snip
We have not been attacked, locally, since 9/11. Does that mean we are
no
longer
a target?

No, it does not. If we were no longer a target, Bush's "unwinnable" war
on
terror would be over, wouldn't it?

This is a cultural war Chuckie. You can call it Bush's war but, these
terrorists are hell bent on the destruction of the West and the
subjugation
of those not killed.

snip
Osama Bin Laden has stated many times that he desires a cultural war. He has
spent years working this out while fighting the Soviets and dealing with the
west. The only way the west can win in OBLs war is to become a modern day
version of the Nazi party. OBL is gambling that the west will not commit
cultural suicide to beat him. Sadly, we now have an administration that is
not clever enough work this out - even worse - the current administration
seem cheerily bent on this conversion into the very thing we fought against
in WWII -- with no clear promise that it *will* be enough to win.Witness the
destruction of the Soviets in much the same situation.

Mark Browne

snip
Bingo! The western world would soon fall apart with out the free flow of
oil. The next big war will be involve two or all of China, India or the
US.
Russia will side with who ever pays them the most for their oil.

In a few years the US out of national necessity will have to crack open
the
Gulf of Mexico, the California Coast, and all of the untapped resources in
Alaska.

Yep, that will solve the problem for about a year, then we will be in eactly
the same place.
Remeber when little Bush decided to drop raising the CAFE average in the
first few weeks of his term? THis is *not* the kind of thinking that is
going to solve this problem.

Mark Browne

snip
Chuck, there's nothing sudden about it, and the three stated elements of
strategy listed in your post are not mutually exclusive; nor were they
difficult to see right from the start by those who cared to look.
Yep, the PNAC site lays it all our pretty well.

This has
always been about the strategic securing of the mid-east
... Oil ...
and preventing
attacks, and doing so by killing or thwarting terrorists, the historically
chosen mo of the Arab/Muslim world.
And tell me abain how well has the west been about to pull this off over the
last thousand or so years? The middle east folks seem to have developed a
plans that has stopped every other agressor to visit thier lands. They have
had a lot of practice.

This has always been about western
representative governments, led by
Now here is an odd little snippet - tell me again about this coalition of
the willing? It will be very interesting to see how things go when the Brits
throw Blair out on his ass.

the US, telling the other large group of
world populace that, NO, we are not going to stand idly by while a
medieval
people
Telling choice of adjective. Would it would be better if they were ultra
modern? When the Soviets were telling the world about their intrests in the
middle east things somehow looked different from *our* point of view. I
doubt that the folks in the middle east saw a lot of difference.

with primitive theocratic notions of law and society
Right on! Tell that to the US religouis right!

destroys every
legal, social, and economic human betterment that western civilization has
generated in the last thousand years.

Destrction of everything we hold dear? Correct me if I got this wrong - as I
recall - they have been trying to get the west to butt out of their
business. In reading through the OBL stuff on the web, I did not see much
about the destruction of the west. Perhaps you have a cite that can clear
this up for me?

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So your recommended course of action would be to hang around the
hive,
identify and separate out the few bees that actually did the
stinging,
and
relocate these bees for punishment?

Now you've taken the analogy too far.
I was simply pointing out that we are undertaking an impractical
response
with
our determination to militarily subdue any and all countries where a
terrorist
is reputed to live.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!

JohnH wrote:



You've still not addressed the statement. If our military budget was nothing,
and Republicans were in power, the Democrats would still complain about the lack
of money for social welfare.

John H


If it weren't for social welfare, you never would have had a "career" in
the military or a job as a substitute teacher now.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So your recommended course of action would be to hang around the
hive,
identify and separate out the few bees that actually did the
stinging,
and
relocate these bees for punishment?

Now you've taken the analogy too far.
I was simply pointing out that we are undertaking an impractical
response
with
our determination to militarily subdue any and all countries where a
terrorist
is reputed to live.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bert has a jingoistic, simple-minded solution for all the world's problems.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So your recommended course of action would be to hang around the
hive,
identify and separate out the few bees that actually did the
stinging,
and
relocate these bees for punishment?

Now you've taken the analogy too far.
I was simply pointing out that we are undertaking an impractical
response
with
our determination to militarily subdue any and all countries where a
terrorist
is reputed to live.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to
see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bertie,

Let's break this down slowly.

I asked you to consider how the lessons learned in Ireland can be applied
to the middle east.
Your reply was for the aggressor to leave the occupied lands.
Can I take this to mean that you think that the US and UK should pull out of
the middle east?
Lest we forget, the British are involved in both conflicts, and there *are*
questions of terrorism and domestic security in both cases.

