NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090204W.shtml

I'll be tuning in a week from Sunday to find out what he has to say.

I don't think there will be too much trouble for Bush. He is not running on his Vietnam era military record. The only people that will care are those that are planning on voting for Kerry anyway. Kerry is the one making a big deal about his service. Bush already said that Kerry's service was admirable.

if it has to do with "truth" it wont be trouble for bush, his follower sare too stupid to recognise the truth if it pimp slapped them then beat them with its pimp cane

Well look who's back... :P

I'll go read the article now...

It very well could mean trouble for Bush. A lot of his supporters have a view of him as 'honourable'. This is not an honourable.

It may deal him a blow with those who believe in him for this reason. As long as the media releases this information widely enough. It won't shake those who are with him for another reason. at least not as much as the others.

Well look who's back... :P



Just at work and bored, 'tis all. :)

if they dont care that he lied to get us into a war in iraq, why would they care that he lied about joining the NG to avoid vietnam?

Yeah, this is going to mean little to nothing. Bush has never made his military service a campaign issue or a reason to elect him president. He's also been very generous in comments about Kerry's military record. He never paraded himself around as a military hero. That's where kerry is getting bitten badly.

Just at work and bored, 'tis all. :)

Heh, I expect some good RP from you soon :P

if they dont care that he lied to get us into a war in iraq, why would they care that he lied about joining the NG to avoid vietnam?

:rolleyes:

Heh, I expect some good RP from you soon :P

Nah, I'm taking off for a few months.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, but the Swift Vets and other people certainly aren't helping when it comes to not making Kerry's service an issue.

Yeah, but the Swift Vets and other people certainly aren't helping when it comes to not making Kerry's service an issue.

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero. Those soldiers who fought with him, whose likeness he used in his ad, have every right to say otherwise.

I think it's hilarious that Bush didn't get on the ballot in Alabama. The Republican Party didn't have a candidate (required nomination at the convention, one cannot just assume candidacy) and the State of Alabama requires candidates to be declared by August 31st.

I'm sure Alabama will make an exception, but I still find it hilarious.

In a Bush State, Bush may not be on the ballot. *snicker*

I think it's hilarious that Bush didn't get on the ballot in Alabama. The Republican Party didn't have a candidate (required nomination at the convention, one cannot just assume candidacy) and the State of Alabama requires candidates to be declared by August 31st.

I'm sure Alabama will make an exception, but I still find it hilarious.

In a Bush State, Bush may not be on the ballot. *snicker*
i can die happy if he doesnt get put on the list, that way my vote actually counts and bush gets screwed, bush cant win if hes not on the ballot

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero. Those soldiers who fought with him, whose likeness he used in his ad, have every right to say otherwise.
thats all well and good...as long as they arnt lying their collective asses off

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero. Those soldiers who fought with him, whose likeness he used in his ad, have every right to say otherwise.

Read what I posted, they're not helping matters. The more they criticize the more Kerry will defend himself, thus the vicious circle continues. If Kerry was receiving no criticizm but still flaunting his service, then I would call him a pompous ass.

It's a vicious circle.

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero.
I thought the American people got to decide for themselves what they were interested in. Did somebody rewrite the rules?

i can die happy if he doesnt get put on the list, that way my vote actually counts and bush gets screwed, bush cant win if hes not on the ballot

Well, they boned themselves by having their convention so late in the year.

Apparently, the only way for Bush to get on the ballot in Alabama is to change election laws, and it may be too late to do that.

Of course, I'm sure being a landslide Bush state, the Republicans will rig something. :rolleyes:

Well, they boned themselves by having their convention so late in the year.

Apparently, the only way for Bush to get on the ballot in Alabama is to change election laws, and it may be too late to do that.

Of course, I'm sure being a landslide Bush state, the Republicans will rig something. :rolleyes:

This is most interesting indeed. Would you happen to have a link to a page that lists this law? I'm interested in reading up on it.

This is most interesting indeed. Would you happen to have a link to a page that lists this law? I'm interested in reading up on it.
dont count on finding it unless of knowing where it is ahead of time, i doubt even one jduge in this whoel state could tell you where that is, there are encyclopedies shorter than our constitution

Well, they boned themselves by having their convention so late in the year.

Apparently, the only way for Bush to get on the ballot in Alabama is to change election laws, and it may be too late to do that.

Of course, I'm sure being a landslide Bush state, the Republicans will rig something. :rolleyes:
considering its not all over the news, good chance they are going to completely ignore it until some one starts challenging shit after election time

dont count on finding it unless of knowing where it is ahead of time, i doubt even one jduge in this whoel state could tell you where that is, there are encyclopedies shorter than our constitution

Eek....alright, I'll try a Google search later and see what I can come up with.

thats all well and good...as long as they arnt lying their collective asses off

All what, 274 of them? Kerry's accounts of Vietnam so far have not been exactly honest....Christmas in Cambodia, hearing about Dr. King dying. Why should his credibility be better than all of them considering he keeps getting caught making up stories to make himself sound better.

I thought the American people got to decide for themselves what they were interested in. Did somebody rewrite the rules?

Sure they do. But Bush has already said Kerry's service in Vietnam was more admireable than his own. What else is there to say?

Read what I posted, they're not helping matters. The more they criticize the more Kerry will defend himself, thus the vicious circle continues. If Kerry was receiving no criticizm but still flaunting his service, then I would call him a pompous ass.

It can only continue for two more months. This man wants to be the leader of the free world and has cited his service in Vietnam as a "test" of his character. Shouldn't it be therefore examined to death?

Well, they boned themselves by having their convention so late in the year.

Apparently, the only way for Bush to get on the ballot in Alabama is to change election laws, and it may be too late to do that.

Of course, I'm sure being a landslide Bush state, the Republicans will rig something.

It's a Republican state. Obviously the will of the majority of people is to have Bush on their ballot? Where is the rigging?

It can only continue for two more months. This man wants to be the leader of the free world and has cited his service in Vietnam as a "test" of his character. Shouldn't it be therefore examined to death?

Perhaps, yes. But shouldn't we also be examining Bush carefully, or is he exempt because he's the imcumbent President?

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero. Those soldiers who fought with him, whose likeness he used in his ad, have every right to say otherwise.
Yeah, okay, maybe he need not parade and maybe nobody cares about Vietnam anymore, anyway, but at least he was there. ..
The Alabama thing is funny, but you guys don't seriously expect there to be no family member/business padnah/former campaign aide etc. that could quickly and quietly fix a little snafu like that? He himself may haplessly blunder through life, but his support crew is impressive and all-pervasive, witness that whole Florida election thing.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090204W.shtml

I'll be tuning in a week from Sunday to find out what he has to say.
I don't think it's so much trouble for Bush as it is for those who question Kerry's service in Viet Nam. There are those who claim that Kerry volunteered for swift duty because it was fairly easy, then tried unsuccessfully to avoid it when it became apparent that it would be more dangerous than he first assumed. Hopefully, this article will shut them up once and for all (overly optimistic, I know) or risk being exposed as having a double standard on this issue (i.e., criticizing Kerry for [allegedly] trying to escape the rigors of service, while going easy on Bush for doing the same).

It's a Republican state. Obviously the will of the majority of people is to have Bush on their ballot? Where is the rigging?

We don't live in a country that caters to the will of the majority. We have what are known as "Laws". The law in Alabama says candidates must be registered by August 31st (which would be 45 days - weekends and holidays don't count - prior to this years' general election). It doesn't make any exceptions.

Here is Alabama's Title 17 concerning election law. It's a little lengthy, but it's all in there:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16474.htm

Information can also be obtained here: http://www.sos.state.al.us/index.cfm

(Bush can still get on the ballot as an Independent candidate until September 7th.)

If George W. Bush is on the ballot (as a Republican) in Alabama in November, it means somebody rigged something and violated Alabama law. Majority be damned, it's the law.

We don't live in a country that caters to the will of the majority. We have what are known as "Laws". The law in Alabama says candidates must be registered by August 31st (which would be 45 days - weekends and holidays don't count - prior to this years' general election). It doesn't make any exceptions.

We also have a thing called a "judicial system" that protects us from blindly following laws like lemmings into the ocean. Somebody in the Bush campaign will make an appeal to the Alabama Supreme court, and they will grant an extension. It's not rigging, that's how it works. :rolleyes:

Keruvalia, something similar happened in New Jersey. The courts changed the law to get a Democrat (Lautenberg)on a Senate ballot after the deadline. Republicans were furious, but the NJ Supreme court decided that NJ needed a real choice even though there was a Republican and an Independent on the ballot. So there is a legal way to do it.

We also have a thing called a "judicial system" that protects us from blindly following laws like lemmings into the ocean. Somebody in the Bush campaign will make an appeal to the Alabama Supreme court, and they will grant an extension. It's not rigging, that's how it works. :rolleyes:

Yes, but there are standards and practices on how such decisions are made. This keeps us from having to blindly follow judicial decisions.

I have a feeling that this one will make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Could Alabama be this election's Florida? Yikes.

Note: Believe me, if Kerry had made this same mistake, I'd be all over it, too.

Yes, but there are standards and practices on how such decisions are made. This keeps us from having to blindly follow judicial decisions.

I have a feeling that this one will make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Could Alabama be this election's Florida? Yikes.

Note: Believe me, if Kerry had made this same mistake, I'd be all over it, too.

It isn't going to be an issue in a heavy Republican state like that. If it was a split state, you'd probably have enough democratic weight in the state supreme court to make an issue of it. In the end it's going to be a really easy decision for the justices....you don't screw millions of voters out of the right to vote for their candidate in something as important as a presidential election over something as silly as missing a registration deadline. If the left makes a big deal of it, it will just make them look desperate.

I don't think it's so much trouble for Bush as it is for those who question Kerry's service in Viet Nam. There are those who claim that Kerry volunteered for swift duty because it was fairly easy, then tried unsuccessfully to avoid it when it became apparent that it would be more dangerous than he first assumed. Hopefully, this article will shut them up once and for all (overly optimistic, I know) or risk being exposed as having a double standard on this issue (i.e., criticizing Kerry for [allegedly] trying to escape the rigors of service, while going easy on Bush for doing the same).
the thing is kerry is claiming to be a good man his whole life, so they are allowed to criticize him for not being perfect in vietnam

bush was an admitted party boy coke head but NONE OF IT MATTERS. he was born again on his 40th birthday so only the stuff that has happened since then counts.

so only kerry's past can be brought into question. it all makes perfect sense in a born again christian kinda way.

Well, they boned themselves by having their convention so late in the year.

Apparently, the only way for Bush to get on the ballot in Alabama is to change election laws, and it may be too late to do that.

Of course, I'm sure being a landslide Bush state, the Republicans will rig something. :rolleyes:

Actually, you can write someone's name in even if it isn't on the ballot. This is most likely what will happen. All anyone from Alabama has to do is put down Bush, and as long as they all manage to do that, it doesn't matter if he is on the ballot. Heck, I could have a couple hundred people vote for ME in the election, without ever being placed on the ballot.

Secondly, is that there are literally hundreds and thousands of people who used connections to get into special slots in the military. For instance, my mom's boss has a brother who is charge of admissions at the Air Force Academy. I personally know many people who have relatives or friends who they used to get them favorable positions in the military. Thus, it is not really a huge deal if Bush did it too. Anyone who could do the same would, so I can't blame him. This is also why I couldn't care less if Bush smoked pot. I know I've done it, and so it just endears him more to me. Similarly, Kerry said "fuck" in an interview, and so I like him more. At least I know they have the capability to loosen up once in a while.

bush was an admitted party boy coke head but NONE OF IT MATTERS. he was born again on his 40th birthday so only the stuff that has happened since then counts.

so only kerry's past can be brought into question. it all makes perfect sense in a born again christian kinda way.
Gawd. Scared me for a minute -- I thought you were serious. Now my skin is crawling again, just like it did last night while watching Zell Miller.

Similarly, Kerry said "fuck" in an interview, and so I like him more. At least I know they have the capability to loosen up once in a while.
Betcha loved Nixon then ...

:p

the thing is kerry is claiming to be a good man his whole life, so they are allowed to criticize him for not being perfect in vietnam

bush was an admitted party boy coke head but NONE OF IT MATTERS. he was born again on his 40th birthday so only the stuff that has happened since then counts.

so only kerry's past can be brought into question. it all makes perfect sense in a born again christian kinda way.

Bush didn't misrepresent his history though, and that is the difference. Bush didn't claim to be a Vietnam Hero as a major reason to elect him. And by the way moveon.org has attacked Bush plenty. George Soros has dumped more money into discrediting Bush than the Swift Boat Veterans ever will in their attacks on Kerry. But people really are not listening. After 4 years, people know Bush. They are trying to figure out who Kerry is now.

All what, 274 of them? Kerry's accounts of Vietnam so far have not been exactly honest....Christmas in Cambodia, hearing about Dr. King dying. Why should his credibility be better than all of them considering he keeps getting caught making up stories to make himself sound better.What a load of crap. Swift Boat Vets for Truth has already been revealed to be a puppet group of the Bush administration, and their statements have already been proven to be lies.

What a load of crap. Swift Boat Vets for Truth has already been revealed to be a puppet group of the Bush administration, and their statements have already been proven to be lies.

