Bert Robbins wrote:

Why has the murder of Nick Berg not been met with as much print and air
time? What's the matter the death of an American at the hands of terrorists
is overshadowed by some poor slobs that got strip searched?


You really don't understand why the prisoner torture case has such
strong legs, do you, Bertie? Well, this isn't the place to try to
explain it to you, nor do I believe you are educable enough to
understand in any case. So, I suppose you're doomed to wander through
what remains of your life wondering.



Me, I'm kind of hoping for a nice oil price collusion scandal involving
the Bush-****ters, the big oil companies and our wonderful friends in
Saudi Arabia.


The price of oil was artifically low and the fact that nobody in the US has
stopped driving to protest the high price of oil will keep it at or above
two dollars a gallon. The next problem will be that the government will try
to increase their take by raising the taxes and that's when the public will
scream. Inflation will kick in in a couple of months due to the increased
cost of plastics and transportaiton of goods.


That's wonderful, Bertie, but...as I stated, I'm hoping for a nice oil
price collusion story, or some other juicy scandal, to fall onto Bush's
head.

Inflation already has kicked in...



But I'll take whatever comes down the pike for the Bush-****ters, as
long as it helps bury the idiot, election wise


I notice you aren't saying it is a good thing for Kerry. I can't wait until
Kerry make the great Faux Pas and goes down in flames. Then the fun begins
when the Democrats try to substitute a candidate just like they did in New
Jersey.

Until the political conventions, I'm really paying more attention to the
spectacle of George W. Bush disintegrating. And that is a good thing.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message news:U5idnYjx798AhzXdRVn-
Why has the murder of Nick Berg not been met with as much print and air
time? What's the matter the death of an American at the hands of terrorists
is overshadowed by some poor slobs that got strip searched?

Simply because the Bush administration is down playing it. Why?
Simple, they ARE to blame, it's his no-reason war, so he is ultimately
to blame, and we all know this administration is too high and mighty
to apologize.

Me, I'm kind of hoping for a nice oil price collusion scandal involving
the Bush-****ters, the big oil companies and our wonderful friends in
Saudi Arabia.

The price of oil was artifically low and the fact that nobody in the US has
stopped driving to protest the high price of oil will keep it at or above
two dollars a gallon. The next problem will be that the government will try
to increase their take by raising the taxes and that's when the public will
scream. Inflation will kick in in a couple of months due to the increased
cost of plastics and transportaiton of goods.

No, it's been documented that Bush and OPEC are working together, and
oil prices will magically fall just before election time.

But I'll take whatever comes down the pike for the Bush-****ters, as
long as it helps bury the idiot, election wise

I notice you aren't saying it is a good thing for Kerry. I can't wait until
Kerry make the great Faux Pas and goes down in flames. Then the fun begins
when the Democrats try to substitute a candidate just like they did in New
Jersey.


what "Faux Pas" is THAT?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

Why has the murder of Nick Berg not been met with as much print and air
time? What's the matter the death of an American at the hands of
terrorists
is overshadowed by some poor slobs that got strip searched?


You really don't understand why the prisoner torture case has such
strong legs, do you, Bertie? Well, this isn't the place to try to
explain it to you, nor do I believe you are educable enough to
understand in any case. So, I suppose you're doomed to wander through
what remains of your life wondering.

What's ont the front page of your newspaper this morning? Is it still
plastered with the poor treatment that the terrorists received while in
custody?

You really are a condescending prick aren't you? Is that why you have no
friends?



Me, I'm kind of hoping for a nice oil price collusion scandal involving
the Bush-****ters, the big oil companies and our wonderful friends in
Saudi Arabia.


The price of oil was artifically low and the fact that nobody in the US
has
stopped driving to protest the high price of oil will keep it at or
above
two dollars a gallon. The next problem will be that the government will
try
to increase their take by raising the taxes and that's when the public
will
scream. Inflation will kick in in a couple of months due to the
increased
cost of plastics and transportaiton of goods.


That's wonderful, Bertie, but...as I stated, I'm hoping for a nice oil
price collusion story, or some other juicy scandal, to fall onto Bush's
head.

There will be no collusion story? That was searched for last summer and
nothing was found.

Inflation already has kicked in...

Don't you remember the late '70's and early '80's? That's when we had
inflation.

But I'll take whatever comes down the pike for the Bush-****ters, as
long as it helps bury the idiot, election wise


I notice you aren't saying it is a good thing for Kerry. I can't wait
until
Kerry make the great Faux Pas and goes down in flames. Then the fun
begins
when the Democrats try to substitute a candidate just like they did in
New
Jersey.

Until the political conventions, I'm really paying more attention to the
spectacle of George W. Bush disintegrating. And that is a good thing.

Meaning you hope that the Democratic convention corrects its mistake and
brings forth a real candidate!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

That's ridiculous, Harry. How could you possibly say that? That rivals
NOYB's
"make them f*** a pig" post. You guys in a contest to see who can say the
most
outrageously inappropriate things?