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So your recommended course of action would be to hang around the
hive,
identify and separate out the few bees that actually did the
stinging,
and
relocate these bees for punishment?

Now you've taken the analogy too far.
I was simply pointing out that we are undertaking an impractical
response
with
our determination to militarily subdue any and all countries where
a
terrorist
is reputed to live.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to
see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bertie,

Let's break this down slowly.

I asked you to consider how the lessons learned in Ireland can be applied
to the middle east.

So, we'll give the Irish the ok to push the English into the sea? (Chuck,
this is little sea meaning water.)

Your reply was for the aggressor to leave the occupied lands.
Can I take this to mean that you think that the US and UK should pull out
of
the middle east?

Aren't the Palistinines the agressors. The jew have been in Judea for
thousands of years while the Palistinines are a recent entry to Judea?

Lest we forget, the British are involved in both conflicts, and there
*are*
questions of terrorism and domestic security in both cases.

The Irish and the Jews occupied the lands long before the English and
Palistinines, respectively, breached the borders.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:08:49 +0000, NOYB wrote:


That site also states that Rassmussen has explained that the Times and
Newsweek polls included too many republicans. That's pretty amazing
that
they know that Rassmussen is saying that already...because Rassmussen's
own website said that he'd give the reason for a discrepancy in the
different polls at 3 pm E.T. today. How does the author of your
electoral-vote website know what Rassmussen is going to say 2 hours
before
Rassmussen says it?

Liberal conspiracy? Perhaps, you should wait until 3 pm to see if he is
correct. By the by, others have noticed the faulty weighing:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919

According to Chris Bowers (the author of that site you just listed), Harris,
Pew and NAES polls from earlier this year show that more people consider
themselves Democrat than Republican. He then tries to extrapolate the data
to reach the conclusion that Bush leads by only 5.6% rather than the 10 or
11 points shown in the Times and Newsweek polls. What a crock!

There are so many flaws with this theory, that it's laughable that any
serious person would even consider it. Here's just a few problems that I
see:

*The Harris, Pew and NAES polls could have been inaccurate for several
reasons...one of which could be that none of them considered whether the
people questioned were "likely voters".

*People might consider themselves "more Republican" since those three polls
were conducted.

*The assumption that just because "other" polls say that 94% of Republicans,
and only 82% of Democrats will vote for their party's nomination, doesn't
mean that *those* polls were accurate in the first place.

* You can't extrapolate data across multiple polls (which were polling
different questions, and at different points during the election year) to
conclude that a current Newsweek, or a current Time poll is inaccurate.
That's the most absurd reach that Bowers is trying to make

*mydd.com is a partisan Democratic site

"thunder" wrote in message

*If*, and *if*... What makes you think Russia can afford another war
anymore than we can?

What makes you think that either we or Russia can afford *not* to fight this
war? We couldn't afford to fight WW II, either, but it was something that
had to be done.

"Mark Browne" wrote in message

.... It may be instructive to reflect on how many of the conservative
suggestions for the middle east have been tried by Russia, and have
failed
miserably.

.....being sure to only include those Russian efforts carried out in exactly
the same manner on exactly the same timetable as any putative US actions.

Or, it may not be instructive at all.

"Mark Browne" wrote in message news:dcSdnbd-

Yep, the PNAC site lays it all our pretty well.

Not only PNAC. The necessary strategy is clear to any who can see past
their own nose. As I said earlier "...nor were they difficult to see right
from the start by those who cared to look."


This has
always been about the strategic securing of the mid-east

... Oil ...

Simplistic leftists would like everyone to believe that it is all about oil,
but it's about the strategic securing of the mid-east. The reliable flow of
crude is, by definition, part of the equation.

And tell me abain how well has the west been about to pull this off over
the
last thousand or so years?

Now here is an odd little snippet - tell me again about this coalition of
the willing?

Telling choice of adjective. Would it would be better if they were ultra
modern?

Any cogent point you may have been trying to make in these previous three
paragraphs has eluded me.

with primitive theocratic notions of law and society

Right on! Tell that to the US religouis right!

Have Christian sects in the US set up their own governments and legal
systems? Did I miss the news today? If you seriously attempt to equate the
Christian right in the US with Muslim fundamentalist theocracies, you have
truly lost touch.


Destrction of everything we hold dear? Correct me if I got this wrong -

You're wrong.