Uh huh, right, ok.... :rolleyes: You keep believing whatever the liberal media feeds you ok?

This man wants to be the leader of the free world

I wish Americans would stop using this term.. honestly, the President maybe the leader of America, but there are more then a majority of us who happen to live in the free world who do not consider the president of the USA our leader, nor is he.

Gawd. Scared me for a minute -- I thought you were serious. Now my skin is crawling again, just like it did last night while watching Zell Miller.
but i AM serious

i was listening to a middle of the road talk show host the other week who said just that. you could have photos of bush nekkid with ...farah fawcett and a monkey... and NONE OF IT WOULD MATTER. he was a party boy back then and the slate was washed clean when he sobered up.

everyone knows that the only reason bush went into the NG was to avoid vietnam, it was a better way than running to canada but it was what it was.

no conservative cares and it seems that no vietnam veteran cares.

they care that kerry wasnt grievously wounded when he qualified for the purple heart but they DONT care that while they were rotting in the jungle, bush was in the US getting loaded.

it makes no sense to ME but it seems to be all very right to THEM.

Uh huh, right, ok.... :rolleyes: You keep believing whatever the liberal media feeds you ok?
and i bet you belive the swift boat vets are telling the undeinable truth and have nothingh to do with bush despite two of his campaign people having to resign for being involved with the group

who's the bigger sheep here

and i bet you belive the swift boat vets are telling the undeinable truth and have nothingh to do with bush despite two of his campaign people having to resign for being involved with the group

No, I believe after 35 years most people make mistakes in their memory. But I also believe somebody who comes back from a war and demoralizes troops still in combat, after getting an early release for superficial wounds, and then parades himself around as a war hero 35 years later is a real asshole.

No, I believe after 35 years most people make mistakes in their memory. But I also believe somebody who comes back from a war and demoralizes troops still in combat, after getting an early release for superficial wounds, and then parades himself around as a war hero 35 years later is a real asshole.
i believe your full of shit trying to rationalize the blatant lies comnig from teh swift boat vets, stop arguing or i will start throwing their shit in your face

its not hard to debunk idiots

We also have a thing called a "judicial system" that protects us from blindly following laws like lemmings into the ocean. Somebody in the Bush campaign will make an appeal to the Alabama Supreme court, and they will grant an extension. It's not rigging, that's how it works. :rolleyes:

So you're ok with a judge legislating from the bench if it helps your party somehow? Because that's what this would be.

The legislature makes the laws and unless they make a new law that makes exceptions for incumbents or something (maknig an exception just for Bush would not be valid), then there is no exception. The courts can't "grant an extension" on this. The governor *might* be able to, if the legislature has given him that priviledge, since it comes down to enforcement of the law. Bush has not had any rights violated by being a slack-ass and not getting on the ballot in due time.

I have a feeling that this one will make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Could Alabama be this election's Florida? Yikes.


Every state will be this election's Florida. Once every single state without a paper trail has its election challenged, we may end up having to call a whole new special election.

It isn't going to be an issue in a heavy Republican state like that. If it was a split state, you'd probably have enough democratic weight in the state supreme court to make an issue of it. In the end it's going to be a really easy decision for the justices....you don't screw millions of voters out of the right to vote for their candidate in something as important as a presidential election over something as silly as missing a registration deadline. If the left makes a big deal of it, it will just make them look desperate.

Well, I'm not the left.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you can't even take the responsibility to get yourself on the ballot in something as important as the presidential election by the set deadline, and then you whine and cry about it, you have no sense of personal responsibility.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it was in Alabama that the guy who wanted to run for Senate was doing National Guard service (which is a much better excuse than "oops, I forgot") and couldn't get himself on the ballot. He didn't whine and cry and bitch about it, he simply ran a write-in campaign. Unfortunately, he lost to a real asshole, but at least he took personal responsibility for missing the deadline.

"The courts can't "grant an extension" on this."

NJ Supreme Court did just that and when the opposing party complained to the Federal Supreme Court, the feds refused to hear the case. NJ Supremes decided that people having a choice is worth more than a deadline.

I wish Americans would stop using this term.. honestly, the President maybe the leader of America, but there are more then a majority of us who happen to live in the free world who do not consider the president of the USA our leader, nor is he.

Steph, the President is the leader of the Free World. Whoever is President of the United States will have the full force of the US Military which is the MOST ADVANCED on the PLANET. Thus we are the Military Power. China IS NOT dispite all the people so don't use that as a defense. Britain can't do what the US can do. Canada's military is run down. Though you have troops in Afghanistan, Your navy is pretty much in ruin so you can't do much either. Australia can't do what the US does because they don't have the manpower. USA is the most powerful military on the planet. That is why our leader is called the Leader of the Free World.

Steph, the President is the leader of the Free World. Whoever is President of the United States will have the full force of the US Military which is the MOST ADVANCED on the PLANET. Thus we are the Military Power. China IS NOT dispite all the people so don't use that as a defense. Britain can't do what the US can do. Canada's military is run down. Though you have troops in Afghanistan, Your navy is pretty much in ruin so you can't do much either. Australia can't do what the US does because they don't have the manpower. USA is the most powerful military on the planet. That is why our leader is called the Leader of the Free World.

So just because we have the power, we should wield it? That's a wonderful opinion (and our current president seems to share it). However, no one who actually feels that way should EVER have that power.

So just because we have the power, we should wield it? That's a wonderful opinion (and our current president seems to share it). However, no one who actually feels that way should EVER have that power.
Why shouldn't we do things to better the world when we can?

Why shouldn't we do things to better the world when we can?

And us just taking over the entire world would better it (which is basically what you are saying when you call the president the leader of the entire world)?

Considering the problems we still have in our own little area, I don't think so. Besides, saying "we have might so we are right" is idiotic. I can remember another country that said that and did a lot of bad things that they thought were good because they had might.

And us just taking over the entire world would better it (which is basically what you are saying when you call the president the leader of the entire world)?

Problem. He said "Free World" The world is not a free one. Britain, US, France, Germany, Australia, Japan and others, are the free world.

There are despotic nations and tyranical nations and it takes a free world to eliminate them.

Problem. He said "Free World" The world is not a free one. Britain, US, France, Germany, Australia, Japan and others, are the free world.

There are despotic nations and tyranical nations and it takes a free world to eliminate them.

You are still suggesting that just because we have the army, we should make all the decisions. If all of those countries are part of the free world, then they should have an equal say in what the "free world" does.

Why shouldn't we do things to better the world when we can?

Because the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Ruling other countries is simply not our business, and we don't have any right to do it. Also, these are people of very different cultures and beliefs. We'd only end up inciting insurrection in many parts of the world.

Basically, trying to make the "Ruler of the Free World" anything more than a catchy slogan is completely stupid. Unfortunately, many pro-war, anti-dissent, smaller government by expanding government powers (?), deficit spending, Billionaire "blue collar average joe" Neo-Cons believe it in their little calcified heart-of-hearts.

I'd heard bits and pieces of the Barnes story before. Whether or not Bush had "connections" is irrelevant. As we've all seen with the Iraqi war, no branch of the military is "safe" from being sent into battle, not even the National Guard. So Bush could have just as easily been sent to Vietnam, and Kerry did try to avoid going by being asigned to the swift boats. The only relevancy when it comes down to voting time should be the performance of the candidates while in their respective offices. And I'm a whole lot more confident in Bush's ability to lead than Kerry's.

As far as the Florida thing in 2000: They got a new kind of ballot for the 2002 gubernatorial election, and still couldn't figure them out. And now they're getting electronic touchscreens...yeehaw...

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) This should matter (the original topic of the post, about the interview with the guy who knows about Bush's Vietnam War past), but chances are it won't. I say that it should matter not as a part of the war record battle that is going on currently, but rather as a counter to Bush's general assault on Kerry for "indecisiveness" and the like. Bush and Co., at least to me, seem to be hell-bent on making Kerry look weak on defense and a flip-flopper while making Bush look decisive and strong on defense, because according to them defense is the top priority of our nation above all others and thus everyone should vote Bush. If the guy in the interview is telling the truth, then if nothing else it is evidence that Bush is being very two-faced about his criticisms of Kerry's immediate post-war record and Kerry's stance on Iraq and the like. But the people who support Bush either won't listen or will shrug it off and say that Bush's last four years have shown that he cares about the military now.

2) Kerry really does need to stop with the war record stuff.

And I'm a whole lot more confident in Bush's ability to lead than Kerry's.

Wow, either you think Kerry is a 2-year old or you have been asleep for the past 4 years.

As far as the Florida thing in 2000: They got a new kind of ballot for the 2002 gubernatorial election, and still couldn't figure them out. And now they're getting electronic touchscreens...yeehaw...

Yup, and the electronic touch screens are going to be challenged the minute they are used in a national election. Know why? Because they have no paper trail and that is an extremely bad idea.

No, I believe after 35 years most people make mistakes in their memory. But I also believe somebody who comes back from a war and demoralizes troops still in combat, after getting an early release for superficial wounds, and then parades himself around as a war hero 35 years later is a real asshole.

Whenever someone brings up the issue of Kerry going and fighting in Vietnam then coming back and protesting the Vietnam war, I think of Stallone's monologue at the end of Rambo, when he asks how people can protest him, unless they've been him and seen what he's seen, done what he's done.
Now, that would seem to support the case for Kerry serving in a war then criticising it- surely he then KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!
Now, what is this idea Incumbents seem to have that opposing a war means hating the guts of the soldiers fighting it? The Republicans in America and Labour over here accuse anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war, now that we know WMD evidence was unreliable, is rubbishing our troops. NO! The troops aren't involved in the decision making process, why should it be assumed that opposing the decision means opposing them? Troops follow orders, always have, always will, that's all any of us can expect and it's why we should love them, wherever idiot politicians decide to send them.

Kerry is the one who made it a center issue of his campaign. He is parading himself as a war hero. Those soldiers who fought with him, whose likeness he used in his ad, have every right to say otherwise.
Well Kerry is a "war hero", who risked his life to save another life. How many people in this world would do that?

I despise Bush.

Uh huh, right, ok.... :rolleyes: You keep believing whatever the liberal media feeds you ok?
And you can keep believing whatever Uncle Rupert feeds you ok?
And we can have our little fantasy lives of name calling and innuendo, and when someone indicates there's a fact or two to be checked and qualified, we'll just continue to live in our safe little ducttape winning world and trust that all the bad people with those disturbing little facts will just go away like flatulence on the wind. And when it doesn't we'll just give a reflexive and thoughtless response not unlike yours and consider the integrity of the argument summated.

Well Kerry is a "war hero", who risked his life to save another life. How many people in this world would do that?

General Franks, General Azibad, My Dad, 2 of my cousins, my mom, me, and others I could name but wont because its meaningless!

Half my family has served in the military! My dad has seen combat. My dad came home and that makes him a war hero.

PS: My dad is a republican.

General Franks, General Azibad, My Dad, 2 of my cousins, my mom, me, and others I could name but wont because its meaningless!

Half my family has served in the military! My dad has seen combat. My dad came home and that makes him a war hero.

PS: My dad is a republican.
I'm glad they do, they voting for Kerry? Or at least respect his military record?

I'm glad they do, they voting for Kerry? Or at least respect his military record?

Probably a couple but my family is republican. They don't like the fact that Kerry slambasted the guard and Reserves! They are voting for George W. Bush for FOUR MORE YEARS!

Amazing though that he called the guard and reserves the easy way out when he himself joined the Naval Reserves and that unit got activated.

and i bet you belive the swift boat vets are telling the undeinable truth and have nothingh to do with bush despite two of his campaign people having to resign for being involved with the group

who's the bigger sheep here

Neither, actually, because the swift boat group is part of what BOTH parties keep referring to as 527's, which are INDEPENDENT groups who throw their money behind which ever candidate they want/like. Both campaign parties say they do not contribute to nor endorse these groups. Bush has asked that these groups be banned, but Kerry hasn't answered the call for a bipartisan effort to do so. As far as the truth, you know the old saying, "majority rules". Can you honestly say you'd take the word of Kerry and a couple of his buddies over 274 men? And only a few of those 274's allegations have been found to be unproven, NOT necessarily false.
And at least one of Kerry's campaign people also works with one of the 527's, MoveON.org, but the media hasn't made as big a stink about it. :rolleyes:

Neither, actually, because the swift boat group is part of what BOTH parties keep referring to as 527's, which are INDEPENDENT groups who throw their money behind which ever candidate they want/like. Both campaign parties say they do not contribute to nor endorse these groups. Bush has asked that these groups be banned, but Kerry hasn't answered the call for a bipartisan effort to do so. As far as the truth, you know the old saying, "majority rules". Can you honestly say you'd take the word of Kerry and a couple of his buddies over 274 men? And only a few of those 274's allegations have been found to be unproven, NOT necessarily false.
And at least one of Kerry's campaign people also works with one of the 527's, MoveON.org, but the media hasn't made as big a stink about it. :rolleyes:
kerry has specifically denounced moveon.org ads, bush REFUSES to address wift boat ads, not to mention moveon.org falls under PAC, slightly different rulesim sure. and a lawyer giving a bit of legal advice ad hoc is quite different than a campaign worker appearing in an ad.

oh a few only? start naming the bullshit they spew that hasnt been debunked by any sensible person? and majority doesnt rule, especially not when the majority is ignorant buffoons, jsut becuase the majority through the earth orbited the sun didnt make it true, didnt matter how many intelligent people they killed

Wow, either you think Kerry is a 2-year old or you have been asleep for the past 4 years.


