Mickey

Great, just what we need, a circle jerk for morons. It is a wonder you can find eachother's Dick Cheneys

Kerry isn't posting here, you are. I can't talk to Kerry, I can talk to you. The issue I have with you is that you post crap, after crap, after crap. No sooner are your sensational, overblown accusations shown to be just that and you just move on to another accusation without so much as an apology or at least an acknowledgment that you were wrong. If your argument is that it is okay for you to be a jack-a$$ because you are not running for President, that is where you and I disagree. I don't think it is okay to by a lying, reactionary, mud slinging, division sowing, jack-a$$ whether you are running for President or posting political commentary on the internet. But that's me. Apparently your expectations for yourself are not so lofty.

MSNBC also reports that a Pentagon official says that before the site was searched by the 101st Airborne in April with embedded NBC reporters in tow, the explosives were there and intact, in March. Moreover, if we knew that there were no explosives there as of April of 2003, why was Condi Rice just informed now? Why did she just now, in October '04, infrom the President of this? Why is the President calling for an investigation now as opposed to 1 1/2 years ago? If we knew that they were gone in April of 2003, why didn't Condi know it back then, or the President? Why wasn't there an investigation then? Why is the press just learning of this now? If NBC was there in April and saw themselves that the weapons were gone, why didn't they report it? For the third time, this is one of those stories you just have to watch develop to see what is true and what is false.

Lets sue them for premises liability and practicing medicine without a license. Cleary the injury and substandard treatment led to catastrophic neurological deficits.

Yes, its like choosing between a guard that gets falgged 5 times a game for holding and a guard who neve gets flagged but gives up 5 sacks. I'm torn.

MSNBC reports that: "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity." Timing of Theft of Iraq Explosives Remains a Mystery Well, its a mystery to everyone but you, the man with all the answers. Are you going to say you are sorry for, as ususal, jumping the gun yourself in your never ending quest to throw as much mud as you can at JFK? If he is at fault here it is for jumping on this before giving it a day or two to be vetted, precisely what you are doing. I guess the fair conclusion to draw is that you are both jack-a$$e$. As I said before, something is not right here given the timing of all this and it will probably be awhile before we can sort fact from fiction. Not that such problems have ever been a reason for you to hold back your vitriol. Besides, odds are you can move on to your next accusation before you are found to be full of @!#$@#!$ on your current one just like you always do.

Drew didn't make a single block, that @#!$#$. His receiving skills are for @#$#@$. His design of the offense and red zone play calling !@#$@!#$. Everything, absolutely everything is his fault from the war in Iraq to Mularkey's male pattern baldness. Only astute observers of the suttle nuances of the complex game of football like us are smart enough, clever enough to see that the only thing wrong with this team is Drew Bledsoe. Most people, stupid people, are focused on the little things like blocking assignments to notice the often hidden "X-factor" which determines a team's performance, that being the play of the QB. Mistakes by the QB are hard to see and can only be spotted by the trained eye of an expert with years of experience in unraveling the mysteries of football. Only such experts can reach and then preach an in depth analysis of the team's problems and then inform us of their complex diagnosis: The QB sucks. See, its that easy. I don't know why we even have a front office, scouts or coaches. Just put in JP and off to the Super Bowl we go. Offensive lines are no longer needed in the modern game.

Something doesn't sound right here. If we knew the stuff was gone in April of 2003, the day after the liberation, why was the IAEA and Condi Rice not told until October 10, 2004, for that matter, why would Rice have to be told at all? Wouldn't she know the stuff was gone when, as the story reports, the 101st Airborne was there in April 2003 and saw that the stuff was gone? All the articles mention that Rice was told the stuff was gone on October 10, 2004 and that she then informed the President. That sounds like it was all new information to them. Why would it be new if our own guys went to the storage facility a year and a half ago and it was not there? This sounds like one of those stories that is going to take some time before the fact and the fiction can be sorted out.

Actually JSP, the first thing I did was pull up transcripts of the Presidential debates and then ran a search on "Lugar" and "incompetence" and I came up empty. I did get a hit on the Vice Presidential debates but then, you didn't call Edwards a liar, you called Kerry a liar. If you have a quote from Kerry that misquotes Lugar, I'd like to see it. If you want to call Edwards a liar, start another thread, look up his quote, post it along side what Lugar actually said and we can go from there and in the mean time, withdraw your unfounded charge against Kerry.

