Putin endorsement is really indirect. Why do I think that? Well, half of the news said he endorsed Bush, the other half of the news said Putin didn't endorse either one. So Putin gave a weak endorsement. By the way, blogic, I disagree with you on that "you are with us or against us" statement. If you look at what Kerr
Angloesque, I posted the apology already, why are you doing it again? Have you even read my link? I am not attacking her, how many times I have to say this. I said I am surprised that Teresa didn't know Laura was a teacher for 8 years.
If you are implying what I think you are implying, then I think you are out of your mind and you are most UNwelcome. It is disgusing to openly ask how foreign citizens can influence US election. There is no doubt that the Afghan election and the future Iraq election will have large impact to the world as well, and there is no doubt countries will try to influence the election somewhat, but it is outrageous
How can she not know Laura was a teacher? I bet most of your friends know and they are not in the election. That is not the issue. I am not even attacking her. I am mostly surprised that she didn't know Laura used to be a teacher because I don't think Teresa would be dumb enough to call "teacher is not a real job". Just surpurised. I would be equally surprised if Laura didn't know Teresa own the Heinz c
I rather have the Polish troop than the German. In fact, having Russian army might be better. You know if Russian get attacked, they may seriously kick some terriosts ass.
The problem is that Kerry has never specifed what is "as much as possible". That is a typical poltical non-statment. That is the same type of statement as "Everyone should earn as much as possible", "Kids should learn math as much as possible" and "We should be tolerate to gay people as much as possible". Why are you as
Well, thank you. But more importantly, what I said is really true. I was not twisting facts or taking words out of context. When Kerry endorsed Clinton for uilateral act on 1996 as well as in 1998. He was among the minority. So, he wasn't just going along with someone. Kerry was leading the "uilateral" theory in those years. The only difference I see, is that Clinton is of his party so it is ok for Cli
Teresa Kerry. I have no ill feeling against her, but she has recent misspoke of Laura Bush and I want to share. Again, I believe she didn't really mean any harm. Yet how can anyone forget Laura used to be a teacher.... I mean it is mentioned all the times, over and over and over. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-20-heinz-kerry_x.htm
It is silly and downright *** to post these things. Should I also post the number of Democrat endorse Bush. Don't forget that Bush is either leading Kerry or tieing with Kerry. Yet we know for fact, there are at least 10% more registrated Democrat s in this country than Repubicans. Do the math. Why is Bush leading? Could it be alot of Democrat supporting Bush?
BS. Really? Don't forget that in 1997, a year before Clinton started the "Iraq Liberation Act". Kerry has called for possible uilateral military action against Saddam. He has openly said that in Congress as well as in interview. Link Give me a reason why Iraq is more dangerous in 1997 than in 2001. The i
It is not surprising that NY times is behind Kerry. When was the last time NY Times endorse a Republican?
I agree with Dr.Miller. American high school graudautes are horrible. American higher institutes are still considered as one of the tops in the world. Foreigner students flocked to enter our universities and graudate schools. However, our junior high school and high school systems are horrible. I am sure you heard of stories that immigrant children are so much more prepared when they come to our middle schools or high schools. That is because our
No, it is not at all clear from the title. Gallup often reports poll on both debate and election standing in one single poll. I am really getting frustrated with you because you obviously have not read the polling data, so I have to list them here now: Economy 2004 Oct 8 (post-debate) Kerry 4
The polls show undecided debate viewers overwhelmingly prefer Kerry. No. The undecided voters think Kerry won the debate, but the undecided voters do not "prefer" Kerry. Go look at the poll you refering (Gallup). Do you even look at the poll numbers? Gallup has Bush being the "more likable person"
Sandy, Do you ever feel embarass making mistake like that? Or you simply have no shame because you just want to demonize Bush. Normal people feel ashame for the fact that they understand they could have misled others, and for those are not misled, they were being insulted for being stupid. If I am in your situation, I would have felt bad and possibly apologize.
I agree Bush was evarsive and he can do a much better job at answering this question. I will vote for the guy not because he is faultless. He has admitted he has make mistakes. I do agree that he didn't make mistake on the larger issues. I think he could simply name three issues. I do think he indirect said he biggest mistakes are appointment. My guess is that he is talking about O'Neill. O'Neill did cause WhiteHouse some problem: Like when Bush
I seriously doubt it is a wire. You think if the Bush want to cheat... he can either go wireless or have a thinner wire. That thing looks like a cable. Look, the standard tapping procedure is in the front not the back. This make no sense.
Winning debate doesn't mean prefer. Blogic if you like Gallup poll so much, you should have read the previous poll regarding deabtes of previous elections. Reagan lost all two debates to Walter Mondale. You are overlooking the important numbers in that poll, aren't you? The important numbers should be "Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job", "Was more believable", "Was more likeable", and "Agreed with you on issue you care about", n
blogic, that is strange.... you are the one refering to the Gallup Poll. The Gallup poll has repeatly reported that Bush is the more likeable person, and Bush is the one tough enough for the job (result from both debates). So when do you say "America is not reassured... who are you refering?"
Kerry never would have chosen McCain anyway once he got the drift that McCain, the so-called renegade, was in reality a loyal ultraconservative. Wishful thininking.... The reality is that McCain turns Kerry down, not the other way.
Look... as great and as detail as your post.... extreme liberal won't listen to a word you say.
I admitted that I was partisan. I'm not the author of the piece, though, I don't really think it's partisan. I posted it just as a thoughtful piece on putting the situation in Iraq in different terms. You could write the same type of piece about any number of situations, including Iraq under Saddam. Yes, my follow-up jabbed at th
*throws up hands* Just admit I am correct because you have no way out. I trapped you with your own words. Tough to get out, huh?
GX... I don't think you are supposed to quote me..... You statement made very little sense (to me) if that is article you want to address.
Yes, yes, the other post is partisan. So go comment on it on THAT thread. This post is not. Just something thought provoking. I am a liberal. I don't deny it. I post a lot of pro-liberal sentiments. But not every time. Sheesh. Republicans were in bed with Saddam for years. But that's no