Yup, and the electronic touch screens are going to be challenged the minute they are used in a national election. Know why? Because they have no paper trail and that is an extremely bad idea.

Asleep? Hardly, my friend. Let's talk job outsourcing, for instance. One of Kerry's fav topics for criticizing the Bush admin. Anybody who's ever worked for Motorola can tell you that crap has been happening since well before Bush took office. So the Dems have been sitting on their hands, too, where that's concerned. And guess what? Kerry was supporting that, too.


Yeah, the paper trail issue is a concern. But no matter how it turns out, somebody's gonna whine about the machines being hard to use.

General Franks, General Azibad, My Dad, 2 of my cousins, my mom, me, and others I could name but wont because its meaningless!

Half my family has served in the military! My dad has seen combat. My dad came home and that makes him a war hero.

PS: My dad is a republican.
Ummm you SAY you would do what he did, but YOU have not been there and have not had to put YOUR life at risk to save another. Until you do so, your words are just that...words. Actions speak louder than words, and Kerry's actions, saved another man's life, while exposing his own mortality....

NOW THAT IS A HERO!!!

Probably a couple but my family is republican. They don't like the fact that Kerry slambasted the guard and Reserves! They are voting for George W. Bush for FOUR MORE YEARS!

Amazing though that he called the guard and reserves the easy way out when he himself joined the Naval Reserves and that unit got activated.
Kerry WANTED to go to Nam and he did. Now Georgy boy on the other hand.....

kerry has specifically denounced moveon.org ads, bush REFUSES to address wift boat ads, not to mention moveon.org falls under PAC, slightly different rulesim sure. and a lawyer giving a bit of legal advice ad hoc is quite different than a campaign worker appearing in an ad.

oh a few only? start naming the bullshit they spew that hasnt been debunked by any sensible person? and majority doesnt rule, especially not when the majority is ignorant buffoons, jsut becuase the majority through the earth orbited the sun didnt make it true, didnt matter how many intelligent people they killed

Have you been listening to the news at all? Bush has said several times that Kerry's Vietnam service was exemplory. Why should he denounce the swift boat ads? Are they not entitled to their opinion just because its against Kerry?
But it comes back to the same thing. Bush never made his military service an issue, Kerry did. So it got examined ad nauseum. It still comes down to their actions in office. And if you're so sure Kerry's been doing such a wonderful job for this country as senator, then maybe you need to check his senate record.
On an aside, why do people feel the need to fling insults when other people have a different point of view? We don't agree, that's all there is to it. You vote your way in November, I'll vote mine. And we'll all live with the winner.

Ummm you SAY you would do what he did, but YOU have not been there and have not had to put YOUR life at risk to save another. Until you do so, your words are just that...words. Actions speak louder than words, and Kerry's actions, saved another man's life, while exposing his own mortality....

NOW THAT IS A HERO!!!

So what your saying is that I can't speak? CH, I'm thinking about joining the military. I know where my loyalty lies. It lies in the nation of the USA. I will fight for this country. I will gladly die for this country.

My dad has fought for this country as has half my family. They have seen war and they don't want to go back to it but they will because of their love of duty and love of country. They have seen what Kerry has seen. My dad has been to Iraq and he sees all the changes taking place their. He likes the changes taking place because he knows it'll be a beacon for what goes on in the Middle East. A Free Iraq will reshape the Middle East. Not overnight but it will over time.

My Dad is a hero of this Country. He has given this Country everything he has to give. His duty takes him away from me, my sister,and my mother. His life is endanger everyday he puts on that uniform and does patrols. He's been shot at and luckily he's gone unhurt. For that I thank God.

My Dad is a true hero as is my Uncle who also has been shot while running relief into Bosnia. He's flown into Iraq and has seen it from the air and has been shot as well.

These 2 are just 2 of my heros.

Kerry WANTED to go to Nam and he did. Now Georgy boy on the other hand.....

BULLCRAP!! BULLCRAP!! He signed up in the NAVAL RESERVE!! He did this because a referal to get him out of the draft to study in Paris was denied. So instead of getting drafted, he signed up for the Reserves, not active duty. Get the two straight. Reserves don't go to war unless activated. His unit was activated.

He then applied for swiftboats because he thought it'll be an easy ride. He saw heavy combat and he tried to get out of it but couldn't.

He wanted to go to war? I don't think so!

BULLCRAP!! BULLCRAP!! He signed up in the NAVAL RESERVE!! He did this because a referal to get him out of the draft to study in Paris was denied. So instead of getting drafted, he signed up for the Reserves, not active duty. Get the two straight. Reserves don't go to war unless activated. His unit was activated.

He then applied for swiftboats because he thought it'll be an easy ride. He saw heavy combat and he tried to get out of it but couldn't.

He wanted to go to war? I don't think so!
How do you know he tried to get out of Swiftboats? Your own opinion?

How do you know he tried to get out of Swiftboats? Your own opinion?

I want you to think for a second! Swift Boats are fast Patrol Boats! They don't do well in deep water. Mostly to patrol the coast! Look at where he was stationed! Up a river. He tried to get a transfer but was originally denied. Thus he saw combat. Only after awhile was he transfered. Four months in Vietnam and about 4 transfers in that amount of time. This is very unusual. No one is transfered that much in a warzone. Not by a long shot.

Oh hell,

They're both liars and theives. Multimillionares who've worked for not a red cent of it.

Kerry's an idiot for making such a big deal about being a 'hero'...he deserves whatever he gets from the Bush Camp.

Bush's leadership [sic], come on, Kerry's been in the Senate for longer than Bush has been sober.

Kerry will not radically change anything; no one should expect any repeal of the PATRIOT Act or anything like that.

Bush's act as a 'wartime' president is a crock too. Has he won any wars?

And no, the president is not the leader of the free world. That's what we Americans like to tell ourselves so that we don't have to concentrate on our own freedom.

No disrespect to the men and women facing combat, but the question remains, do our enemies respect and fear our military? If not then its technological superiority is crap...its also crap in urban warfare so long as civilian casualties are minimized for political reasons. (note: the latest generation of Russian fighters kicks our asses...even with Indian pilots against our own; it is only our money that gives us any edge)

i won't vote for Bush because he can't even build a decent empire and be a man about being a tyrant. At least if he took off the prissy white gloves and acted like Stalin (which is what he'd prefer) i could respect him.

I won't vote for Kerry because he's no better, only different

The two parties are just one, marketed for American idiocy as two.

So once again, i'll throw my vote away to a "third" party, but at least my conscience will be clean.

Oh hell,

They're both liars and theives. Multimillionares who've worked for not a red cent of it.

Kerry's an idiot for making such a big deal about being a 'hero'...he deserves whatever he gets from the Bush Camp.

Bush's leadership [sic], come on, Kerry's been in the Senate for longer than Bush has been sober.

Kerry will not radically change anything; no one should expect any repeal of the PATRIOT Act or anything like that.

Bush's act as a 'wartime' president is a crock too. Has he won any wars?

And no, the president is not the leader of the free world. That's what we Americans like to tell ourselves so that we don't have to concentrate on our own freedom.

No disrespect to the men and women facing combat, but the question remains, do our enemies respect and fear our military? If not then its technological superiority is crap...its also crap in urban warfare so long as civilian casualties are minimized for political reasons. (note: the latest generation of Russian fighters kicks our asses...even with Indian pilots against our own; it is only our money that gives us any edge)

i won't vote for Bush because he can't even build a decent empire and be a man about being a tyrant. At least if he took off the prissy white gloves and acted like Stalin (which is what he'd prefer) i could respect him.

I won't vote for Kerry because he's no better, only different

The two parties are just one, marketed for American idiocy as two.

So once again, i'll throw my vote away to a "third" party, but at least my conscience will be clean.

Nasar has a chance only Alabama. The reason: Bush isn't on the ballot. No joke, he isn't on it! He waited too long.
Kerry is on the ballot. Nadar needs like 125000 signatures or something I think its 12500 but I'm unsure.
So Alabama goes to Kerry automatically?

Nasar has a chance only Alabama. The reason: Bush isn't on the ballot. No joke, he isn't on it! He waited too long.
Kerry is on the ballot. Nadar needs like 125000 signatures or something I think its 12500 but I'm unsure.
So Alabama goes to Kerry automatically?

Doesn't work that way BastardSword. You should know that. I thought that issue was already settled and that Bush would be automatically on the ballot since he is the only republican running for President.

I think they may cause trouble. Swing voters tend to be rather hawkish, and centrists, down-to-earth type of people. So yeah, it'll cause trouble for him in the form of these lost swing votes. Though personally, I don't care who did what. We've never had a veteran president that has led us through war, unless you count Washington's naval skirmishes with France, but that was a quasi-war, anyhow.

http://www.al.com/election/?officesup.html

I believe the issue is settled regarding alabama

http://www.al.com/election/?officesup.html

I believe the issue is settled regarding alabama
Darn, he cheated! :)

So what your saying is that I can't speak? CH, I'm thinking about joining the military. I know where my loyalty lies. It lies in the nation of the USA. I will fight for this country. I will gladly die for this country.

My dad has fought for this country as has half my family. They have seen war and they don't want to go back to it but they will because of their love of duty and love of country. They have seen what Kerry has seen. My dad has been to Iraq and he sees all the changes taking place their. He likes the changes taking place because he knows it'll be a beacon for what goes on in the Middle East. A Free Iraq will reshape the Middle East. Not overnight but it will over time.

My Dad is a hero of this Country. He has given this Country everything he has to give. His duty takes him away from me, my sister,and my mother. His life is endanger everyday he puts on that uniform and does patrols. He's been shot at and luckily he's gone unhurt. For that I thank God.

My Dad is a true hero as is my Uncle who also has been shot while running relief into Bosnia. He's flown into Iraq and has seen it from the air and has been shot as well.

These 2 are just 2 of my heros.
Did Kerry go to Viet Nam..............YES

Did Kerry fight for his country.......YES

Did Kerry get shot at...................YES

Did Kerry risk his life for another....YES

Is John Kerry a hero....................YES

Until the bullets are whizzing by your brain and your friends are dying and/or losing their body parts, you cannot even being to imagine Kerry's contribution.

How do you know he tried to get out of Swiftboats? Your own opinion?

No, it's not Corneliu's opinion. It's one of the issues brought up about Kerry's military career.

Did Kerry fight for his country.......YES

.

No, Kerry fought for South Vietnam because his country told him to. Then he came back and bad-mouthed his fellow soldiers, calling them all war criminals. This is documented in his disposition to the senate. He met with North Vietnamese leaders during this time, there is photographic evidence. He was involved with VVAW, who at the time had members, like Jane Fonda, who made the POW's lives worse. His gesture of throwing his medals over the White House fence has proven to be an empty one because those medals are now proudly displayed on his senate office wall. Kerry is a man of conviction, but his conviction is controlled by the wind.

Asleep? Hardly, my friend. Let's talk job outsourcing, for instance. One of Kerry's fav topics for criticizing the Bush admin. Anybody who's ever worked for Motorola can tell you that crap has been happening since well before Bush took office. So the Dems have been sitting on their hands, too, where that's concerned. And guess what? Kerry was supporting that, too.

So you noticed one issue in the entirety of four years? Interesting. Ok, you weren't sleeping - just dozing.

So once again, i'll throw my vote away to a "third" party, but at least my conscience will be clean.

Ok, now, that's what we need. A viable third party, so we can choose the lesser of three evils. :D
Seriously, though, another choice wouldn't hurt.

So you noticed one issue in the entirety of four years? Interesting. Ok, you weren't sleeping - just dozing.

No, dozing is what I do lately, because it's about all I have time for between school and family. ;) As a single mother, what I'd like to see either candidate come up with is a plan for me to be able to get the ever important higher education to better support my family without starving it in the process. This would be another issue, for anyone's who's counting. The cost of education is skyrocketing, along with healthcare/insurance. I personally don't want to hear anymore talking about it, I'd like to see some action.
Also, the outsourcing issue is what I've noticed for better than 6 years, and the 2 parties are just now figuring out it's a problem. :confused:

Did Kerry go to Viet Nam..............YES

Did Kerry fight for his country.......YES

Did Kerry get shot at...................YES

Did Kerry risk his life for another....YES

Is John Kerry a hero....................YES

Until the bullets are whizzing by your brain and your friends are dying and/or losing their body parts, you cannot even being to imagine Kerry's contribution.

And I don't think I questioned this did I? No I don't think I did CanuckHeaven. I can Imagine it because of what my dad and family have gone through. You don't have to be on the front to imagine what its like. My family is the closest to the front and though they hardly talk about it, have told me what they have gone through. I listen intently to what they say. So YES! I CAN imagine what its like.