Gould,
The problem with Usenet and political discussions is the outrageous posts
are the ones that encourage long threads. Heck, take a look at JaxAsby's
posts on a chain anchor rode, it looks like it just takes an outrageous
posts to encourage any kind of "discussion". If Harry and NOYB are making
these comments to stir up the pot, it seems like they have mastered the art
of Usenet "discussions". If either one of them actually believe their
outrageous comments, it is good that they have limited themselves to making
political comments in rec.boats.

To be very honest with you, it is nice to see a liberal who seems to be
reasonable.

Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest
candidate
since George McGovern.

I hadn't noticed that.

These comments by noted Republican pollster Rasmussen illustrate why you guys
need a candidate. You should be doing far better than running a dead heat
against a guy now supported by a clear minority of the population (and waiting
for random events to select the next American president). Scariest thing that
Rasmussen says in his comments? "Iraq and the economy are out of George Bush's
control." Yikes. If the CIC doesn't control the war in Iraq, who does?

*******

Is Zogby Right? Is the Election Kerry's to Lose?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

A commentary by Scott Rasmussen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

May 14, 2004--Last Sunday, pollster John Zogby created quite a stir by
announcing his view that the election is now Kerry's to lose. John is a good
pollster and makes many good points, but I respectfully disagree with him on
this one.
John is right to point out that the race has shifted. It used to be the
President's race to lose, but now it is a pure tossup. However, Zogby goes a
bit too far when he says Election 2004 is now Kerry's to lose.

Here's why...

As a starting point, consider the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll.
For the ten weeks since Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination on Super
Tuesday, we have polled virtually every night... over 70 separate samples.
Every single time, both candidates have been within 3 percentage points of the
45% mark. Not coincidentally, the survey margin of sampling error is +/-3
percentage points. That shows an amazingly close and stable race.

What little movement we have seen suggests that the President loses a couple of
points every time a new level of bad news comes from Iraq. After a few days or
a week, however, the numbers return to the toss-up range. Senator Kerry loses a
few points every time the spotlight focuses on him. Kerry's numbers bounce back
when the focus returns to the President.

Also, a key part of the Zogby analysis is that "The President’s problem is
further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that
are out of his control." It's absolutely true that the economy and Iraq are out
of the President's control. But, they are also out of Senator Kerry's control.

When all is said and done, it is the reality in Iraq and the economy will
determine the election. If Iraq stabilizes in any way and the economy improves,
the President will be hard to beat. If Iraq deteriorates significantly and the
economy fails to improve, the Senator will have the edge.

Zogby partially addresses this by correctly pointing out that there is a lag in
voter perceptions of the economy (and that the lag hurt the first President
Bush). He believes this lag will also hurt the current President Bush. On this
last point, I am not so sure.

One critical difference between now and 1992 is that the Investor Class is much
bigger. This is significant because Investors respond to economic news (good
and bad) much more quickly than non-Investors... If the economy improves over
the next few months, that will register with Investors.

Adding to the impact, Investors represent a majority of the "soft" support for
both Bush and Kerry. Soft supporters are those who say they will vote for a
candidate but might change their mind. If economic growth (particularly jobs
growth) continues, these Investors will respond and that will benefit the
President.

To wrap this up, I would like to offer my own challenge to the conventional
wisdom. While the polls have shown an incredibly tight race for months, I don't
believe it will be that close on Election Day in November. I'm not envisioning
a landslide, but believe the most likely scenario is for one candidate or the
other to win a modestly comfortable victory.

Why do I say this? Because events in Iraq and the economy will determine the
outcome. Those situations will change for better or worse and voters will
decide accordingly. If they go one direction, Bush wins. If they go the other
way, Kerry wins.

Sign up for our free Weekly Update

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


Why has the murder of Nick Berg not been met with as much print and air
time? What's the matter the death of an American at the hands of
terrorists
is overshadowed by some poor slobs that got strip searched?

Maybe the two things have something in common, Einstein. Perhaps Dr.
Strangelove would prefer we not know what the common thread is.

On 17 May 2004 04:09:55 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

There are more legs to this torture tale than anyone first imagined.
Apparently Rummy is a bit more deeply involved in the process than he
has let on to date.

It's too bad it had to be something like this, but if it helps bring
down Bush, hey...

That's ridiculous, Harry. How could you possibly say that? That rivals NOYB's
"make them f*** a pig" post. You guys in a contest to see who can say the most
outrageously inappropriate things?

A statement that "it really doesn't matter what happens to the country as long
as Bush completes his self destruction" is just as bad as the neocons saying
that no matter *what* GWB does, it will be the right thing and good for
America.