In reading through the OBL stuff on the web, I did not see much
about the destruction of the west. Perhaps you have a cite that can clear
this up for me?

Cite, Shmite. If you look for legitimate plans and goals of al Qaida et al
on their websites, your naiveté will show through. All you have to do is
look around you.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message

.... It may be instructive to reflect on how many of the conservative
suggestions for the middle east have been tried by Russia, and have
failed
miserably.

....being sure to only include those Russian efforts carried out in
exactly
the same manner on exactly the same timetable as any putative US actions.

Or, it may not be instructive at all.

Ok, lets compare note in 10 years; that's how long it took for little-bitty
Afghanistan to bankrupt the Soviets.

Mark Browne
Mumbles to self - 200 billion a year for 10 year, expansion of the war into
Cambodia - 'er, I meant Syria or Iran, looming baby boomer retirement bomb,
bulk of the big tax cuts actually kicking in. Ya ten years should do it!

Or are you proposing a
national draft?


We'll see a draft again beginning in 2005.
Too hot an issue in an election year.
We cannot expand the current war into Iran, (which is the next stage of the New
American Century Plan that Bush has followed to date), without a *lot* more
cannon fodder.

How many times do you extend the tours of the poor guys and gals in the Guard
and Reserve before you begin bordering on involuntary servitude, anyway?

What makes you think that either we or Russia can afford *not* to fight this
war? We couldn't afford to fight WW II, either, but it was something that
had to be done.

I'm not sure that Roosevelt was busily cutting the taxes for the privileged
classes at the same time he was trying to fund WWII.

Try to put this country on the war footing we had in WWII, and it wouldn't fly.
Gas rationing, anyone?

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

Of course not. The idea is to prevent the next, and all future attacks. You
guys generally seem to think that means militarily taking over every country
where criminal terrorists reside. I think it means:

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and* clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during the
planning process, (not after the fact).

2. Surgically remove the terrorist leaders.
We can do this in ways that would leave even their supporters unsure whether
the
head ******* was taken out by the US or died of natural causes.

3. Avoid repeating the mistakes of Israel, Russia, and other countries that
have decades of experience fighting the same problem.

4. Try to insure that we are not creating hatred for the US faster than we are
killing off the folks who already hate us.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

Of course not. The idea is to prevent the next, and all future attacks.
You
guys generally seem to think that means militarily taking over every
country
where criminal terrorists reside. I think it means:

The best way to prevent an offensive force from killing you is to kill them
first.

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and* clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during the
planning process, (not after the fact).

I'm glad you have seen the error of Kerry's ways and you want to correct the
damage he and his fellow Democrats have done to our intelligence
capabilities.

2. Surgically remove the terrorist leaders.
We can do this in ways that would leave even their supporters unsure
whether
the
head ******* was taken out by the US or died of natural causes.

Killing the top guy only means that a new top guy will emerge. Start at the
bottom.

3. Avoid repeating the mistakes of Israel, Russia, and other countries
that
have decades of experience fighting the same problem.

Isreal has had their hands tied behind their backs by international public
opinion. One of these days they will flip the world the bird and solve the
middle east problem themselves.

Russia couldn't react fast enough in Afganistan, we proved that.

4. Try to insure that we are not creating hatred for the US faster than we
are
killing off the folks who already hate us.

If everybody hates us then why do the oppressed people of the world want to
come here to better their lives?

The Irish and the Jews occupied the lands long before the English and
Palistinines, respectively, breached the borders.


Irish, yes. Jews, no.

The oldest recorded inhabitants of the area now called Israel were tribes that
are generally ancestral to the Palestinians.
I don't know what religion you practice, if any, but if it happens to be
Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, refer to the book of Exodus. It's considered
holy writ in all three traditions, and it clearly records the invasion of "the
promised land" by Joshua and the Jewish exiles from Egypt.

And talk about terrorism, wow. Yahweh, the Hebrew diety, instructed Joshua to
kill all the men, women, children, and even the livestock in the various towns
and cities they conquered.

Until immediately after WWII, there hadn't really been a "Jewish state" in
Israel for almost 2000 years. The area was
solidly Muslim during the time of the Crusades, and that does go back a piece.
:-)

Nevertheless, Bush still is leading by 38 Electoral college votes...which is
8 more than he led by last week...and a huge swing from 2 weeks ago when he
was behind by a bunch. I expect to see him with with an EC lead of 80-120
points by next Monday or Tuesday's electionprojection.com calculations.


You may indeed be right about the ElecProj lead early next week- as it will
reflect the understandably strong Bush ratings immediately after the
convention.