I am still waiting for someone to show me how Kerry is a "liar" for having quoted Lugar dead on.

I see, well, I can hardly argue with your "feeling" as to what I might say in different place and in a different world. Agaist that type of hard analysis and fact based logic grounded firmly in your imagination, I am powerless. If you want to take issue with what I say, fine, more power to you. I don't have the time to defend things I haven't said that you feel I might say. In a way, that was what that whole analysis was about, dealing first with what people actually say rather than what some pundit thinks they "implied". JSP is calling Kerry a liar without even bothering to tell us what he said that was a lie. When you go to the actual words, it turns out he was dead on. Lugar is welcome to say now that he didn't mean what he said but Kerry isn't required to read his mind. I have no problem with people arguing that Kerry is making too much of an off hand comment by Lugar during the pressure of a live interview. Calling him a "liar" though based on that incident is just overblown, bs, partisan rhetoric by a guy who really, really hates Kerry. I think we have too much of that going around here on both sides. If that is the standard for demonstrating that a candidate is a stone cold "liar", then I could convict all 4 of these guys in less time than it takes Chaney's heart to skip a beat. Politicians lying??? Egads man, say it isn't so.

Simply do what I did, go to the source whenever you can and draw your own conclusions hopefully applying some critical thought to the process.

Did Lugar, in reference to the handling of reconstruction in Iraq, say or did he not say: ''This is incompetence in the administration.'' ?? How then would Kerry be lying to say that Lugar was critical of the adminstration's policy in Iraq? Is calling someone "incompetent" some sort of compliment? I think it is fair to say that calling someone's policy or actions "incompetent" would qualify as a critical remark. Exactly what remarks by Kerry constitute the lie of which you accuse him? Novak includes no quotes from Kerry but instead charges simply that Kerry "implies support from such Republicans" as Lugar. "Implies support"???? What the heck does that mean? I did a quick search and surprise, I can't find a quote in the debates from Kerry mentioning Lugar. The only quote I can find from Kerry on this is from a speech he gave, not from the debates: "Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent." Compare Kerry's statement, the one you are calling a "liar" with what Lugar actually said. Here is a transcript of exactly what Lugar said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on September 19, 2004: Lugar: "...We've got to get the reconstruction money out there. That was the gist of our hearing this week, that $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent. [1]10:55:31 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS) (OC) Buy why isn't that happening? [1]10:55:33 SENATOR RICHARD LUGAR (CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE) Well, this is incompetence in the administration. [1]10:55:34 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN (RANKING MEMBER, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE) That's exactly right." See This Week Transcript 9/19/04 Kerry quoted him dead on and in context. Please show me what part of Kerry's actual words are false. Since you saw it fit to make such a charge, the onus is on you to prove it. You guys are long and quick on the draw when it comes to accusations but always slow to come up with proof. Don't declare it, prove it.

The LA times uses every poll, even partisan ones with the map reflecting the latest, not necessarily the greatest. Slate has a pretty good analysis of poll data where they look at various aspects of polls identifying arbitrary ones, partisan ones, etc. Certainly there is plenty of subjectivity to go around. I am not using any of this as gospel, just as a tool for discussion. The nice thing about the LA Times is the interactive nature of the map so you can experiment with different outcomes. These numbers change like crazy. There was a Michigan poll that had Bush ahead so the Times gave that state to Bush but it was a blip, all polls since and after go way the other way. If I did this Friday, I would have a different scenario to discuss than today. Ho-ho-ho, just like a yo-yo.