Steph, the President is the leader of the Free World. Whoever is President of the United States will have the full force of the US Military which is the MOST ADVANCED on the PLANET. Thus we are the Military Power. China IS NOT dispite all the people so don't use that as a defense. Britain can't do what the US can do. Canada's military is run down. Though you have troops in Afghanistan, Your navy is pretty much in ruin so you can't do much either. Australia can't do what the US does because they don't have the manpower. USA is the most powerful military on the planet. That is why our leader is called the Leader of the Free World.

Straw man.. that doesn't make him the leader of the free world..LOL

I live in Canada and he's not my leader, I bet people in the UK and other European countries don't think he's their leader either. See, I live in a democracy, we elect our leader and his name is Paul Martin, not The Shrub!

Straw man.. that doesn't make him the leader of the free world..LOL

I live in Canada and he's not my leader, I bet people in the UK and other European countries don't think he's their leader either. See, I live in a democracy, we elect our leader and his name is Paul Martin, not The Shrub!
you cant argue with sheep, they have wool in their ears

Straw man.. that doesn't make him the leader of the free world..LOL

I live in Canada and he's not my leader, I bet people in the UK and other European countries don't think he's their leader either. See, I live in a democracy, we elect our leader and his name is Paul Martin, not The Shrub!

Steph, I don't think I've stated that he was any other nation's leader but this one! You've taken me out of context! What I ment was that Britain and Canada don't lead the free world. They are part of it but they don't lead it. They help protect it, at least Great Britain defends Freedom, but the US leads it. Why is it that its always the USA that leads fights? Because we are the most powerful nation that is why.

Strawman? Maybe but truth hurts

you cant argue with sheep, they have wool in their ears

I'm no one's sheep Chess Squares. And those pity ass insults should stop!

Steph, I don't think I've stated that he was any other nation's leader but this one! You've taken me out of context! What I ment was that Britain and Canada don't lead the free world. They are part of it but they don't lead it. They help protect it, at least Great Britain defends Freedom, but the US leads it. Why is it that its always the USA that leads fights? Because we are the most powerful nation that is why.

Strawman? Maybe but truth hurts

Bush doesn't lead the free world either.. I don't see Canada in Iraq, I don't see France in Iraq, I don't see Germany in Iraq, lots of free countries did not follow the Shrub.. I took you very much in context He's trying to lead the free world but he's a failure, you can't be a leader when people don't follow!

Bush doesn't lead the free world either.. I don't see Canada in Iraq, I don't see France in Iraq, I don't see Germany in Iraq, lots of free countries did not follow the Shrub.. I took you very much in context He's trying to lead the free world but he's a failure, you can't be a leader when people don't follow!

Britain is in Iraq, Poland is in Iraq, Australia is in Iraq, many other nations are in Iraq. Those nations that are in Iraq all believe in freedom. Canada has no military to waste. Germany well I won't go there, France? I don't think they know what freedom is.

Bush has many nations in our coalition. He does have followers and the President of the USA makes tough decisions. People look to the USA and see which way we jump. If we jump into the fray, other nations will follow. If we ignore the fray, then they will ignore the fray.

Canada has no military to waste.

Bush has many nations in our coalition. He does have followers and the President of the USA makes tough decisions. People look to the USA and see which way we jump. If we jump into the fray, other nations will follow. If we ignore the fray, then they will ignore the fray.

1) Canada is not there because Canada deemed it illegal under international law. (So no, Bush does not lead Canada)

2) People name the top 5 countries and then say "and all the rest" and why do they do that? Because "all the rest" are countries most people would be ashamed to admit as allies or who have been bought off with a gem swung in front of their face in aid for their political support.

3) Now go find the stats for how many of those countries are in theater and how many have given money and how much.. you'll find out real fast that the USA is basically in this alone.

Why even Blair said publicly he wants Kerry to win! Zeppistan told me last night. When he gets home from work I'll see if he has the source to it.

1) Canada is not there because Canada deemed it illegal under international law. (So no, Bush does not lead Canada)

And I've said he does not lead Canada! LISTEN!!!!

2) People name the top 5 countries and then say "and all the rest" and why do they do that? Because "all the rest" are countries most people would be ashamed to admit as allies or who have been bought off with a gem swung in front of their face in aid for their political support.

Bull. If you believe that then you fit into the kerry Camp. However, its lies.

3) Now go find the stats for how many of those countries are in theater and how many have given money and how much.. you'll find out real
fast that the USA is basically in this alone.

Britain has troops, Australia has troops, Poland has troops, Japan has troops, South Korea has troops there, granted the last 2 are non-coms but that means nothing to terrorists. Canada has no troops because they do consider it illegal though it is not under law. US has authorization from Congress under PREVIOUS UN RESOLUTIONS! I can dig up the resolution for you if you like.

Why even Blair said publicly he wants Kerry to win! Zeppistan told me last night. When he gets home from work I'll see if he has the source to it.

Probably because that'll help his re-election. Get off it Steph, a politician will say anything. Besides, I'm wondering what Kerry promises Blair if he's elected.

Japan has troops,

US has authorization from Congress under PREVIOUS UN RESOLUTIONS! I can dig up the resolution for you if you like.

1) Haha troops.. here I can show how little you know right here.. Japan has NO FIGHTING troops in Iraq, it's against their constitution..LOL

2) What the Congress decides doesn't have any thing to do with international law. American law is only worth a dime in AMERICA, not any where else! The last UN res. was 1441 and no where in that was permission given to INVADE Iraq and depose it's leader.

3) I'm done with you, it's like talking to a brick wall.

1) Haha troops.. here I can show how little you know right here.. Japan has NO FIGHTING troops in Iraq, it's against their constitution..LOL

Not anymore Steph! They amended their constitution so they could send troops to Iraq. So you just showed your not up on current events.

2) What the Congress decides doesn't have any thing to do with international law. American law is only worth a dime in AMERICA, not any where else! The last UN res. was 1441 and no where in that was permission given to INVADE Iraq and depose it's leader.

I guess you didn't read the resolution from the halls of Congress. It mentions all the resolutions Hussein is in violation of. As stated, I could pull out the resolution for you but alas, you say it won't have any bearing. In International politics sure but that is all the President needs to wage war, an act from Congress. Do you want to see the Resolution?

3) I'm done with you, it's like talking to a brick wall.

I'm done with you too because I am talking to a brick wall.

3) I'm done with you, it's like talking to a brick wall.
which is exaclty why i have corneliu and biff pileon ignored, trying to use logic on them is like finding a brick wall and banging your head against it

which is exaclty why i have corneliu and biff pileon ignored, trying to use logic on them is like finding a brick wall and banging your head against it

Why, because we have different opinions? Nice to know you love freedom of Speech. You do belong with the Liberal wing of the democratic party! They don't like people that oppose their views

Why, because we have different opinions? Nice to know you love freedom of Speech. You do belong with the Liberal wing of the democratic party! They don't like people that oppose their views


Yeah, because it's the Democrates that require an oath of loyalty before you see them speak...oh wait. I mean, it's the Democrats that have protestors removed in handcuffs...oh wait. Uhhhh. It's the Democrates who have condemned any dissent or criticism of the administration as unpatriotic...darn, wrong again.

You're welcome to your opinions Corneliu, but if you really believe that the Democrats are the anti-free speech party, then you are probably a few IQ points shy of a brick wall.

i can die happy if he doesnt get put on the list, that way my vote actually counts and bush gets screwed, bush cant win if hes not on the ballot


why do so many liberals agree with the communist idea of an election "oh yeah we have a democratically elected government.... its not our fault no one else ran for office though..."

you are a sick pathetic excuse for a human being if you cant stand to actually have people decide who they want to be president.

why do so many liberals agree with the communist idea of an election "oh yeah we have a democratically elected government.... its not our fault no one else ran for office though..."

you are a sick pathetic excuse for a human being if you cant stand to actually have people decide who they want to be president.

And yet you don't want people to take personal responsibility to get themselves on a ballot if they want to run? Or perhaps you are against those that want to vote for Bush taking personal responsibility and voting based on a write-in vote?

why do so many liberals agree with the communist idea of an election "oh yeah we have a democratically elected government.... its not our fault no one else ran for office though..."

you are a sick pathetic excuse for a human being if you cant stand to actually have people decide who they want to be president.
hey, unless you missed it, the people decided gore should be the president right now

hey, unless you missed it, the people decided gore should be the president right now
The majority of people didn't chose anyone. :p

The majority of people didn't chose anyone. :p
wth are you talking about

wth are you talking about
Al Gore didn't get above 50% of the vote.

Shhh. That requires a Kerry lover to think, rather than just Bush bash.

Yeah, because it's the Democrates that require an oath of loyalty before you see them speak...oh wait. I mean, it's the Democrats that have protestors removed in handcuffs...oh wait. Uhhhh. It's the Democrates who have condemned any dissent or criticism of the administration as unpatriotic...darn, wrong again.

You're welcome to your opinions Corneliu, but if you really believe that the Democrats are the anti-free speech party, then you are probably a few IQ points shy of a brick wall.

Never said this Gymoor but I do find it funny that the democrats are free to bash whoever they want but when the Republicans bash back they are labeled as unintelligent, racist, etc etc. Kerry bashes Bush on Iraq or whatever, and when Bush bashes back its questioning his patriotism. That is what I find funny that the Dems can get away with bashing but the republicans can't.

Al Gore didn't get above 50% of the vote.
i dont recall bush getting over 50%, i recall it being a 3 man race and gore having the majority

And yet you don't want people to take personal responsibility to get themselves on a ballot if they want to run? Or perhaps you are against those that want to vote for Bush taking personal responsibility and voting based on a write-in vote?

And yet according to the Alabama Elections page he is on the ballot!

i dont recall bush getting over 50%, i recall it being a 3 man race and gore having the majority
You can't have the majority of voters without having 50%+1 buddy.

i dont recall bush getting over 50%, i recall it being a 3 man race and gore having the majority

Kerry didn't get over 50% either. That is what a majority is. Over Half. It was like 49-49-2! 49 for Gore, 49 for Bush, and 2 for Nader! Yea Gore won the POPULAR vote by like 500,000 but he DID NOT get over 50% of the vote and he lost the Electoral College which is the only point total that matters. 271-266! If only Gore won his home state he would be president right now.

Never said this Gymoor but I do find it funny that the democrats are free to bash whoever they want but when the Republicans bash back they are labeled as unintelligent, racist, etc etc. Kerry bashes Bush on Iraq or whatever, and when Bush bashes back its questioning his patriotism. That is what I find funny that the Dems can get away with bashing but the republicans can't.
IF you are going to bash back, do so with facts? The right keeps spouting RES. 1441, well it is not relevant and if you read the black, you will find no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

BTW, the US violated Security Council Resolution 1441 Article # 10.......
go ahead and look it up. While you are at it, look at article 4, 11, and 12. Remember to read only the black.

IF you are going to bash back, do so with facts?

Kerry's voting record is fact. He is getting hammered on his voting record. Thus they are bashing back with facts. The Liberal Left don't like it because it is damaging their candidate.

The right keeps spouting RES. 1441, well it is not relevant and if you read the black, you will find no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

I'm not spouting 1441, that'll be stephistan! Actually, Kerry believes otherwise. He said that if he had the same intel, he would've gone in. Bush had the intel as did the world. The world considered him a threat and that he needed to be taken out. Only after the fact was it found to be faulty. Why do you think Bush is redoing the Intelligence Community by implementing what the 9/11 Commission Report suggested?

[qoute]BTW, the US violated Security Council Resolution 1441 Article # 10.......
go ahead and look it up. While you are at it, look at article 4, 11, and 12. Remember to read only the black.[/QUOTE]

I've read it and we did not violate it. We had previous resolutions to go in on and we used them. I'll ask you the same question I asked Steph, do you want me to show you the resolution that passed the Congress of the United States?

Kerry's voting record is fact. He is getting hammered on his voting record. Thus they are bashing back with facts. The Liberal Left don't like it because it is damaging their candidate.



I'm not spouting 1441, that'll be stephistan! Actually, Kerry believes otherwise. He said that if he had the same intel, he would've gone in. Bush had the intel as did the world. The world considered him a threat and that he needed to be taken out. Only after the fact was it found to be faulty. Why do you think Bush is redoing the Intelligence Community by implementing what the 9/11 Commission Report suggested?

[qoute]BTW, the US violated Security Council Resolution 1441 Article # 10.......
go ahead and look it up. While you are at it, look at article 4, 11, and 12. Remember to read only the black.

But isnt it time to start hammering Bush for starting a war based on lies in Iraq without having any kind of exit strategy? And for Bushs economic policies which push millions more into poverty everyday? Face it on every single conceivable issue under the sun Bush is an abysmal failure but you prefer to distort Kerrys voting record by taking the votes out of context and refusing to show the poison pills in the bills he voted against.

You can't have the majority of voters without having 50%+1 buddy.
you can in a 3 man race. did you fail math?

you can in a 3 man race. did you fail math?

Can you not read?

In 2000 Gore got 49 PERCENT, Bush got 49 PERCENT and Nader got 2 PERCENT!

49 Percent is less than 50%

BTW, the US violated Security Council Resolution 1441 Article # 10.......
go ahead and look it up. While you are at it, look at article 4, 11, and 12. Remember to read only the black.