After that, you'll need to snuff out your victory cigar until November- *if*
you get to light it up again. :-)

Are you subscribed to the *daily* updates? The electionprojection map that
I'm looking at is from 9/5...and Oregon and Washington are leaning Kerry on
that map.

No, I'm seeing the same thing, but EP has changed the map from solid blue to
light blue on those two states.

I'm hoping for a change in leadership this year, so I guess I'm concerned when
the robustly healthy blue begins fading to
pale. Next thing you know, that dratted pink could begin appearing and pretty
soon
the dreaded red disease takes hold.

Hey, there's a thought for you guys on the
far right: Freebie campaign slogan that emphasizes your scare tactic that
unless George Bush remains in power we're all gong to be incinerated by
terrorists. It's a bit of a twist on an old standard,

"Better red than dead". :-)

The best way to prevent an offensive force from killing you is to kill them
first.

So let's say there is a country with 25-million people in it. Out of this
25-million, 4%, (or 1-million) hate the US so vehemently that they will become
suicide bombers, or join anti-American militia. These people hide among the
general population. (30-40% of the general population hate the US enough that
they won't get "involved" and rat out the bad guys). The bad guys don't wear
uniforms, march in formation, or ride around in clearly identifiable military
vehicles. We really don't know who the bad guys are until they are setting off
a roadside bomb or firing an AK47 ot our guys.

Looks like we ultimately have two choices, really.

1) Carpet bomb the whole place into a nuclear wasteland, and consider the 24
million either "collateral damage" or racially guilty by virtue of a common
religion.

or:

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and* clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during the
planning process, (not after the fact).

2. Surgically remove the terrorist leaders.
We can do this in ways that would leave even their supporters unsure
whether
the
head ******* was taken out by the US or died of natural causes.


3. Avoid repeating the mistakes of Israel, Russia, and other countries
that
have decades of experience fighting the same problem.

4. Try to insure that we are not creating hatred for the US faster than we
are
killing off the folks who already hate us.


***************


If everybody hates us then why do the oppressed people of the world want to
come here to better their lives?

Sorry, but your question has nothing to do with this discussion. It tries to
refute a postion that "everybody" hates us, and I don't see any claims to that
effect.

We need to eliminate the people who hate us so badly that they will attack us.
That's far from "everybody". In fact, because it isn't even close to a majority
in most of the
Islamic countries in the world it is even more questionable to make war against
an entire country rather than the criminal elements within the country.

We also need to examine our actions to make sure that we do not, unnecessarily
or unjustly, give even more people a valid reason to hate us.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:10:20 -0400, NOYB wrote:


According to Chris Bowers (the author of that site you just listed),
Harris, Pew and NAES polls from earlier this year show that more people
consider themselves Democrat than Republican. He then tries to
extrapolate the data to reach the conclusion that Bush leads by only 5.6%
rather than the 10 or 11 points shown in the Times and Newsweek polls.
What a crock!

Rasmussen agrees that Bush leads by 4-5 points, not double digits. If the
Time and Newsweek polls were accurate, other polls will start to show
similar results. Time will tell.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll...20Sept%206.htm

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:05:28 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Or are you proposing a
national draft?


We'll see a draft again beginning in 2005. Too hot an issue in an election
year. We cannot expand the current war into Iran, (which is the next stage
of the New American Century Plan that Bush has followed to date), without
a *lot* more cannon fodder.

Scary, isn't it? And we are only talking about another Third World
country. Wait until the rest of the PNAC program kicks in and we try
starving China's or India's oil needs. Now, that will be interesting.
And we still do not have a comprehensive energy program. What a way to
run a country.

How many times do you extend the tours of the poor guys and gals in the
Guard and Reserve before you begin bordering on involuntary servitude,
anyway?

I am a Republican wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:31:13 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

...also shows Bush ahead by 11 points.

Bush 54%
Kerry 43%

That's a 13 point bounce fellas!

Bush is now leading in two major polls with leads that are well outside the
poll's margin of error.


I love it!!!!

John Smith, trying to hide yet again.

basskisser wrote:
I am a Republican wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:31:13 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:

...also shows Bush ahead by 11 points.

Bush 54%
Kerry 43%

That's a 13 point bounce fellas!

Bush is now leading in two major polls with leads that are well outside the
poll's margin of error.


I love it!!!!

John Smith, trying to hide yet again.