Where in the article you linked does it say he said what you say he said? Sorry, but I would rather judge for myself what Kerry said rather than your interpretation. All I read was him having said, in response to Bush's statement on Hannity that "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air." Kerry's response was that if he were President, "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe." In response to that, the President's spokesperson said "The president said we can win the war on terror and we will win the war on terror." Nowhere does the number "100%" come up nor does either claim that they can guarantee that there will be no attacks against the US. The President made a poorly worded comment, "up in the air" and Kerry jumped on it the same way a poorly worded comment, "global test" got jumped on by Bush. These things become obvious when you quote their actual words as opposed to your partisan spin. I don't mean that as an insult or to call you out. You are not the only one on the board doing it. As special as you are to all of us, you aren't special in that regard. Bush says we will win the war on terrorism, does that mean he is guaranteeing that we won't ever be attacked? Is that what a "win" of this war means? Kerry says he will make America safe, does that mean he is making such a guarantee? What does being safe mean in this context? I think the elevator in my building is "safe" but does that mean I can guarantee it will never malfunction and hurt someone? No, but it does mean that it is "safe" enough for me use it on a daily basis. These terms are inherently nebulous which is precisely why the politicians use them so that it sounds like they are saying something when they are not. "Win", "safe", in the context of a "war on terrorism" these terms don't have much meaning. We aren't going to wake up one day to headlines that read "Terrorists Surrender, Peace Declared". Bush in fact often uses the same language the Kerry is using against him in this episode. Bush has many times claimed that he has made America "safer" that we are "winning" the war against terrorism. Now Kerry says he will make us "safe", that he won't put our safety "up in the air". They are both throwing hot air balloons at eachother.

Maybe you are willing to pretend that only one side is doing what it can to maximize the turnout of it's perceived constituency, I'm not. As far as changing the subject, your favorite weepy response when the debate gets deeper than the appallingly shallow rain puddle of a mind you are forced to make do with, the original subject of this thread was the trashing of voter registrations by a group funded by the RNC in Nevada, Oregon, Pa, Minnesota and West Virginia. A topic you haven't mentioned. The topic has strayed quite a bit but rather than follow your example of squealing like an infant who lost his rattle, I have simply followed the discussion, responding as I saw fit to the substance of posts. I'll leave you to cry over namby pamby rules of debate you imagine exist that prohibit free discussions. With the steering wheel of your brain stuck forever to the right, I'll leave you to your rhetorical circles while the rest of us move on.

Using the LA Times interactive map which is based on the latest poll irrespective of sources, if you gave each candidate the states they currently lead in by more than 1%, you are left with ties or virtual ties in NH, Minn., Fla and, of all placed, Arkansas. Kerry would lead 253-238. Kerry takes Pa, NM and Ohio but Bush takes Wisconsin (based on the most recent poll which is a republican sponsored onw but who cares? this is just for fun anyway). Fla. would give Kerry the win but losing it would not be enough for Bush to win. Kerry could still win if he took Ark, Minn and NH. He has been leading in most polls in both Minn and NH but he only recently came from behind to knot things up in Arkansas. The entire election could hinge on Arkansas. There is a scenario that leads to a dead tie, 269-269 in the EC. Kerry takes Arkansas and Minnesota but loses NH and Florida. That would throw the election to the House of Representatives with each state's contingent having one vote. Bush would likely win that as 50 congressman from California could get out voted by 2 from Kansas and Wyoming. However, the VP is then selected by the Senate. There is certainly an outside chance that the Senate could be in the control of the democrats and so it is not impossible for there to be a President Bush and a Vice President Edwards. Complicating matters further, a single "faithless elector" could decide the entire election and from a standpoint of megalomania, I wouldn't be shocked to see one do just that. Who could resist the opportunity for such fame/infamy? In any event, there are certainly some scenarios that are more likely at least than they usually would be that would make this a more painful post election experience than 2000. This election could turn out to be a National Root Canal, sans novocaine.

Same here but I would substitute "Bush" for "Kerry". We had an awful line and we still do. Wonder of wonders, the offense still stinks. Shocked I am, shocked. Keeping a group of failures on the payroll was a mistake. I hope we don't make the same mistake in November.