I've read it and we did not violate it. We had previous resolutions to go in on and we used them. I'll ask you the same question I asked Steph, do you want me to show you the resolution that passed the Congress of the United States?
I asked you to read the black? Now tell me again if the US violated Resolution 1441?

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

To me that spells out a very clear violation of the Security Council Resolution 1441 BY the US. :eek:

Not anymore Steph! They amended their constitution so they could send troops to Iraq. So you just showed your not up on current events.

That's not what they did.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/09/japan.troops/

The troops will provide humanitarian assistance and help coalition forces carry out operations safely, Japan's Nihon Keizai newspaper reported Tuesday. They are expected to provide water, offer medical services and rebuild schools, the daily added

As I stated, NO FIGHTING troops. They also didn't amend their constitution! Doh! So owned again!

I asked you to read the black? Now tell me again if the US violated Resolution 1441?

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

To me that spells out a very clear violation of the Security Council Resolution 1441 BY the US. :eek:

and here I thought you were done with me. Newsflash: We DID SUPPORT UNMOVIC and the IAEA! However, they were getting stonewalled by Hussein. They weren't accomplishing nothing and the speeches by the UNMOVIC chief proved it. He said that they are not co-operating fully, which violated this resolution. Thus we DID NOT violate this resolution. If we were in violation, don't you think it'll be blasted coast to coast by CNN and MSNBC and ABC, CBS, ABC? Even Fox News would've broadcasted that.

That's not what they did.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/09/japan.troops/



As I stated, NO FIGHTING troops. They also didn't amend their constitution! Doh! So owned again!

The did amend their constitution. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a destroyer over there as well as the non-com troops they sent to help with the humanitarian mission there. Under Japanese Constitution, they couldn't send even that. So yea they did amend their constitution? Owned? Don't think so

That's not what they did.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/09/japan.troops/



As I stated, NO FIGHTING troops. They also didn't amend their constitution! Doh! So owned again!
BTW Steph. in regards to countries that did back Bush, how many of those countries were backed by majority public opinion of their citizens?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the majority of people of Britain, Japan, Spain, and Australia did not back their governments initiative? That is only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

BTW Steph. in regards to countries that did back Bush, how many of those countries were backed by majority public opinion of their citizens?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the majority of people of Britain, Japan, Spain, and Australia did not back their governments initiative? That is only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Problem is its the government that makes the choices, not the people! DOH!! I thought you knew that. Even Italy doesn't have full support either but yet they are still there too. Spain doesn't have troops because its government was ousted by a terrorist attack. That had to be the Worst move Spain made. Fleeing in the face of terror.

Problem is its the government that makes the choices, not the people! DOH!! I thought you knew that. Even Italy doesn't have full support either but yet they are still there too. Spain doesn't have troops because its government was ousted by a terrorist attack. That had to be the Worst move Spain made. Fleeing in the face of terror.
When a government doesn't listen to the people on very important issues such as war, then the government leaves themselves at risk of being unelected. It already has happened in Spain and possibly could happen in Australia. The people in the UK are fairly divided over this issue and only time will tell if Blair gets the trash bin as well?

Problem is its the government that makes the choices, not the people! DOH!! I thought you knew that. Even Italy doesn't have full support either but yet they are still there too. Spain doesn't have troops because its government was ousted by a terrorist attack. That had to be the Worst move Spain made. Fleeing in the face of terror.
The people of Spain were right.....they didn't want their troops in there in the first place. They, the people did not back Bush's War.

The did amend their constitution. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a destroyer over there as well as the non-com troops they sent to help with the humanitarian mission there. Under Japanese Constitution, they couldn't send even that. So yea they did amend their constitution? Owned? Don't think so

Well then of course you will have a link to that assertion?

The people of Spain were right.....they didn't want their troops in there in the first place. They, the people did not back Bush's War.

Ok I guess you missed understood me! By fleeing from Iraq because of a terror attack, they embolden the terrorists. They gave the terrorists a victory. That is why it was wrong for them to flee.

BTW Steph. in regards to countries that did back Bush, how many of those countries were backed by majority public opinion of their citizens?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the majority of people of Britain, Japan, Spain, and Australia did not back their governments initiative? That is only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Exactly!

Ok I guess you missed understood me! By fleeing from Iraq because of a terror attack, they embolden the terrorists. They gave the terrorists a victory. That is why it was wrong for them to flee.
No the people wanted their troops out, even before the terrorist threat. Perhaps you misunderstood me?

Well then of course you will have a link to that assertion?

Its called the Japanese Constitution. Their constitution forbid the government from sending troops overseas after they were defeated in WWII!! This is the first deployment of troops since WWII! Since the Government is forbidden by the Constitution to send troops overseas, either they amended the consitution or they violated it. If they violated it then the PM should be Impeached. However, the Japanese DID amend the constitution thus that is why the Japanese are in Iraq.

No the people wanted their troops out, even before the terrorist threat. Perhaps you misunderstood me?

No I actually understood you very well. However, they left AFTER A TERRORIST ATTACK!! This emoldened the terrorists. Thus why do you think they are trying to force nations out by stating that you pull out and we'll let hostages go? They have discovered a new tactic.

They have gotten the Philippines to pull out thanks to threatening a Philipino, they have forced out a couple of other nations. However, Italy is still there, Bulgaria is still there, the USA is still there, Britain is still there, South Korea is still there, Japan is still there, Poland is still there. Most of those with low popular support but I don't think they will flee in the face of terror. I know the US won't.

The did amend their constitution. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a destroyer over there as well as the non-com troops they sent to help with the humanitarian mission there. Under Japanese Constitution, they couldn't send even that. So yea they did amend their constitution? Owned? Don't think so


Sending a support vessel into a non-combat role in the gulf is no more in violation of the specific law that they passed to allow the troops to go help in Iraq than the troops themselves are. Nice of you to attempt to draw conclusions, however you are incorrect - again.


If you need support to this assertion, bear in mind that the other ongoing issues are the possibilities of including Japan as a full member of NATO AND as a new permanent member of the UN Security Council. Bush is pushing for both of these things, however they cannot be realized without a change to their constitution.

Which, as of five days ago, still has not happened:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040828a8.htm

From Aug 28, 2004

At a Japan-U.S. summit in June, President George W. Bush voiced support for Japan's permanent membership, but U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier this month that Japan needs to reassess the war-renouncing Article 9 of its Constitution if it wants to become a permanent member.


Now - unless you have a link to a credible news story detailing the removal of Article 9 from the Constitution of Japan - please admit that you erred and move on....

Look Bush has had 4 years and done many wrong things for America, The entire RNC was September 11th, and why do you think they had it in New York to keep brining up sepetember 11th, there trying to milk the shit out of a tragedy and find that horrible. The Vietnam thing is a shame , Kerry is a good guy and will win the Election.

Its called the Japanese Constitution. Their constitution forbid the government from sending troops overseas after they were defeated in WWII!! This is the first deployment of troops since WWII! Since the Government is forbidden by the Constitution to send troops overseas, either they amended the consitution or they violated it. If they violated it then the PM should be Impeached. However, the Japanese DID amend the constitution thus that is why the Japanese are in Iraq.

I'm asking for a source, a link that states they amended their constitution, if they did as you state you should be able to come up with one fairly easy as it would of been big news! I provided a link that said nothing about them doing any such thing.. but stated what they did do. Source your claim or stop making it.

No I actually understood you very well. However, they left AFTER A TERRORIST ATTACK!! This emoldened the terrorists. Thus why do you think they are trying to force nations out by stating that you pull out and we'll let hostages go? They have discovered a new tactic.

They have gotten the Philippines to pull out thanks to threatening a Philipino, they have forced out a couple of other nations. However, Italy is still there, Bulgaria is still there, the USA is still there, Britain is still there, South Korea is still there, Japan is still there, Poland is still there. Most of those with low popular support but I don't think they will flee in the face of terror. I know the US won't.
They have discovered a NEW tactic? How do you know anything has emboldened the terrorists, did they state that?

Many contractors have also fled because they realize that Iraq is a dangerous place to be. Bush has found out the hard way. It wasn't the piece of cake he thought it would be?

Sending a support vessel into a non-combat role in the gulf is no more in violation of the specific law that they passed to allow the troops to go help in Iraq than the troops themselves are. Nice of you to attempt to draw conclusions, however you are incorrect - again.


If you need support to this assertion, bear in mind that the other ongoing issues are the possibilities of including Japan as a full member of NATO AND as a new permanent member of the UN Security Council. Bush is pushing for both of these things, however they cannot be realized without a change to their constitution.

Which, as of five days ago, still has not happened:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040828a8.htm

From Aug 28, 2004




Now - unless you have a link to a credible news story detailing the removal of Article 9 from the Constitution of Japan - please admit that you erred and move on....

Let me guess, he won't believe this either? Haha. I don't think I've ever seen him admit to being wrong even when it's so obvious. It would be nice to see just once! At least his sister can admit it when she's backed into a corner like this.

I'm asking for a source, a link that states they amended their constitution, if they did as you state you should be able to come up with one fairly easy as it would of been big news! I provided a link that said nothing about them doing any such thing.. but stated what they did do. Source your claim or stop making it.

Steph with all do respect, I really do like you. I do!

However, from what I'm seeing, I misspoke, it was actually a law they passed that allowed them to dispatch these troops to Iraq. I've heard that they amended their constitution from my local paper and 3 different media outlets.

They have discovered a NEW tactic? How do you know anything has emboldened the terrorists, did they state that?

CH! If you give the Terrorists a victory, that'll embolden that they hold power. Terrorists changed the political balance in Spain. The conservatives was slated to win. The terror attack gave it to the socialists and the socialists fled Iraq. That told the terrorists that if we hit before elections and change governments, they'll flee.

Many contractors have also fled because they realize that Iraq is a dangerous place to be. Bush has found out the hard way. It wasn't the piece of cake he thought it would be?

I don't think even he knew it would be a piece of cake. I knew it wouldn't be a piece of cake but I support it 100%. I still support it 100%! Why? Because we are involved. If we pull out, I would be in the streets demanding why we pulled out.

Let me guess, he won't believe this either? Haha. I don't think I've ever seen him admit to being wrong even when it's so obvious. It would be nice to see just once! At least his sister can admit it when she's backed into a corner like this.

The text of the Constitution of Japan (http://www.sangiin.go.jp/eng/law/index.htm) straight from the Diet.

Article 9

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.


This has already been interpreted to mean that no offensive forces will be deployed. Which is why they have had to pass specific laws to allow non-combat involvement in UN peacekeeping, and a specific law to allow the involvement in Iraq.

The text of the Constitution of Japan (http://www.sangiin.go.jp/eng/law/index.htm) straight from the Diet.



This has already been interpreted to mean that no offensive forces will be deployed. Which is why they have had to pass specific laws to allow non-combat involvement in UN peacekeeping, and a specific law to allow the involvement in Iraq.

Did you not read what I typed? They actually passed a law that allowed them to send troops to Iraq. However it states a Non-Combat area. Luckily there are areas in Iraq that are pretty much non combat and that is where the Japanese went.

Steph with all do respect, I really do like you. I do!

However, from what I'm seeing, I misspoke, it was actually a law they passed that allowed them to dispatch these troops to Iraq. I've heard that they amended their constitution from my local paper and 3 different media outlets.


Perhaps you and your sister should re-evaluate what media outlets you listen to. Your sister was equally adament that the media outlets that she listens to claimed that the Senate Intelligence Report proved that Iraq had in fact actually purchased yellowcake from Niger in the late 90s.

She had a tough time backing that up from the contents of the report, and eventually had to admit that this was not true.



I wonder if your favorite news service rhymes with Box.... you know - the one that went to court to get a judicial finding that they were under no obligation to report factually....

Steph with all do respect, I really do like you. I do!

However, from what I'm seeing, I misspoke, it was actually a law they passed that allowed them to dispatch these troops to Iraq. I've heard that they amended their constitution from my local paper and 3 different media outlets.

Thank You.

No one is right all the time. It's okay to admit when you're wrong. I'm wrong some times too, we all are.

Perhaps you and your sister should re-evaluate what media outlets you listen to. Your sister was equally adament that the media outlets that she listens to claimed that the Senate Intelligence Report proved that Iraq had in fact actually purchased yellowcake from Niger in the late 90s.

And yet Nigeria admitted it but that is beside that point!

I've heard this on CNN, Foxnews, and Msnbc as well as our local paper. As I said, probably when it first broke everyone thought that it was an amendment but changed it to a law. It was a law.

Hey I did admit my error! Did your wife have a heart attack yet? LOL

She had a tough time backing that up from the contents of the report, and eventually had to admit that this was not true.

I'll look this up for ya

I wonder if your favorite news service rhymes with Box.... you know - the one that went to court to get a judicial finding that they were under no obligation to report factually....

Actually Fox News IS NOT my favorite News Service. I won't say which one but Fox News isn't the only source I go to for information.

Thank You.

No one is right all the time. It's okay to admit when you're wrong. I'm wrong some times too, we all are.

Well then admit your wrong on the questioning patriotism then :p

I know we are all wrong sometimes. I do admit when I'm wrong. However, to be fair here, its very rare that I am wrong. I don't handle that well.