That one, too? What an asshole.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:10:20 -0400, NOYB wrote:


According to Chris Bowers (the author of that site you just listed),
Harris, Pew and NAES polls from earlier this year show that more people
consider themselves Democrat than Republican. He then tries to
extrapolate the data to reach the conclusion that Bush leads by only
5.6%
rather than the 10 or 11 points shown in the Times and Newsweek polls.
What a crock!

Rasmussen agrees that Bush leads by 4-5 points, not double digits. If the
Time and Newsweek polls were accurate, other polls will start to show
similar results. Time will tell.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll...20Sept%206.htm

The Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll splits the difference. It shows a 7 point
lead for Bush among likely voters. Rasmussen may agree that Bush leads by
4-5 points, but his current poll shows just a one point lead. He blames the
discrepancy on an anomaly in the polling data from last Saturday where Kerry
was actually leading. He throws that poll out, and comes to the conclusion
that Bush leads by 4-5 points. Absurd! It sounds to me like Rasmussen
needs to get his act together. When 3 of the four major polls (Gallup,
Time, Newsweek) come out showing Bush with an average lead of 9.33%, and
Rasmussen shows a 1 point lead, then that doesn't speak very highly of the
accuracy of his polls.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 07 Sep 2004 03:21:50 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:


Snipped

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling
the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and*
clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during
the
planning process, (not after the fact).

snipped

Chuck, I like this idea. It has been mentioned before (maybe by you). My
question would be, what do we do during the 5-10 years it would take to
recruit,
train, and infiltrate the agents who could handle the work? Will the
terrorists
hold off for this time?

John H

No.
Call it collateral damage.
Hurts when it is a little closer to home?

Mark Browne

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...


"Better red than dead". :-)


I like it!

The terrorists have little to fear when we are
distracting ourselves by making war on organized armed forces that have never
attacked us, and are not credible threats in the future.


PS: The PNAC strategies were conceived with the concept of defending the US
against terrorism as a secondary, rather than primary priority. The military
adventures recommended by PNAC are not well advised when defending the US
against terrorism must now be our highest strategic priority. Bush is
surrounded by the authors of the PNAC doctrine- Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc etc etc.
All of his advisors are giving him biased and ultimately ineffective advice.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The terrorists have little to fear when we are
distracting ourselves by making war on organized armed forces that have
never
attacked us, and are not credible threats in the future.


PS: The PNAC strategies were conceived with the concept of defending the
US
against terrorism as a secondary, rather than primary priority.

Wrong. Ridding the World of terrorism was one of the benefits predicted in
the Pax Americana vision for the future.

You skipped "and infiltrate" which would be the lengthy part. Given that you
disregarded that, the rest of your post didn't warrant reading.

Please start over.

John H

No need. There is some *extremely* active recruiting right now by the terrorist
organizations. It ain't all that tough to get in. We have our weaknesses, might
as well exploit one of theirs.

One shouldn't reject an entire concept based upon the reluctance to agree with
a specific detail.

Wrong. Ridding the World of terrorism was one of the benefits predicted in
the Pax Americana vision for the future.

"Secondary"

Look it up. :-)

Now imagine that you could have gotten laid 70 times by a different
virgin each time.

Do you still think that you wouldn't strap on a suicide bomb?



If I tried to lay 70 virgins in any sort of quick succession, I wouldn't need a
bomb to commit suicide.

But what a way to go. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:
Now imagine that you could have gotten laid 70 times by a different
virgin each time.

Do you still think that you wouldn't strap on a suicide bomb?



If I tried to lay 70 virgins in any sort of quick succession, I wouldn't need a
bomb to commit suicide.

But what a way to go. :-)


Virgins? Pffft.




--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:51:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Rasmussen needs to get his act together. When 3 of the four major polls
(Gallup, Time, Newsweek) come out showing Bush with an average lead of
9.33%, and Rasmussen shows a 1 point lead, then that doesn't speak very
highly of the accuracy of his polls.


Grasping at straws? 80 to 120 EC lead by next Monday? I doubt it. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:51:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Rasmussen needs to get his act together. When 3 of the four major polls
(Gallup, Time, Newsweek) come out showing Bush with an average lead of
9.33%, and Rasmussen shows a 1 point lead, then that doesn't speak very
highly of the accuracy of his polls.


Grasping at straws? 80 to 120 EC lead by next Monday? I doubt it. ;-)

That's my prediction for electionprojection.com's numbers by next Monday or
Tuesday.

If it were so easy, don't you think we would have done it?

Not if doing it some other way served a predominate agenda.