I didn't have a "guy" in 1960 since I was not yet born. Eisenhower didn't care for Nixon and that is a historical fact and that is what I said. Do you dispute that? Did I somewhere in my post indicate that Eisenhower didn't urge him to challenge the outcome of the election? Obviously, I did not so why do you pretend that I did and then use a position I haven't taken to slam me? I am not excusing anything, I just pointed out that Nixon's actions were pragmatic, not noble. Further, I am not at all of the opinion that it is "noble" to let an election be stolen. If you truly beleive that is the case, whether it is Nixon in 1960 or Gore in 2000, I see nothing noble in stepping aside to let a thief become President. That's just me. The Republicans have hired 1,400 people to stop democrats from voting in Ohio, you can bet those poll watchers won't be in Republican districts. Both sides are gearing up for a fight and arming themselves with lawyers and after what happened in 2000 and given the fraud charges against both from Oregon to Florida, they would be idiots not to. If you really think your side is immune from these kinds of shenanigans and it is all the fault of the other side, a position that I am not taking by they way, then you are a blind partisan or seriously naive. I am as outraged at the registration of dead people as I am about a republican funded group hiding their identity to register democrats and then destroying their applications so that they think they are registered when they are not. I have no problem with these things being investigated and the guilty going to jail and I don't care who they are.

That depends. When liberated from their invader, most conquered nations engage in reprisals against those who cooperated with the invader. I know we think of ourselves as liberators but that isn't important. What is important is that Iraqi's think of us as liberators. That remains to be seen. I think those that wanted us there are beginning to change their minds because of the simple fact that we are not able to insure their safety. I heard one professional couple interviewed in Iraq that originally were thrilled that we invaded but now, after having lost so many loved ones to our actions and those of the "insurgents", they want us out and to be left alone in their misery. Saddam lasted as long as he did, not just because of how he destroyed all opposition but because he provided relative peace and security on the streets. If we can't do the same, if we can't give them a safer life than they had under Saddam, why would they support us? At some point they will prefer safety over abstractions like free speech and voting. Our ability to provide security will likely determine whether the killers are honored by Iraqis as heroic resistance fighters or hated as murderous thugs.

You have to recognize this kind of thing for the propaganda that it is. The silly thing is, it isn't even very new. Landing by helicopter and wearing a flight suit is the same reason Mao always appeared in his peasant pajamas and why Castro wore his rebel fatigues for so long. And yes, the left does it as well. Kerry hunting with bloodieds hands, Bush in jeans clearing brush at the ranch, its all moron food designed to give us the warm and fuzzies. A more accurate picture of both of these guys would be of them chewing out a servant because the quiche was runny or the hedges trimmed a centimeter too low.

Mr. Kettle, thou art black. The right pretty much invented the tactic of ignoring anything in the press that counters their view on an issue by simply attacking the source with the "liberal media" canard. You're doing it right now. Rather than discuss the essay she cited on the merits, you attack her.

Just in general, this has been a continuing saga of the Bushies going after anything that remotely says something is not as bad as you want it to be, like they were sharks on a wounded whale. I almost have a mental image of attack dogs leaping up every time they hear something not denigrating Kerry. It's a week before the election, and most people still don't have much of a clear idea of what Bush plans to do as President, other than plan. They've justified his miserable defense record from the get go with nothing more to use than-"You're wrong". They point to every single mis-spoke remark by Kerry with both hands and scream stupid-yet patently turn their back on Bush's not so eloquently quoted reversals. When it's pointed out that some veterans find him dishonorable, for their reasons they are told their reasons are invalid. Bush hero? Good. Kerry serving in combat? That makes him a traitor. Wow.

Panic? Not hardly, have you seen the latest poll numbers from Pa and Ohio? Kerry is pulling away in both and now even has a lead in New Mexico. Bush needs to take Wisconsin, Arkansas, Iowa and Florida to hang make up for those losses and all of those are a toss up. If you look at Bush's visits to various states, it looks like he has given up in Ohio. It just gets tiring to see the same thing here over and over again. It's like that list of bogus lawsuits that has been floating around the internet now for the last 3 years or so. It's all made up and yet no matter how often it is debunked, it actually is the basis for many people's view of the legal system.

This dumba$$ partisan piece of moron food has been posted here about 50 times or so already and debunked just as many times. Do we really have to go through it all again just because yet another idiot shows up thinking he discovered sliced bread? If you are getting your intellectual stimulation and deepest thoughts from internet circulars, you may want to get yourself checked by a good doctor, you are likely experiencing the earliest stages of Alzheimer's. Thanks for your "contribution".