Well then admit your wrong on the questioning patriotism then :p

I know we are all wrong sometimes. I do admit when I'm wrong. However, to be fair here, its very rare that I am wrong. I don't handle that well.

Bah. I take back my good will, you're hopeless :headbang:

Bah. I take back my good will, you're hopeless :headbang:

Sorry! I take back my statements :)

And yet Nigeria admitted it but that is beside that point!

I'll look this up for ya



Actually, Niger (which is NOT the same as Nigeria) stated that they were approached by Iraqi officials who started a line of inquiry that the Niger official shut down. Iraq never directly asked about yellowcake, but the Niger official assumed that this was what it was about.


Iraq never actually did make a purchase.

Actually, Niger (which is NOT the same as Nigeria) stated that they were approached by Iraqi officials who started a line of inquiry that the Niger official shut down. Iraq never directly asked about yellowcake, but the Niger official assumed that this was what it was about.

Thanks for the correction. My brain is tired. To much Calculus homework! LOL!


Iraq never actually did make a purchase.

That is a fact

you can in a 3 man race. did you fail math?
Sorry I missed this gem earlier while I was away.

ma·jor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-jôr-t, -jr-)
n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties
1.)The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
2.)The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.
3.)The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.
4.)Law. The status of having reached full legal age, with attendant rights and responsibilities.
5.)The military rank, commission, or office of a major.
6.)Obsolete. The fact or state of being greater; superiority.

Three through six are rather unimportant, so I highlighted one and two, so before you insult me next time at least make sure you yourself are right.

Seriously, why would anyone be PROUD of going to Vietnam?

"Yay, I was a part of an enormous slaughter. Yep, the death of millions of Vietnamese civilians rests on my shoulders. Not to mention that our efforts didn't do jackshit anyway!"

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq in my opinion is an idiot. War hero? That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a war hero. How does killing people give you the title, hero?

A villain kills people.
A war hero kills people.

What's the difference? There's no difference in my eyes.

Bush is a freakin' idiot.

Think of it this way, he only knows one language, English, and he CAN BARELY EVEN SPEAK IT! So, he isn't entirely fluent in any ONE language. How does that happen?

I don't understand how anyone could vote for such a jackass.

Republicans suck. Conservatives suck. The entire Right sucks.

I hope the bastard never gets in office again.

Seriously, why would anyone be PROUD of going to Vietnam?

Some actually considered it their Patriotic Duty to go to nam and serve their country. Kerry though didn't want to go to Nam. His deferment was denied and he went to the Naval Reserves. Ironically he went anyway because his unit was called up. He never wanted to go but he went anyway.

"Yay, I was a part of an enormous slaughter. Yep, the death of millions of Vietnamese civilians rests on my shoulders. Not to mention that our efforts didn't do jackshit anyway!"

That would be John Kerry talking. However, the people were lied to that is why we had all the massive war protests. If the government came clean from the start, it might've turned out differently.

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq in my opinion is an idiot. War hero? That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a war hero. How does killing people give you the title, hero?

You've just condemned John Kerry. That Makes John Kerry a Non War-Hero as well. Frankly, I'm glad he served in our armed forces and congratulate him on serving in Vietnam. What I don't congratulate is the trash he said in a Senate Committee.

A villain kills people.

Then I guess George Bush isn't a villain because he hasn't killed anyone. John Kerry would be villian because he has. You just called my dad a villain because he shot at enemy soldiers firing at him. This is an insult to all military personel everywhere. Congratulations.

A war hero kills people.

Wouldn't that mean that they are villains too? Jee, I didn't think John Kerry was a villain but now I do. Thanks my friend for clearing that up! LOL!! You still have insulted our nation's military.

What's the difference? There's no difference in my eyes.

Big difference actually. In war, its soldier on soldier. Killing a soldier trying to kill you is not a crime. Killing a soldier that isn't trying to kill you, is a crime. Killing innocent civilians ON PURPOSE is a crime but it is not a crime if it is done by accident. And Yes you can tell the difference between doing it on purpose and on accident. WWII is a prime example of this.

Bush is a freakin' idiot.

How is he an idiot? Now your starting to show just how little you know of President Bush.

Think of it this way, he only knows one language, English, and he CAN BARELY EVEN SPEAK IT! So, he isn't entirely fluent in any ONE language. How does that happen?

Can you speak English perfectly? None of us can. He speaks english just fine. He also speaks some spanish. I think you need to do more research.

I don't understand how anyone could vote for such a jackass.

That makes ditto for John Kerry! Don't mind if you disagree with the president, but calling him names doesn't do you credit.

Republicans suck. Conservatives suck. The entire Right sucks.

You've just proven that your not a republican. Thanks for showing your true colors. Insults gets you nowhere.

I hope the bastard never gets in office again.

I hope you don't kill yourself if Bush gets re-elected. I'm betting money that he does. That is if I was a bettin man.

I may have typed that last post a bit too hastily, and some of what I said I did not mean. Not all soldiers are villains, but I still believe that war hero is an oxymoron.

George Bush IS a villain because he ordered the attack on Iraq. You would think that devastating Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, was enough, but then he moves on to another poor-as-hell nation, Iraq.

Why? Oh, in search of those weapons of mass destructions in Iraq.

Oh wait, WHAT weapons of mass destruction? The ones that were never found? Yeah, I guess those ones.

Or perhaps it was in retaliation to 9/11, which has been exploited by the government so much I am disgusted. But wait...the terrorists that were involved in the 9/11 attacks were traced back to Saudi Arabia. So why attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia?

It might have to do with Saudi Arabia having trillions of dollars in the American economy. They own 7% of it, did you know that?

How many dead Iraqi's is it now? Last time I heard it was 11,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

How is he an idiot? Do you have brain damage? How is he NOT an idiot??!!

He may speak English "just fine" for a bunch of white trash rednecks, but for a politician, he is a disgrace.

You should go watch Fahrenheit 9/11. I dare you to say "That is stupid left-wing propaganda" I DARE YOU! America is fed SO MUCH right wing bullshit through CNN and whatnot that I think it balances out.

I'm obviously not a Republican, I'm not even American, but America should be embarassed for the sham of an election in 2000. "President" Bush shouldn't even be there!

latest poll data:
Bush 54% Kerry 38 %

latest poll data:
Bush 54% Kerry 38 %

WOW!!! Which poll is this?

WOW!!! Which poll is this?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm


the bounce!!!

Rasmussen Report
Saturday September 04, 2004--For the third straight day, the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 49% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 45%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Bush 52 to Kerry 41

Looks like Bush is has some momentum! Let the fun Begin

and this from Zogby! Yea it only goes to September 2nd but then again

As Republican delegates say goodbye to the glitter and fanfare of Madison Square Garden, self-identified investor voters say they now favor President Bush over John Kerry by an eleven point spread (49% vs. 38%) according to a Zogby/Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE poll conducted on August 30th through September 2nd.

that's the rolling average. the latest poll shows a 16 point bush lead.

latest poll data:
Bush 54% Kerry 38 %
Wow--what a way to take a poll completely out of context. Jesus H. Christ.

One day poll results are never trustworthy. It's too easy to get a non-representative sample, which is why polling companies always use multiple day polling results.

Secondly, when you look at the entire pollingreport website for post-convention poll results, you see that the Time poll that you're referencing is an outlier. Nobody else gives Bush more than a 4 point bounce at best.

So Formal Dances, you may want to calm down a bit with your excitement. Looking at single day poll results may make you feel good for the moment, but it won't give you a true measure of the situation.

Oh, one last thing--Time's bounce is also exaggerated because they changed their methodologies as concerns "likely voters" or "leaners" from before the convention to after the convention. In other words, they compared apples to oranges in their last two polls.

that's the rolling average. the latest poll shows a 16 point bush lead.

In other words, he got a bigger bounce than John Kerry!

Please don't attack the same polls that if you had a Kerry lead you would be bragging about. Ok, and it was not hard to beat the Kerry bounce being that it was the smallest one since 1972.............

Secondly, when you look at the entire pollingreport website for post-convention poll results, you see that the Time poll that you're referencing is an outlier. Nobody else gives Bush more than a 4 point bounce at best.
Newsweek does :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/

Sept. 4 - Coming out of the Republican National Convention in New York, President George W. Bush now holds a 11-point lead over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry (52 percent to 41 percent) in a three-way race, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The poll was taken over two nights, both before and after Bush’s acceptance speech. Respondents who were queried only on Friday, after Bush’s speech, gave the Republican a 16-point lead over Kerry.

The 11-point lead represents a 13-point bounce for Bush since an Aug. 5 to Aug. 10 poll conducted by Newsweek’s pollster, Princeton Survery Research Associates, for the Pew Research Center. The president’s post-convention bounce was substantial vs. the two-point increase received by Kerry after last month’s Democratic National Convention and in line with the size of other post-convention bounces.

In late July, Kerry led the incumbent by 7 points. Removing independent candidate Ralph Nader from the mix actually has no significant effect on the spread between the other two candidates: Without Nader, Bush draws 54 percent of the vote, Kerry 43.

The poll shows that Bush and Cheney have gained ground, and now lead, on almost all key election issues: The president’s approval rating is back over the halfway mark (52 percent, with 41 percent disapproving) after having slipped to 45 percent in July; his favorability ratings (55 percent favorable versus 40 percent unfavorable) are the highest they have been all year, after having fallen to 48 percent unfavorable in the poll at the end of the DNC. And with perceptions of the president climbing back from a low over last month, more registered voters say they would like to see Bush reelected than not (53 percent versus 43 percent)—the most favorable ratio he has had since July, 2003.

American Politics, living proof that democracy dosen't dosen't work/

Any way you cut it Bush has had a great week!

Please don't attack the same polls that if you had a Kerry lead you would be bragging about. Ok, and it was not hard to beat the Kerry bounce being that it was the smallest one since 1972.............
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. If you knew anything about what I talk about here, you would know that I've been saying that these polls are essentially useless until mid-October. And again, if you're so freaking hyped on this poll, why don't you admit that it's the only one that's showing such a substantial Bush bounce?

Every polling outfit gets bad data sometimes, and they all come up with outliers. Time did it this time, and exacerbated the problem by changing methodologies midstream. Whether that was intentional or not is beside the point--the polls disagree, and most of them are saying that Bush got about a 3-4 point bounce. Time is the only one saying otherwise, and that ought to be a warning bell to anyone who watches polls--it's an outlier and it's unreliable.

And I did say the same thing when there was an outlier poll after the Democratic convention that said Kerry had gotten about a 9 point bounce--Zogby, I think. I'm not so sold on one candidate that I'm willing to dismiss reality just because it makes me happy.

American Politics, living proof that democracy dosen't dosen't work/

Ironically, we've only had 1 civil war. Do you have proof that it doesn't worK?

Newsweek does :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/Umm--it's the same poll. It would be a little strange if they didn't agree. :rolleyes:

Umm--it's the same poll. It would be a little strange if they didn't agree. :rolleyes:

Explain Zogby then that has Bush at 49 with Kerry at 38?

They're not the same poll.

Time : http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html
Newsweek : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.


For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,008 adults aged 18 and older Sept. 2 and Sept. 3 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Explain Zogby then that has Bush at 49 with Kerry at 38?
Thats self-identified investor voters....

so which was it that was not accurate? zogby, newsweek, or time? come on. time to face the music. All three of them show substancial Bush bounces and leads.

Both the Investor Class and the Undecideds may prove to be battleground constituencies for Kerry. The poll indicated that Kerry’s support fell as the number of undecided voters rose, suggesting that by [August 30th] some of the Senators supporters may have lost confidence in him and joined the ranks of the undecided.

Looks like Kerry is losing support

Zogby:9 point bounce
Newsweek:23 point bounce
Time: 10 point bounce

I think that some people just don't want to see what is happening. good luck with that.

They're not the same poll.

Time : http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html
Newsweek : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915140/site/newsweek/
I stand corrected. The Zogby numbers you guys are reporting are wrong though. Zogby shows (http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) a two point lead for Bush. Why? Because they leave the undecideds out of the final numbers instead of pushing leaners into the numbers like Time and Newsweek both have.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen agrees with Zogby that it's a dead heat, as does any other poll that leaves the leaners out of the final numbers.

If you guys really want to believe that in this political climate, that Bush got a 10 point bounce out of that convention, then go ahead. It's your right to be delusional. But don't come crying to me when it's still neck and neck in a week.

nothing is trouble for Bush

AP: Bush up 11 points

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_poll_4

ok, Time and Newsweek are not wrong. I guess you can disregard information selectively to fit your own view point but I don't. Just look at the polls that came out on SEPTEMBER 3, 2004. You will see what happened. And by the way, the argument that just because it is a charged political atmosphere and the Democrat did'nt get a bounce does not mean the REpublican won't. Just look at 1972. Heated debate and division. The Democrat got no bounce ( like Kerry). The Republican got a 10 point bounce ( like Bush).

I stand by my claim that Bush got a 10 point bounce!

Looks like Kerry is losing support

I will not argue that Bush didn't get a convention bounce nor that Bush seems to have some momentum on Kerry at the moment, because clearly he does.

