If the Times called it a draw, you can be sure it was in fact a blow-out
victory for Cheney.

Davey, this just proves how biased you are. I'm an honest man, unlike you. The
debate was a win for Edwards, but only marginally. No one is calling it a
blowout. I heard both men make accurate attacks. I heard (or didn't) both men
ignore some accusations.
Get real. Now we'll see if Kerry can score a second victory on Friday or if
Bush will even it up.

RB

On the contrary, that was one of Edwards's poorer moments. The Journal
pointed out several days ago how phony the Kerry numbers were both as to
cost and share of human lives lost by the U.S. compared to other countries.
About time somebody called them on it.


Yes, CNN reported the American lives lost amount to 88.5% instead of 90. And
cost is closer o 120 billion. Anyway you cut it, Edwards hit the nail on the
head.
Yeah, score one for the Bush team! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

RB

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
On the contrary, that was one of Edwards's poorer moments. The Journal
pointed out several days ago how phony the Kerry numbers were both as to
cost and share of human lives lost by the U.S. compared to other countries.
About time somebody called them on it.


Yes, CNN reported the American lives lost amount to 88.5% instead of 90. And
cost is closer o 120 billion. Anyway you cut it, Edwards hit the nail on the
head.
Yeah, score one for the Bush team! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Yep. And, if you use the projected costs for next year, the $200B is
true. And, we all know it's going to be more than "projected."




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave,

As a lawyer, can you honestly say Last night was the first time Cheney
seen Edwards, when photo show them together?

Ole Thom

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 23:59:54 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

But even if Cheney was right on BOTH counts the
numbers would STILL be TOO high.

Ah, yes. Kerry has a PLAN, right. He's not too sure what it is, but he has a
PLAN. Consult Howard Dean for the details.

LOL.

LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't
have a plan and never did.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 6 Oct 2004 22:08:32 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't
have a plan and never did.


He's been doing pretty good so far.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

But even if Cheney was right on BOTH counts the
numbers would STILL be TOO high.

Ah, yes. Kerry has a PLAN, right.


THE NUMBERS ARE TOO HIGH.

RB

"Horvath" wrote

He's been doing pretty good so far.

Yup .... almost as good as LBJ after Tet.

Remember Kissenger in a tunnel with Nixon pointing to the light at the end
of the tunnel --- that turned out to be a train?

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 22:08:32 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't
have a plan and never did.


He's been doing pretty good so far.

Doing pretty well, you illiterate fool. And, yes, he's been doing
pretty "good" by killing lots of our soldiers and lots of civilians,
and lying to us.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:44:27 GMT, felton said:

The $87 billion included $67 billion for the "war" and $20 billion for
"reconstruction", i.e. pork, much of which was for Haliburton.

First, let's dispel this Halliburton lie that the Dems keep chanting as if
that mantra had some magical properties.

Why am I not surprised.

Because you're an idiot? Actually, Cheney is pretty smart. He got out
when he realized the media were after him and his buddies at
Haliburton. I guess he doesn't ever speak with his buddies there. They
have no influence on him because he'll never have anything to do with
them when he's finally finished ****ing up this country. Sure,
whatever.

What would you be saying about a President who vetoed a spending bill
to "support the troops" rather than roll back a tax cut?

So when did he veto this bill? I didn't see that.

It is indeed unfortunate that Bush hasn't vetoed a few spending bills. The
Republicans in Congress have continued the Dems' long-standing pork for
votes policy. But the bill to fund the troops was not a good place for Kerry
to throw his temper tantrum over the Republicans' not going along with the
Dems' plan to raise taxes.

Very unfortunate. Keep electing Republicans in both houses and the
presidency, and that's what you get.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."