching quiz and thought others might too.
          My
          results were as follows: Dean - 100% Kerry - 99% Edwards -96% Sharpton - 94% Clark - 94% Kucinich -90% Liberman - 82% Bush - 44% But what does that all mean? Apart from the fact that the first seven are Democrats, that is! Have I just confirmed my pinko lefty socialist liberal image? lol Tai

          Comment


          • #6
            OT: US Presidential hopefuls

            Tai <[email protected]> wrote:
            I am very surprised! Here are my results:

            Kucinich 100%
            Sharpton 96%
            Kerry 94%
            Clark 94%
            Dean 91%
            Edwards 87%
            Lieberman 82%

            I would not have said I was *that* liberal!

            Comment


            • #7
              OT: US Presidential hopefuls

              [email protected] (Emma Anne) writes:
              Tai <[email protected]> wrote: I am very surprised! Here are my results: Kucinich 100% Sharpton 96% Kerry 94% Clark 94% Dean 91% Edwards 87% Lieberman 82%
              OK Emma Anne: Re our conversation yesterday, here are my results
              (though the Kucinich isn't really a surprise to me):

              Kucinich 100%
              Sharpton 99%
              Dean 90%
              Kerry 89%
              Clark 84%
              Edwards 77%
              Lieberman 76%
              Bush 19%

              Keep in mind that this poll is based on how your opinions compare with
              these politicians stated views, and doesn't take into account your
              knowledge of what these people have done in the past.

              It also doesn't take into account your gestalt about whether this
              person is suited to the job in temperment.

              It _also_ (and this riles me) counts George Bush as having "served in
              the military." Protecting Galveston from the Viet Cong should not be
              considered comparable to the experiences of either Clark or Kerry!

              Comment


              • #8
                OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                "Doug Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                [email protected] (Emma Anne) writes:
                Tai <[email protected]> wrote: I am very surprised! Here are my results: Kucinich 100% Sharpton 96% Kerry 94% Clark 94% Dean 91% Edwards 87% Lieberman 82%
                OK Emma Anne: Re our conversation yesterday, here are my results (though the Kucinich isn't really a surprise to me): Kucinich 100% Sharpton 99% Dean 90% Kerry 89% Clark 84% Edwards 77% Lieberman 76% Bush 19%
                Boy, it's getting crowded over here on the left!

                Kucinich 100%
                Sharpton 93%
                Kerry 89%
                Dean 84%
                Clark 79%
                Edwards 77%
                Lieberman 65%
                Bush 14%



                Comment


                • #9
                  OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                  Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
                  It _also_ (and this riles me) counts George Bush as having "served in the military." Protecting Galveston from the Viet Cong should not be considered comparable to the experiences of either Clark or Kerry!
                  Especially since, having gotten himself into the National Guard, he got
                  bored with that and went AWOL:

                  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html


                  He apparently was a good pilot, and expressed that he liked flying, but
                  he was suspended for not taking an exam (whether he refused it, or just
                  missed it because he was off being AWOL instead of reporting for duty, is
                  not clear to me from what I've seen).

                  *

                  What this suggests to me is that the Democrats may have to watch out
                  about Clark and Kerry. The last five contests I can think off offhand
                  had a quasi-draft-dodger come out ahead of an actual veteran who had
                  served overseas:

                  1) Clinton over Kerrey, 1992 primary. (Not the same Kerry as this year.)
                  2) Clinton over Bush, 1992 general.
                  3) Clinton over Dole, 1996 general.
                  4) Bush over McCain, 2000 primary.
                  5) Bush over Gore, 2000 general (NB: Gore won the popular vote).

                  As I remember, ads run by Bob Kerrey during the 1992 primary noted that
                  since he was a veteran, he'd be immune to "draft dodger" attacks in the
                  general election, thus making him more electable than Clinton. (And we
                  know that THAT worked out.)

                  If Clark and/or Kerry end up on the final Democratic ticket, we may well
                  have a sixth time in a row that a quasi-draft-dodger beats an actual
                  veteran who served overseas.

                  Of course, being at war and with terrorists all around, it may be that
                  the country is more receptive to the "I served and know what it is to
                  do so" argument. At least, I suspect an actual veteran would not send
                  National Guard troops to Iraq without proper protective gear.

                  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1203-12.htm

                  Bush, since he's never actually been in such a situation, can't be
                  expected to fully comprehend his actions. If he'd really understood,
                  he would have ensured that all the equipment was ready, and the postwar
                  plans with contingencies were drawn up, before he got this shooting
                  match started.

                  *

                  Note: it would be a mistake to conclude that I support, or do not
                  support, any particular candidiate(s) based on this post. I do not
                  endorse or recommend any politicians or political parties.

                  Attacks on our would-be rulers, well, I'm much freer with those. 8-)


                  Darren Provine ! [email protected] ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
                  "Politicians are the same all over. The promise to build a bridge even
                  where there is no river." -- Nikita Krushchev

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                    >I got Kucinich and Sharpton as the two highest.
                    I'd vote for Al. Just to shake **** up
                    Me too. Sharpton scared me. ;-)

                    Sheila

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                      Dr Nancy's Sweetie <[email protected]> writes:
                      Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
                      It _also_ (and this riles me) counts George Bush as having "served in the military." Protecting Galveston from the Viet Cong should not be considered comparable to the experiences of either Clark or Kerry!
                      Especially since, having gotten himself into the National Guard, he got bored with that and went AWOL: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html He apparently was a good pilot, and expressed that he liked flying, but he was suspended for not taking an exam (whether he refused it, or just missed it because he was off being AWOL instead of reporting for duty, is not clear to me from what I've seen). * What this suggests to me is that the Democrats may have to watch out about Clark and Kerry. The last five contests I can think off offhand had a quasi-draft-dodger come out ahead of an actual veteran who had served overseas: 1) Clinton over Kerrey, 1992 primary. (Not the same Kerry as this year.) 2) Clinton over Bush, 1992 general. 3) Clinton over Dole, 1996 general. 4) Bush over McCain, 2000 primary. 5) Bush over Gore, 2000 general (NB: Gore won the popular vote).
                      I don't think one can conclude that the public see serving in the
                      military as a _problem_ from that list. It may simply be that (like
                      me) they don't find it a very relevant criterion.