However, I think as I have pointed out in a few threads perhaps you shouldn't be doing the victory dance just yet. A few things, keep in mind it's still 8 weeks to the election and the debates haven't happened. More undecided voters make up their minds based on the debates then the conventions. Known fact!

Also, if you go back to the 1988 DNC convention Michael Dukakis came out of it with a 16 point bounce and lead over Bush Sr. and we all know who won the election. As I keep saying, it's called a bounce for a reason. They don't last. What goes up, comes down. Now if Bush can keep the momentum he has coming out of the convention, then he could win. If he loses the debates to Kerry, I think he's toast. I say still to close to call when push comes to shove.

I stand corrected. The Zogby numbers you guys are reporting are wrong though. Zogby shows (http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) a two point lead for Bush. Why? Because they leave the undecideds out of the final numbers instead of pushing leaners into the numbers like Time and Newsweek both have.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen agrees with Zogby that it's a dead heat, as does any other poll that leaves the leaners out of the final numbers.

If you guys really want to believe that in this political climate, that Bush got a 10 point bounce out of that convention, then go ahead. It's your right to be delusional. But don't come crying to me when it's still neck and neck in a week.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=858

9/3/04 Bush 49 and Kerry 38

I will not argue that Bush didn't get a convention bounce nor that Bush seems to have some momentum on Kerry at the moment, because clearly he does.

Oh yea Bush got a bounce. A much larger one than Kerry got!

However, I think as I have pointed out in a few threads perhaps you shouldn't be doing the victory dance just yet. A few things, keep in mind it's still 8 weeks to the election and the debates haven't happened. More undecided voters make up their minds based on the debates then the conventions. Known fact!

I'm not doing a victory dance. I won't be doing a victory dance till I know for sure that GWB has won this Election. If Kerry wins, I will of course congratulate him and hope he doesn't screw our nation up.

Also, if you go back to the 1988 DNC convention Michael Dukakis came out of it with a 16 point bounce and lead over Bush Sr. and we all know who won the election. As I keep saying, it's called a bounce for a reason. They don't last. What goes up, comes down. Now if Bush can keep the momentum he has coming out of the convention, then he could win. If he loses the debates to Kerry, I think he's toast. I say still to close to call when push comes to shove.

In 1988 I was a baby! LOL!!!

Dukakis came out of the DNC ( in July) with a 17 point lead. However after the RNC ( in august) he had a 6 point lead. Everyone expected him to win and he did not. The main reason is that he was a north east liberal.....like....Kerry. But anyway, Time magazine has Bush in a 10 point lead and Newsweek has him in a 16 point lead ( slightly more than those 6 points that dukakis had). no candidate has ever been down by more than 6 and came back for a win once the conventions are over.........this is very good news for the Bush campaign and this forum in particular.It looks more and more like you will have someone to continue to complain about for years to come!

Dukakis came out of the DNC ( in July) with a 17 point lead. However after the RNC ( in august) he had a 6 point lead. Everyone expected him to win and he did not. The main reason is that he was a north east liberal.....like....Kerry. But anyway, Time magazine has Bush in a 10 point lead and Newsweek has him in a 16 point lead ( slightly more than those 6 points that dukakis had). no candidate has ever been down by more than 6 and came back for a win once the conventions are over.........this is very good news for the Bush campaign and this forum in particular.It looks more and more like you will have someone to continue to complain about for years to come!

As much as I hate to say this, Don't dance yet Undecided. I want Bush to win too but he can still lose this election. Yes History is on Bush's side when it comes to this but he also has history against him. No President that was elected by winning the EC and not the PV has ever gotten Re-elected. Now we have a clash here. Which will be the first to buck History? That'll be the question.

I am not saying that kerry cannot win. I am just saying he has to campaign more effectively than George w. Bush ( now or in 2000) , Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bob dole, Mike Dukakis , Ronald Reagan, Walter mondale, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, ect. ect.

Dukakis came out of the DNC ( in July) with a 17 point lead. However after the RNC ( in august) he had a 6 point lead. Everyone expected him to win and he did not. The main reason is that he was a north east liberal.....like....Kerry. But anyway, Time magazine has Bush in a 10 point lead and Newsweek has him in a 16 point lead ( slightly more than those 6 points that dukakis had). no candidate has ever been down by more than 6 and came back for a win once the conventions are over.........this is very good news for the Bush campaign and this forum in particular.It looks more and more like you will have someone to continue to complain about for years to come!
Oh a lot can happen between now and the election. The debates for one thing. Terrorist attack? Capture of Bin Laden? More job loses? Another war? Bush in mouth disease? Stock market collapse? Lower dollar? Growing trade deficit?

If Bush wins again, it will be most unfortunate for the people of the US.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=858

9/3/04 Bush 49 and Kerry 38
Did you even read the story, FD? self-identified investor voters say they now favor President Bush over John Kerry by an eleven point spread (49% vs. 38%) according to a Zogby/Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE poll conducted on August 30th through September 2nd. That's hardly an representative sample of the general populace. In fact, considering the general income level of the investor class, those numbers are shockingly low for Bush.

You see my thought process involves the modern candidates and polling since 1968. The thought process about non- popular vote winners involves these men:
John Q. Adams ( 1828) beat for reelection by the man who he lost the popular vote too the time before
Rutherford Hayes ( who did not seek reelection anyway) ( 1880)
Benjamin Harrison ( 1892) also beat by the man who he lost the popular vote to originaly

so to look at this election based on the above is both outdated and pointless.
It is interesting though.....for me anyway.

Did you even read the story, FD? That's hardly an representative sample of the general populace. In fact, considering the general income level of the investor class, those numbers are shockingly low for Bush.

you should be aware that it was a poll of the general population.

Oh a lot can happen between now and the election. The debates for one thing. Terrorist attack? Capture of Bin Laden? More job loses? Another war? Bush in mouth disease? Stock market collapse? Lower dollar? Growing trade deficit?

If Bush wins again, it will be most unfortunate for the people of the US.

Yes things can happen. But is it really that likely? growing trade defecit? yeah, that would really change a lot of votes.............and don't let your opinion block out the data my friend.

Oh a lot can happen between now and the election.

This is true. Which is why, i'm not celebrating yet.

The debates for one thing.

Something that Bush will win. It'll be interesting non the less

Terrorist attack?

That'll hand Bush the election actually. Changing leaders will be a sign of weakness and Bush will get 4 more years. Al Qaeda doesn't want this which is why we won't have an attack.

Capture of Bin Laden?

That'll give Bush the Election too. We are still closing in and it appears we're alot closer than we were.

More job loses?

144,000 jobs created in August. Unemployment dropped to 5.4 Percent. Haven't checked the Household Survey for their numbers yet.

Another war?

Not going to happen unless someone is dumb enough to attack us.

Bush in mouth disease?

? No idea what your talking about.

Stock market collapse?

Possible but I don't think this will happen. If it does, then Kerry could win the election based on the economy but it'll have to be identified that he actually caused it and not some businesses.

Lower dollar? Growing trade deficit?

Dollar is already low but I don't think these two will actually be a factor in this election. That is MHO.

If Bush wins again, it will be most unfortunate for the people of the US.[/QUOTE]

My study of poll numbers about this election influence my point of view on who will win it. Not the other way around, which is what I see all too often.

Yes things can happen. But is it really that likely? growing trade defecit? yeah, that would really change a lot of votes.............and don't let your opinion block out the data my friend.
That was just 1 of many options that I posted and I think the most logical one would be the debates. If Kerry slays Bush in the debates, then it will be a very interesting dash to the goal line.

BTW, don't let the data block out the reasoning. :D

I have an idea.. a little test to prove to you what I'm trying to tell you. Lets stop fighting about it for now. Yes, Bush DID get a convention bounce. I will not dispute that. Lets bring this thread back in one week. I promise you Bush's numbers will have went down and may even be back in a dead heat with Kerry. If not a week, give it two weeks maybe. I have followed political trends in school, in my personal life for many years. It's called a bounce for a reason people.. Any way.. when it happens I won't say I told you so.. ah, maybe I will.. *LOL* :D

you should be aware that it was a poll of the general population.
I will quote it again. (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=858)
As Republican delegates say goodbye to the glitter and fanfare of Madison Square Garden, self-identified investor voters say they now favor President Bush over John Kerry by an eleven point spread (49% vs. 38%) according to a Zogby/Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE poll conducted on August 30th through September 2nd.

This report is not dealing with the report from the general population. It's a report on the subclass of Investor class voters, 307 of the 1,001 that were interviewed, and among that subclass, Bush has the 11 point lead, again, I might add, without pushing leaners. At that particular income level, Bush's lead ought to be much higher, since his tax policies have overwhelmingly favored the investor class. That it isn't larger should be cause for worry in the Bush camp.

At this point in 1976 carter was ahead by 26 points ( he only won by 4 in the end)
At this point in 1980 Carter was 12 points down and he lost.
At this point in 1984 Mondale was 6 points down and he lost in the largest landslide in history.
At this point in 1988 Dukakis was ahead by 6 points and he lost.
At this point in 1992 clinton was ahead by 13 points and he only won by 6 points.
At this point in 1996 Clinton was ahead by 9 points and maintained it to election day.
At this point in 2000 gore had a 5 point lead and we know what happened.
Now Kerry is down by 10 points. Honestly, what do you predict. We he follow the course of the last 7 elections. or will somthing change? I guess it depends on what you believe and how muc you know.........

At this point in 1976 carter was ahead by 26 points ( he only won by 4 in the end)
At this point in 1980 Carter was 12 points down and he lost.
At this point in 1984 Mondale was 6 points down and he lost in the largest landslide in history.
At this point in 1988 Dukakis was ahead by 6 points and he lost.
At this point in 1992 clinton was ahead by 13 points and he only won by 6 points.
At this point in 1996 Clinton was ahead by 9 points and maintained it to election day.
At this point in 2000 gore had a 5 point lead and we know what happened.
Now Kerry is down by 10 points.( the worst since mondale) Honestly, what do you predict? Will he follow the course of the last 5 democrats in 7 elections? or will somthing change? I guess it depends on what you believe and how much you know.........

I would love to see Kerry get up there and go "Many things are wrong with our economy. Our dollar is too low, we need to raise its value. We should raise the value while simultaneously closing the trade deficit." It would be funny, at least to people who have rudimentary knowledge of economics. ;)

I would love to see Kerry get up there and go "Many things are wrong with our economy. Our dollar is too low, we need to raise its value. We should raise the value while simultaneously closing the trade deficit." It would be funny, at least to people who have rudimentary knowledge of economics. ;)

LOL! That would be funny Kwangistar.

For further clarification on the Zogby poll, here's the report (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=857) on the poll of the overall population. Results? On the poll taken July 27-29, Bush was behind 43-48. On the poll taken Aug 30-Sep 2, Bush is ahead 46-44. 3 point bounce, post-convention.

For further clarification on the Zogby poll, here's the report (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=857) on the poll of the overall population. Results? On the poll taken July 27-29, Bush was behind 43-48. On the poll taken Aug 30-Sep 2, Bush is ahead 46-44. 3 point bounce, post-convention.

It is actualy a 7 point bounce ( from a 5 point kerry lead to a 2 point Bush lead.) that is how it is determined. Oh, and I also noticed that the second poll was taken during the convention which means it does not show the full ( post) convention bounce!

It is actualy a 7 point bounce ( from a 5 point kerry lead to a 2 point Bush lead.) that is how it is determined. Oh, and I also noticed that the second poll was taken during the convention which means it does not show the full ( post) convention bounce!

That is correct! It wass taken during it not after it.

Undecided Territories, the convention ended on what, the 29th? The Zogby poll starts on the 30th and runs to the 2nd. How is that not post-convention?

You should go watch Fahrenheit 9/11. I dare you to say "That is stupid left-wing propaganda" I DARE YOU! America is fed SO MUCH right wing bullshit through CNN and whatnot that I think it balances out.


How about you read the 9/11 Commission report, written by a commitee represented by BOTH Reps and Dems, that show Moore's assertions in the movie were WRONG? People should never rely on Hollywood to provide accurate political information.

America is fed a lot of BS through a lot of sources, and not all of 'em are right wing. Most of us can wade through it, though.

Undecided Territories, the convention ended on what, the 29th? The Zogby poll starts on the 30th and runs to the 2nd. How is that not post-convention?

Convention started on August 30st to September 2nd for the Rebuplican National Convention. Thus the poll was taken DURING the convention.

Undecided Territories, the convention ended on what, the 29th? The Zogby poll starts on the 30th and runs to the 2nd. How is that not post-convention?

the convention started on the 30th and ended on the 2nd of september.You really should have known that..............

So your poll was taken during the convention ( which does not show the full bounce) and it still showed a 7 point bounce. How about some post- convention polls, like the newsweek one that shows it Bush 54% to Kerry 38%? Too much for you?

That was just 1 of many options that I posted and I think the most logical one would be the debates. If Kerry slays Bush in the debates, then it will be a very interesting dash to the goal line.

BTW, don't let the data block out the reasoning. :D

But even George Stephanopolous thinks Bush will be the better debater. He's usually more relaxed, more personable, than Kerry. He's also not the idiot some people think he is. I find debates boring usually, but I think this will be one to watch. :)

Like 2000!

