| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Newsweek poll
....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. |
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!!!! |
Let me guess, you don't have any draft age family members or your name is
Osama. In either case you should love it. Are you in the body bag business? -- Dixon "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!!!! |
"dixon" wrote in message news:dMu_c.293476$eM2.283441@attbi_s51... Let me guess, you don't have any draft age family members or your name is Osama. In either case you should love it. Maybe he has family members in a major metropolitan area, and would rather see our troops fight terrorists in the Middle East, than terrorists kill civilians in our cities. |
-- Dixon "NOYB" wrote in message ... "dixon" wrote in message news:dMu_c.293476$eM2.283441@attbi_s51... Let me guess, you don't have any draft age family members or your name is Osama. In either case you should love it. Maybe he has family members in a major metropolitan area, and would rather see our troops fight terrorists in the Middle East, than terrorists kill civilians in our cities. I guess it had to happen. Out of 294,000,000 people in the U.S., the bush administration finally found someone that believes this. Maybe we should have just killed the "terrorists" in Cuba. They have a dictator and it's a lot easier to get there. They have about the right color skin too. Dixon |
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:23:05 GMT, "dixon" wrote:
Let me guess, you don't have any draft age family members or your name is Osama. In either case you should love it. Are you in the body bag business? Sour grapes? |
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:07:28 -0400, I am a Republican
wrote: 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!!!! Likewise! |
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:46:57 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:
Maybe he has family members in a major metropolitan area, and would rather see our troops fight terrorists in the Middle East, than terrorists kill civilians in our cities. The only substantial civilian deaths due to terrorist activities in this country happened under Bush's watch. Why would anyone in a metro area feel safer under Bush? bb |
"jps" wrote in message ....leaders who empathize more closely with Rambo than Jesus. And in a different post in the same time frame, he wrote Bush thinks Jesus is with him. So who is it, jps? Rambo or Jesus? Or are you just overly enamored of every you spew that you think is witty? |
"NOYB" wrote in message news:k4- So the Democrats must run on American jobs (where Bush currently leads), Health Care/Medicare, and the environment. This harkens back to the Clinton campaigns. Remember his one-word answer to every question? "Medicaremedicaideducationandtheenvironment" endlessly repeated until the country engaged in group vomit just to make him shut up. |
|
|
Chuck, what kind of force would you send after them?
1. We recognize that our enemies are individual, criminal, terrorist thugs, often hiding out in countries without a strong central government or adequate law enforcement. 2. We recognize that our enemies are not all the men, women, and children of Country XYZ, nor the inept, backwater, tribal governments there. 3. We recognize that our enemy is not Islam. 4. We spend 30 or 40 billion on infiltration and espionage, (rather than 200 billion +,+,+ trying to occupy one country out of the dozens where our enemies live), and identify the individual criminal terrorist *******s who would be a threat to the civilized world. 5. We identify these people as those who are participating in the *planning* stages of an attack, (discovered through informants and infiltration) not just every "Muslim S.N. in Youjerkistan" 6. We arrest, or if need be "eliminate" the people we find plotting, or committing, terrorist acts. We do not topple government after government and bomb hell out of entire cities because some terrorists happen to live in the country or in a particular city. 7. We can use the CIA, special forces, whatever it takes to do the job. If the government of Youjerkistan wants to protest us sending in covert operatives to surgically remove the terrorist cancer, we can ask if they'd rather have our entire army up their butts instead. Would you prefer just waiting for them to get here? No, Bush tried that in the early months of his presidency, and it didn't work very well. Do you approve of Kerry's statement that he will take every action *after* we are attacked? I agree with the principle that you don't go to war until you know who your specific enemy *is*, not guess who it might, maybe, could be, someday, if and when, be. You do realize that to take out everybody with the slightest probability of harming the US, we need to nuke the entire rest of the world? (And most of the "liberal" states, I'm sure you'd be happy to add). 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? Could part of the reason be that we *are* causing them problems overseas? Our actions overseas are the very *reason* that we are more of a target now than ever. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message 1. We recognize that our enemies are individual, criminal, terrorist thugs, 4. We spend 30 or 40 billion... and identify the individual criminal terrorist Bad policy to look upon them as criminals. They think of themselves as at war, we should do likewise, lest we unduly limit our own options. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... True... maybe we'd have been better off burning the whole damn hive in one move. |
True... maybe we'd have been better off burning the whole damn hive in one