I'm delighted to see Bush's approval rating sink into the low 40's this week,
(Rasmussen), but sad to see the events and unresolved issues that are bringing
him down to that level. When Bush goes down the toilet, he takes a lot of the
country and even a lot of the free world with him. That's extremely
regrettable, not something that should simply be considered acceptable
collateral damage.

Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest candidate
since George McGovern.

Not all the independents in this country are as liberal as I am. Many of them
will decide that the predictable screwing we'll take from four more years of
Bush beats the unknown screwing we'd take from Kerry. Once again, I'll be
reduced to voting *against* Bush because you Democrats can't field a decent
candidate.

Bush's current problems are bad news for him and the Republicans, but worse
news for the country. Putting in a slick, professional gladhander like Kerry
will stop
the damage being done by the radical right- but I fear we'll be trading one
tribe of special interest thieves for another.

Get your buds at the DNC to convice Kerry to pull out for personal or health
reasons.
(Maybe one of his old war scratches will start acting up.) Not too soon,
though- (Let the Bush team spend another $100mm trashing Kerry and making
themselves look hateful and silly in the process first). Convince McCain to
switch parties and you'll walk away with this thing. Barring that, nominate a
leader with intelligence, compassionate ethics, and integrity- we sorely need a
new president in this country and that's the kind of person we need.

If you guys will put up a reasonable candidate, you won't have to say that it
somehow doesn't matter what terrible crap lands on our country as long as it
unseats George Bush. Things won't have to get any worse than they are right
now, and GWB will be getting a gift certificate from Bekins for Christmas.

Best of all possible worlds? The country solves some of our current problems
and the Bush *still* gets pruned come fall. :-)

Looks like we disagree, again.


Chuck, where have you been? The "if it's bad it's good" philosophy has been
Harry's mainstay for a long time.

Here's his comment the prisoner abuse, "Oh, I'm happy right now. Bush will
be going down in flames. Too bad so many innocents have to die or suffer because
of it, but I suppose that is the price we have to pay for Bush's arrogance and
incompetency.

The war news is going to get worse, perhaps not in the number of
Americans killed, but in the level of atrocities on both sides. July 1
should be an interesting day."

His gleefulness at the death and destruction in Iraq is sickening.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message
His gleefulness at the death and destruction in Iraq is sickening.

John H


Is it as sickening as you wanting to see pictures of little girls in
the "biblical sense"? And they are letting you teach, huh?

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

There are more legs to this torture tale than anyone first imagined.
Apparently Rummy is a bit more deeply involved in the process than he
has let on to date.

It's too bad it had to be something like this, but if it helps bring
down Bush, hey...

How many times have I heard Harry proclaim that some scandel relating
to GWB "has legs" and will be the demise of this administration?

snip

Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest candidate
since George McGovern.

I hadn't noticed that.

How could you not? With Bush's approval rating tanking, Kerry should
be walking away in every poll with a double digit lead. Instead he is
having to work like hell to stay neck-and-neck with an opponent that
has approval numbers in the 40s.

Harry - George Bush is beatable, yet your party appears to be
nominating a candidate that may not be able to do it.

I am one of those republicans that is not real thrilled with GWB.
It's his handling of Iraq that that is his biggest problem. They are
screwing that up. But I truely believe that Kerry will make the
situation even worse. The only thing that I have heard him talk about
doing is sucking up to those that want to screw us.

Get your buds at the DNC to convice Kerry to pull out for personal or health
reasons.

Oh, puh-lease.

(Maybe one of his old war scratches will start acting up.) Not too soon,
though- (Let the Bush team spend another $100mm trashing Kerry and making
themselves look hateful and silly in the process first). Convince McCain to
switch parties and you'll walk away with this thing.

McCain is an interesting fellow, too conservative for my taste, though,
and on the opposite side of too many issues. But I do like him
personally. But he caved in the face of Bush's lying attacks about him
in the 2000 primaries, and I wonder if he is tough enough these days to
take on the Repubican juggernaut that has invested so heavily in the
smirking chimp.

How about Lieberman? I might vote for him. But I would still hold my
nose - His behavior in the 2000 election did not set well with me at
all.

I have voted for democrats when the elephant candidate was not to my
liking. In one case I still kick myself for doing it. I voted for
Barbara Boxer in 1992. I can't stand that woman. In her "victory
speech" for that election she claimed that the victory was proof that
Californians were strongly behind her politics (something to that
effect). My feeling was - Don't get too big a head, lady! You lost
to a guy that a lot people thought was a total asshole. A lot of
voters just hate you less."

Never again with Boxer. Even if he couldn't smirk, a chimp would get
my vote in that race. Diane Feinstein is far more likeable.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...

I am one of those republicans that is not real thrilled with GWB.
It's his handling of Iraq that that is his biggest problem. They are
screwing that up. But I truely believe that Kerry will make the
situation even worse.

I'd love to see a written description of "worse".

The only thing that I have heard him talk about
doing is sucking up to those that want to screw us.

GWB has already done that. Can you say "Saudi Arabia"?