                      Level-headedness and charisma seem to be judged more important (though
                      by what measure people find either Bush charismatic continues to elude
                      me) than, say, military service.
                      As I remember, ads run by Bob Kerrey during the 1992 primary noted that since he was a veteran, he'd be immune to "draft dodger" attacks in the general election, thus making him more electable than Clinton. (And we know that THAT worked out.) If Clark and/or Kerry end up on the final Democratic ticket, we may well have a sixth time in a row that a quasi-draft-dodger beats an actual veteran who served overseas. Of course, being at war and with terrorists all around, it may be that the country is more receptive to the "I served and know what it is to do so" argument. At least, I suspect an actual veteran would not send National Guard troops to Iraq without proper protective gear. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1203-12.htm
                      Public reaction to that incidend may give you your answer. It appears
                      that the U.S. does not actually care if the leader knows anything
                      about what he is doing militarily, or in foreign policy.
                      Bush, since he's never actually been in such a situation, can't be expected to fully comprehend his actions.
                      Is _that_ why he doesn't seem to fully comprehend his actions? What
                      would explain his partial comprehension of the _rest_ of his actions?
                      snip

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                        [email protected] (Emma Anne) wrote in message news:<1g8bq1a.22j27e1aqcc4dN%[email protected]>.. .
                        Tai <[email protected]> wrote: I am very surprised! Here are my results: Kucinich 100% Sharpton 96% Kerry 94% Clark 94% Dean 91% Edwards 87% Lieberman 82% I would not have said I was *that* liberal!

                        Kucinich 100%
                        Sharpton 93%
                        Kerry 92%
                        Dean 86%
                        Clark 82%
                        Edwards 79%
                        Lieberman 71%

                        Bush 7%


                        Sorry George !


                        I guess anybody who's not George W looks good to me which is not a
                        suprise. To be honest though, I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to
                        word the questions differently or ask a different set of questions
                        that would make George come out looking better. This poll is just
                        another example of the liberal media in action. ;-).

                        It's too bad Kucinich doesn't have a more visible campaign. Even my
                        relatively conservative step dad is impressed by him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                          "DrLith" <[email protected]> writes:
                          "Doug Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                          [email protected] (Emma Anne) writes:
                          Tai <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.presidentmatch.com/ I am very surprised! Here are my results: Kucinich 100% Sharpton 96% Kerry 94% Clark 94% Dean 91% Edwards 87% Lieberman 82%
                          OK Emma Anne: Re our conversation yesterday, here are my results (though the Kucinich isn't really a surprise to me): Kucinich 100% Sharpton 99% Dean 90% Kerry 89% Clark 84% Edwards 77% Lieberman 76% Bush 19%
                          Boy, it's getting crowded over here on the left! Kucinich 100% Sharpton 93% Kerry 89% Dean 84% Clark 79% Edwards 77% Lieberman 65% Bush 14%
                          The other thing that is weird about this poll is the "100%s"

                          Everyone has "100%" marked for the polls idea of who should be their
                          first choice. 100% of what? 100% agreement? No. If you go compare
                          you answers to the answers of the candidate you are marked at 100%
                          with, you will easily be able to find questions which you differ on.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                            Bush 100%
                            Lieberman 60%
                            Clark 50%
                            Edwards 50%
                            Kerry 45%
                            Dean 43%
                            Sharpton 33%
                            Kucinich 32%
                            --
                            Gene Seibel
                            Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/




                            "Tai" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                            http://www.presidentmatch.com/ I saw this quiz in another newsgroup and thought it would be interesting to take it since I have no idea who any of these men are apart from the incumbent President, of course, and I don't have any view on their personalities or media image to colour my opinions.. Actually, I have to admit that in the last US presidential election (well past the primaries when I might have had an excuse not to know) I naively remarked to my husband, "George W. Bush... is he any relation to past-President Bush?" The dear man opened and shut his mouth a few times before falling about laughing and letting me in on the secret the rest of the world had known for years. (Query: Are you sure the US citizenry really doesn't want a monarchy?) Anyway, I enjoyed doing this matching quiz and thought others might too. My results were as follows: Dean - 100% Kerry - 99% Edwards -96% Sharpton - 94% Clark - 94% Kucinich -90% Liberman - 82% Bush - 44% But what does that all mean? Apart from the fact that the first seven are Democrats, that is! Have I just confirmed my pinko lefty socialist liberal image? lol Tai

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OT: US Presidential hopefuls

                              Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
                              Keep in mind that this poll is based on how your opinions compare with these politicians stated views, and doesn't take into account your knowledge of what these people have done in the past.
                              Yes. For example Kucinich is a Catholic who was pro-life until he
                              decided to run for president. So I don't put much faith in what he says
                              his views are now.

                              I am actually rooting for Howard Dean, because I think he has what it
                              takes to fight back against the coming smears. I guess he doesn't have
                              much chance at this point though.
                              It also doesn't take into account your gestalt about whether this person is suited to the job in temperment. It _also_ (and this riles me) counts George Bush as having "served in the military." Protecting Galveston from the Viet Cong should not be considered comparable to the experiences of either Clark or Kerry!
                              Yeah, the hoser. :-)

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X