move. You're about 140 years past your time. That attitude brought us Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and a long list of black spots on the American conscience in between. A few renegade men stole some horses and killed a settler? Burn the whole damn village, shoot the women, ride down the little kids......... That may be your preferance, but consider that there were only a couple of hundred thousand plains Indians, or fewer, to deal with in the 19th century. By 2025, estimates are there will be two *billion* Muslims, 60% of them under 25 years of age. We can't, and shouldn't kill them all. Unless we can justify making war against an entire society and its government, we have no choice except to prosecute these criminals for what they are. |
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 |
On Sat, 04 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. Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly weighted. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919 Rasmussen looked at the polling data for both the Time and Newsweek polls, and concluded they support a 3% Bush lead. A not unexpected bounce after the RNC. It is still a horserace. Read down: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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. Could part of the reason be that we *are* causing them problems overseas? Our actions overseas are the very *reason* that we are more of a target now than ever. They are causing us problems here, therefore we have the right to go kill them there. The group with the stronger constitution will win. If you lefties come to power again then we will surely loose. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... Reverse the analogy and you have it correct. |
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 04 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. Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly weighted. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919 Rasmussen looked at the polling data for both the Time and Newsweek polls, and concluded they support a 3% Bush lead. A not unexpected bounce after the RNC. It is still a horserace. Read down: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Indeed, I mentioned this four days ago. -- 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 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? Unless we can justify making war against an entire society and its government, we have no choice except to prosecute these criminals for what they are. No proactive justification is required. They declared war on us, and initiated several demonstrably warlike attacks before we responded even once. You can damn near count on one hand the number of Islamic organizations that have condemned terrorist actions, or Islamic governments that have taken assertive steps to stop supporting terrorists within their own jurisdiction. This is not a group of people actively rejecting a cultural war. Today's actions are looked upon in the Muslim world as the Third Great Jihad, dating back some 1400 years, and the two gulf wars of recent times do not constitute the prime causative factors. It is a mistake to think that diplomacy and negotiation are the order of the day. That is a western thought process. |
"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. |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 11:50:38 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:
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. That birth rate problem can be extended to all of the First World. Most First World countries birth rates provide for a negative population growth. Immigration has sustained growth in our population and economy for some time. It seems to me, it is only a matter of time until the have nots decide to get some. |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:28:14 +0000, NOYB wrote:
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. *If*, and *if*... What makes you think Russia can afford another war anymore than we can? |
"thunder" wrote in message ... 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/ 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? |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:28:14 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. *If*, and *if*... What makes you think Russia can afford another war anymore than we can? You can't fight only the wars you can "afford". Some wars need to be fought no matter the cost. This is one of them. Nevertheless, the Russians really just need to give their blessing. The Defense Department already has the war plans for Iran locked away and ready to go. Having the Russians along with us would just be a huge bonus...which would especially help in post-war peacekeeping. |
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 |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:15:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Nevertheless, the Russians really just need to give their blessing. The Defense Department already has the war plans for Iran locked away and ready to go. Having the Russians along with us would just be a huge bonus...which would especially help in post-war peacekeeping. I'm sure we have the plans to invade the United Kingdom locked away somewhere, but I'm not sure we have the man power. Or are you proposing a national draft? |
"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? 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. At least we will be defending ourselves rather than rolling over taking it the... |
snip
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. snip Hmmm, that may work about as well as the current pacification efforts in Chechnya. 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. Mark Browne |
snip 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. *If*, and *if*... What makes you think Russia can afford another war anymore than we can? You can't fight only the wars you can "afford". Some wars need to be fought no matter the cost. This is one of them. snip Tell that to the *former* Soviet Union. |
"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. Mark Browne |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com