Like 2000!

Didn't Gore constently interrupt Bush during that 1st debate?

yes, he did not follow the rules. Bush came off much better than Gore which suprised everyone. Then in the second debate he was a wimp and Bush still looked good. And the third debate was a draw. For all the talk about Gore's superior "intellect". Bush blew his doors off in the debates.

yes, he did not follow the rules. Bush came off much better than Gore which suprised everyone. Then in the second debate he was a wimp and Bush still looked good. And the third debate was a draw. For all the talk about Gore's superior "intellect". Bush blew his doors off in the debates.

No wonder Bush is underestimated.

He always is and it is a fatal error. They used to underestimate Reagan all the time also.........

the convention started on the 30th and ended on the 2nd of september.You really should have known that..............You're right--I had a root canal the night of Bush's speech.

So answer me this--if the convention ended two days ago, how can anyone know what the post-convention bounce is yet, if good polling takes three days to get solid results? Answer? No one.

For a little perspective, the post-DNC polling that gave Kerry a bit of a bounce and had him up 51-44 was done 5-7 days after the DNC ended. I'm telling you guys, these during the convention polling results smell funny. Don't get too excited by them.

No wonder Bush is underestimated.

A lot of people contend that Bush isn't bright because he is not a very good speaker. For one thing, he stuttered as a child and sometimes has to make an effort to control it in tense situations. But, we mustn't ever forget who was one of history's greatest and most persuasive orators....Hitler. I'll take a stutterer over a psycho any day!

For a little perspective, the post-DNC polling that gave Kerry a bit of a bounce and had him up 51-44 was done 5-7 days after the DNC ended. I'm telling you guys, these during the convention polling results smell funny. Don't get too excited by them.

source your numbers like I have sourced mine.

A lot of people contend that Bush isn't bright because he is not a very good speaker. For one thing, he stuttered as a child and sometimes has to make an effort to control it in tense situations. But, we mustn't ever forget who was one of history's greatest and most persuasive orators....Hitler. I'll take a stutterer over a psycho any day!

damn straight

Republican bounces:
1968:14 points
1972:8 points
1976:7 points
1980:13 points
1984:8 points
1988:11 points
1992:16 points
1996:15 points
2000:11 points

and now you say that a 10 point bounce this year is "fishy" just because the Democrat Convention fell flat on it's face. come on.......

Does anyone have anything to say?

source your numbers like I have sourced mine.Look here (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) and scroll down to the Time Magazine poll. Look at the results for August 3-5 and you see Kerry up 51-44 among registered voters. The Democratic convention was July 26-29.

If you look at the Newsweek results, you see a 49-42 lead for Kerry with the poll conducted during the Democratic convention (a bad idea for getting smart results). I didn't buy those results when they came out either. They also had Kerry up 52-44 in a two-man race.

Yes but look at the pre-convention polls from the same data tables and you will see that both of them show no Kerry bounce. He was just as far ahead in those polls before his convention as during and after it. which leads me to ask: what are you talking about?

i can die happy if he doesnt get put on the list, that way my vote actually counts and bush gets screwed, bush cant win if hes not on the ballot
Ever hear of something called "write-in"?

Probably not.

A lot of people contend that Bush isn't bright because he is not a very good speaker. For one thing, he stuttered as a child and sometimes has to make an effort to control it in tense situations. But, we mustn't ever forget who was one of history's greatest and most persuasive orators....Hitler. I'll take a stutterer over a psycho any day!

Agreed. Hitler was a great Orator. One of the best in known history. However, he was a psycho so I agree that I'll take Bush anyday.

Ever hear of something called "write-in"?

Probably not.

According to Alabama's election website, he's on the Ballot in Alabama.

go nader! Suck those liberal votes away ( as if he need to with a 16 point Bush lead)!

Yes but look at the pre-convention polls from the same data tables and you will see that both of them show no Kerry bounce. He was just as far ahead in those polls before his convention as during and after it. which leads me to ask: what are you talking about?
My point is the same as it was earlier--not enough time has passed since the end of the convention to get a true sense of the bounce Bush has received so far. I'm saying that the Time methodology is flawed because they 1)pushed leaners when they haven't in the past and 2) because they polled during the convention, not post-convention. Now it may turn out that this is a legitimate bounce--I'd be surprised if there weren't one and I've said that elsewhere on this thread--but I'll be really surprised if this ten-point lead holds up for more than a week.

Remember Incertonia, Kerry received NO convention bounce. If he did, it was minimal. I believe it was 2 points?

Remember Incertonia, Kerry received NO convention bounce. If he did, it was minimal. I believe it was 2 points?And it's too early to say whether or not Bush has gotten one or not. Check back in 4 or 5 days and we'll see.

why it happens every time?

why it happens every time?huh?

I have to leave now but you people really really need to read up on your modern election history if you want to make sense.

Remember Incertonia, Kerry received NO convention bounce. If he did, it was minimal. I believe it was 2 points?
He recieved a bounce in other fields. The race was narrow and he got roughly a 4 point bounce (as compared to the 6-7 point bounce one poll showed for Bush) but when you broke it down into categories he recieved a wide bounce in many issues. However, this whole Swift Boat fiasco has worn down on his campaign a great deal, which has also contributed to Bush's bounce.

Of course, a bounce of 4 points and 7 points is consciderably low compared to most previous post-convention bounces.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/dnc_convention_bounce_040725.html

try that for starters. read up!

He recieved a bounce in other fields. The race was narrow and he got roughly a 4 point bounce (as compared to the 6-7 point bounce one poll showed for Bush) but when you broke it down into categories he recieved a wide bounce in many issues. However, this whole Swift Boat fiasco has worn down on his campaign a great deal, which has also contributed to Bush's bounce.

So true however, in the overall bounce, it was very minimal. Bush on the other hand, in early polls I will admit, He got a bigger overall bounce than Kerry did at the end of his convention.

Of course, a bounce of 4 points and 7 points is consciderably low compared to most previous post-convention bounces.

It is very low compared to other elections, no matter how close it is.

Corneliu, you may wind up being right, and Bush may wind up with a hefty lead coming out of this convention, but if his numbers fall precipitously and he winds up tied or his lead shrinks drastically in the next set of polls--the first true post-convention polls--don't say I didn't warn you. The methodology on both the Time and Newsweek polls is flawed.

Corneliu, you may wind up being right, and Bush may wind up with a hefty lead coming out of this convention, but if his numbers fall precipitously and he winds up tied or his lead shrinks drastically in the next set of polls--the first true post-convention polls--don't say I didn't warn you. The methodology on both the Time and Newsweek polls is flawed.

You don't have to tell me this Incertonia. I've been following this electin from the getgo. I know that Bush can still lose this election, though I don't think he will (IMHO). His numbers will probably go down and up again till election day. As for the polls, I did say it was early but his bounce is bigger than Kerry's even in this early polling data. I'm waiting for the true one to come out before I say this is good for Bush.

It's time for people to start thinking about what's good for the world as a whole.
I don't like either Bush or Kerry, Kerry's rather undecisive on matters, and Bush.....well, he's Bush (the favorite book of his childhood wasn't written until after he graduated from college). Both candidates are really lame. What we do have to look at however, is their impact. Kerry is the lesser of two evils, he shares many similarities to Bush, but still, he is the better choice for the world in general. You can have four years of something a lot better than Bush, and then in 2008, you can vote for somebody who will actually do something good for this godforsaken political hole. Either Oprah or Ralph Nader are the people to get the job done.

It boils down to this: Always take the lesser of two evils, you can take your pick:
Bush: Warmongering ignoramus, in the pocket of big compaines, and not afraid to say that he is (watch Farenheit 9/11)
Kerry: Undecisive, better educated, still has corporate ties, but is greatly more sympathetic to the average Joe.

It's time for people to start thinking about what's good for the world as a whole.
I don't like either Bush or Kerry, Kerry's rather undecisive on matters, and Bush.....well, he's Bush (the favorite book of his childhood wasn't written until after he graduated from college). Both candidates are really lame. What we do have to look at however, is their impact. Kerry is the lesser of two evils, he shares many similarities to Bush, but still, he is the better choice for the world in general. You can have four years of something a lot better than Bush, and then in 2008, you can vote for somebody who will actually do something good for this godforsaken political hole. Either Oprah or Ralph Nader are the people to get the job done.

It boils down to this: Always take the lesser of two evils, you can take your pick:
Bush: Warmongering ignoramus, in the pocket of big compaines, and not afraid to say that he is (watch Farenheit 9/11)
Kerry: Undecisive, better educated, still has corporate ties, but is greatly more sympathetic to the average Joe.This sort of reminds me of something Jim Hightower said at a rally of progressives earlier this year. He said, "First we're gonna get rid of Bush, and then, we're gonna get rid of Kerry." I like that way of thinking. :D

Bush 53% Kerry 43%

In comparing the two presidential candidates, more registered voters think
President Bush has strong leadership qualities than Kerry (65% vs. 47%), is
more honest and ethical (62% vs. 47%), says what he believes and not just what
people want to hear (66% vs. 42%), would trust him to make the right decisions
during an international crisis (57% vs. 44%), shares their values (54% vs.
42%), and is personally likeable (67% vs. 59%). In addition, more registered
voters think President Bush would do a better job than Sen. Kerry on various
issues: terrorism and homeland security (60% vs. 32%), the situation in Iraq
(55% vs. 37%), foreign policy (54% vs. 38%), taxes (52% vs. 38%), economy (49%
vs. 43%), education (48% vs. 42%), and gay marriage (44% vs. 36%). More
people say Sen. Kerry would do a better job than President Bush on healthcare,
including Medicare (45% vs. 43%) and the environment (50% vs. 36%).

If kerry is 10 points behind and his strong points are medicare and the environment he is doomed! Anyone remember mondale? or dukakis?

Are you really being reduced to MKULTRA tactics, Undecidedterritory?

We've all seen the poll by now, and we've all discussed why the methodology is iffy at best. Are you going to actually add anything substantive to the discussion?

Yes, I believe you just did not like it. Ok, I will now act like everyone else( no data) OH KERRY IS GOOD. I LIKE HIM BETTER. BECAUSE HE IS UH....NOT BUSH!......AND KERRY HAS THREE PURPLE HEARTS. IRAQ WAS EVIL......UH, SO WAS CHENEY. OIL. OIL. HALLIBURTON, WMD, AL GORE! I REST MY CASE.

You see, I just tried to add substance before to get you people away from the kind of thing I just wrote! ( which is about all I see around here)

ooh clever, something that rhymed with rocks. and its AIDS, not AID's, what the hell is AID's?

Auto-Immune Difficency Syndrom! Did you not have a health class? Also its been on the news too. They just recently had an AIDS Conference too. I forget where.

A lot of people contend that Bush isn't bright because he is not a very good speaker. For one thing, he stuttered as a child and sometimes has to make an effort to control it in tense situations. But, we mustn't ever forget who was one of history's greatest and most persuasive orators....Hitler. I'll take a stutterer over a psycho any day!
Could you run that pass me again? Bush stuttered and is a bad speaker. Hitler didn't stutter and was a great speaker. Hitler was bad, therefore Bush is good?!!? WTF? How can anyone come up with that "logic"?

You ppl forget that if the GOP have to appeal to the supreme court for Bush's inclusion on the Alabama ballot, well, there's not going to be much time taken up by the supreme court in discussing it are they? Who is responsible for appointing judges to the S.C.?

Could you run that pass me again? Bush stuttered and is a bad speaker. Hitler didn't stutter and was a great speaker. Hitler was bad, therefore Bush is good?!!? WTF? How can anyone come up with that "logic"?

You ppl forget that if the GOP have to appeal to the supreme court for Bush's inclusion on the Alabama ballot, well, there's not going to be much time taken up by the supreme court in discussing it are they? Who is responsible for appointing judges to the S.C.?
he also pretend bush isnt a psycho

You ppl forget that if the GOP have to appeal to the supreme court for Bush's inclusion on the Alabama ballot, well, there's not going to be much time taken up by the supreme court in discussing it are they? Who is responsible for appointing judges to the S.C.?

Do you have proof that he appealed to the Supreme Court? Is it the Alabama Supreme Court or SCOTUS? I've not heard anything to this affect so please do you have proof?

he also pretend bush isnt a psycho

And Bush isn't a psycho and Zooke is a she!

President Bush is already on the Alabama ballot. Alabama decided to lift the deadline. There will be no appeal to the US Supreme Court.

President Bush is already on the Alabama ballot. Alabama decided to lift the deadline. There will be no appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Thanks for the clarification Parrotmania. I've been saying he was on the ballot but somehow, I was getting ignored.

President Bush is already on the Alabama ballot. Alabama decided to lift the deadline. There will be no appeal to the US Supreme Court.
duh, alabama is a republican controlled state, bush doesnt even have to try to get whatever the fuck he wants done in AL

"Thanks for the clarification Parrotmania. I've been saying he was on the ballot but somehow, I was getting ignored."



I know you did, Corneliu. I applaud your effort. Perhaps my post will be ignored too.

duh, alabama is a republican controlled state, bush doesnt even have to try to get whatever the fuck he wants done in AL

Duh, it has a Democratic Controlled Legistlature