"Gould 0738" wrote in message

When the game started, it was all about preventing an imminent attack on
the US

.......This has
been about fighting terrorists all along.

Suddenly it's about gaining a
strategic base in the middle east, so we can militarily secure an oil
supply?

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. This has
always been about the strategic securing of the mid-east and preventing
attacks, and doing so by killing or thwarting terrorists, the historically
chosen mo of the Arab/Muslim world. This has always been about western
representative governments, led by the US, telling the other large group of
world populace that, NO, we are not going to stand idly by while a medieval
people with primitive theocratic notions of law and society destroys every
legal, social, and economic human betterment that western civilization has
generated in the last thousand years.

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.

We will wind up with the rest of the world so ****ed at us, we won't be able to
kill terrorists as fast as they're being born.
That's what the terrorists are counting on, IMO. They expect the US to act like
macho cowboys, and so become our *own* worst enemy.

Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly
weighted.



Yopu don't suppose the news magazine polls were constructed to coincide with
the
"George Bush" issues now on sale, do you? Announce something stunning, like
"George Bush is walking away with the election", and a lot of people will buy
magazines.

According to Election Projection, Bush has about a one-state electoral vote
lead
coming out of the convention.

Not unexpected.

Electin Projection's map has Oregon leaning Bush in the latest projection- and
that's unlikely. Also has Washington leaning Bush. If we measured cow country
east of the mountains separately from the western side of the state, Bush would
easily win Washington- but there aren't enough people over there to sway the
state.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly
weighted.



Yopu don't suppose the news magazine polls were constructed to coincide with
the
"George Bush" issues now on sale, do you? Announce something stunning, like
"George Bush is walking away with the election", and a lot of people will buy
magazines.

According to Election Projection, Bush has about a one-state electoral vote
lead
coming out of the convention.

Not unexpected.

Electin Projection's map has Oregon leaning Bush in the latest projection- and
that's unlikely. Also has Washington leaning Bush. If we measured cow country
east of the mountains separately from the western side of the state, Bush would
easily win Washington- but there aren't enough people over there to sway the
state.


The latest daily Rasmussen Poll, a Republican poll, shows Bush with a
one point lead today. Kerry had a one to two point lead in the Rasmussen
polls just prior to the GOP convention.

One of the sites I looked at indicated either the Newsweek or Time poll,
or perhaps both, included a sample with more than 40% "military
families" in its sample. That would be one way to skew a poll so you can
sell magazines, eh?









--
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!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly
weighted.



Yopu don't suppose the news magazine polls were constructed to coincide
with
the
"George Bush" issues now on sale, do you? Announce something stunning,
like
"George Bush is walking away with the election", and a lot of people will
buy
magazines.

According to Election Projection, Bush has about a one-state electoral
vote
lead
coming out of the convention.

Let's be fair, Chuck. Election Projection is using polling data from the
prior week...so it doesn't reflect Bush's actual post-convention bounce
(just a mid-convention bounce) . Newsweek's poll is the most current...and
shows the largest lead. Zogby's and Time's polls were taken on Thursday
*before* Bush's speech. American Research Group's and ABC/Washington Post's
polls were taken on 9/1 and 8/29, respectively. Fox's was taken before the
convention even began. Consequently, none of the last three polls reflect
just how large a lead Bush really has right now.

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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly
weighted.



Yopu don't suppose the news magazine polls were constructed to coincide
with
the
"George Bush" issues now on sale, do you? Announce something stunning,
like
"George Bush is walking away with the election", and a lot of people will
buy
magazines.

According to Election Projection, Bush has about a one-state electoral
vote
lead
coming out of the convention.

Not unexpected.

Electin Projection's map has Oregon leaning Bush in the latest projection-
and
that's unlikely. Also has Washington leaning Bush. If we measured cow
country
east of the mountains separately from the western side of the state, Bush
would
easily win Washington- but there aren't enough people over there to sway
the
state.

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. So is New Mexico and New Hampshire. However, Kerry's lead in all
of those is less than 1 point. And remember...the data doesn't refelct
Bush's full post-convention bounce because some of the polls used in the
calculations haven't been updated yet since before the convention began.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:
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.

We will wind up with the rest of the world so ****ed at us, we won't be
able to
kill terrorists as fast as they're being born.
That's what the terrorists are counting on, IMO. They expect the US to
act like
macho cowboys, and so become our *own* worst enemy.



Most of the rest of the world already is ****ed at us, Brother Gould.

You would think the United States would have learned a lesson from the
protracted conflict between the State of Israel and the so-called
Palestinians. Every time Israel takes out a handful of known terrorists
(and some bystanders), 10 more pop up to take their place.

That's because Israel has been handcuffed and hasn't been able to go after
the source of the problem...the countries which support them, namely Iran
and Syria.

Once Syria's and Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas is gone (via our or
Israel's inevitable military action in those countries), the
Palestinian/Israeli conflict will be almost non-existent.

BTW--If Putin reaches the conclusion that Iran is funding al Qaeda, and al
Qaeda played a role in the massacre of those kids, Iran is toast...Bush will
have his coalition for the next stage in the war against terror.










One of the most serious problems facing Israel is the extraordinarily
high Palestinian birth rate. And that's an issue we too will face with
the Islamist world.

We're are NOT going to be able to defeat the Islamists and their goal of
creating havoc for the United States through our use of traditional
military force. Our only hope is the use of diplomacy, combined with the
use of intel that allows us to remove the ringleaders and their key
personnel on an on-going basis.

There are terrorists out there who have or soon will have access to a
nuclear bomb. You can bet on it. It takes no great skill to bring such a
device into one of our cities and set it off. Any serious Islamist
student of physics can do the job.

If it happens, and I hope it doesn't, I hope the terrorists pick a
target deep in the heart of...Bush country. Let Bush's most fervent
supporters pay the price for his idiocy, intstead of continuing on their
free ride.



--
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!

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:07:06 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

I would love to see the Democrats state how much spending would be enough for
Medicaremedicaideducationandtheenvironment. As long as Republicans are in power,
there will never be enough spending on social programs. You and I know that to
be true. If the Democrats were in power, 'enough' would be that amount of social
welfare spending that would guarantee a return to power.

That's about as detailed and compelling as those on the left who say
Bush is bankrupting the country so we can't afford any social programs.

You want to put some flesh on that skeleton? Go to True Majority and
look at how much we spend on the military vs. our "enemy" and compared
to what we spend on social programs and then let's have a discussion.

jps

Why become diverted? Do you deny the truth of the statement I made? I didn't
address Bush, the military, or the enemy.

Why don't you enlighten yourself by attempting to understand the
priorities your own country is keeping? Our military budget is
astronomical and getting larger while the reserves and money to keep our
citizens healthy, educated and out of poverty is not keeping up.

Then we can have a discussion about how the Democrats can offer more
sensible approaches to supporting our nation.

jps

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:22:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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. So is New Mexico and New Hampshire. However, Kerry's
lead in all of those is less than 1 point. And remember...the data
doesn't refelct Bush's full post-convention bounce because some of the
polls used in the calculations haven't been updated yet since before the
convention began.

You may want to add the following link to your bookmarks. It's updated
nightly.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:19:45 +0000, NOYB wrote:

I expect to see him with with an EC lead
of 80-120 points by next Monday or Tuesday's electionprojection.com
calculations.

Wishful thinking. For the past 3-4 months, Kerry has held a very slight,
within the margin of error, lead. Now, all of sudden, voters have seen
the Bush light? It's a horse race, and baring unexpected events, it will
be until November.