Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/10/04 11:29 am:

Hello again,

The last chapter in this colossal mistake has yet to be written. What I fear, is not that Bush started WWIII, but that he's blown our chances at winning it.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 07/10/04 8:52 pm:
chouxxx,

I'm very happy to see you are back here. I missed you very much!!!

Sharlene

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 07/10/04 8:55 pm:
excon,

IMO, Bush did not start WWIII, the terrorists started it, Bush responded.... <---that's just what I think with my limited knowledge.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 07/11/04 7:13 pm:
Tom,

[concerning your comments]

With my patriotism I could squash all the speculation out of those worried about terrorism and eliminate the possibiliy of disrupting either major convention. Late October televise nationally a week of debates between the candidates, invite only a small audience, and have the election the week after.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/12/04 9:13 am:
>>>Oh, Saddam was a prick. But there are plenty of pricks whom we leave alone.<<<

Not anymore, we don't... not if they effect American interests. From now on, the USA will be VERY involved (either politically or militarily) with the pricks who effect us. In the era of global terrorism, we can afford no less.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/12/04 9:31 am:
Sorry, Excon, but I've never been a betting man. I only bet on sure things, and there are too many variables in play. A terrorist attack in the USA could change the entire equation, as could anything having to do with the trial of Saddam, the capture of Osama, military action in Faluja, or any other global-reaching event. Even a particularly good or particularly bad jobs report could change things. My prediction of a Bush win is predicated on the status remaining quo until November, which is probably an unlikely event.

Gentleman's bet only... for the bragging rights. But for now, Bush by 10%, based on the way things stand now.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 07/12/04 9:52 am:
Chouxx,

Good to see you again!

Could you direct me to sources where I can verify:

"Kerry is hardass against terrorists and a supporter of the War on Terrorists."

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't heard anything like that.

DK

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/12/04 1:27 pm:
Correction, I referred to Elliot in my answer when it should have been elgin_republicans. My apologies...

Kerry is "hardass against terrorists?" I don't recall anything that would convince me of that, but it's certain he's strongly against "going it alone" as he repeated this weekend. Just how does a coalition of 31 nations equal "going it alone" anyway?

Clarification/Follow-up by Chouxxx on 07/12/04 1:57 pm:
TOMDER!! SNAP OUT OF IT!!! LOL

I used "Kenny-boy" porpurse-fully because that it the nick name George W Bush calls him during their personal and political relationship!!

Dude???

Clarification/Follow-up by Chouxxx on 07/12/04 4:40 pm:
Hi It,

I heard a political talk show over the weekend, and one of the participants glossed over it.

There is no way Kerry can talk about the War as a Hawk. He has to use that issue as a seemingly peace candidate to win the election. Big part of his base. Just as Bush has to please different elements of his base in his speechmaking. I don't believe for a minute that he is a supporter of or comfortable with Christian fundamentalism; it's just part of his base. Politicians pander to the low brow rhetoric of their bases now or they couldn't get elected.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 07/12/04 7:26 pm:
Elliot-

[concerning your comments]

Zipper-gate I brought up because it was fairly recent and was a ridiculous waste of time and money. Ok so I'll touch on both sides for a moment. I believe it was Reagan that had built our miltary up to it's highest peak, around 1985 (mid 80's approx). Then later, both Reagan in his second term and Clinton in his first term, were responsible for closing military bases. I'm making the point on how we spend our money, not just aimed at the republicans.

Look...I'm registered democrat, old school democrat at that, but I'm not tied down with never ending support to a particular party, I wished I could say the same about many republicans. If I had to vote, without a choice in the matter, I would vote for the democratic ticket, but I'm not thrilled about it either. The Las Vegas newspaper had an article about how heated the emotions have become in this election. For instance, not only this political board, but hundreds of sites (perhaps thousands) are currently involved in rah rah sessions.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/13/04 7:55 am:
Bobby,

What Reagan did in his final term in closing certain military bases was to stop UNNECESARY spending... he closed the least needed, least productive bases. And it was the right move. It allowed limited resources to be put to use where it did the most good.

There is a huge difference between what Reagan did and what Carter and Clinton did before and after him (and what kerry has spent 2 decades trying to do)... cutting ALL military spending and closing down ANY military bases, regardless of their necessity or usefulness.

Furthermore, as hard-core of a Republican as I am, I have voted for Democrats before when I thought them to be the better candidate. I voted for several Dems at the local level in the last 3 elections, because I didn't think their conservative/Republican counterparts were the right choice. So its not like I'm locked into a specific party. What I am locked into is a specific political and economic philosophy. I vote for the candidate that best meets my personal philosophy, whether Rep or Dem. It just so happens that at the national level, it is by-and-large Republicans that fit the bill as opposed to Democrats.

As for my "fuzzy math", it's not quite so fuzzy as you might think. Bush is as much as 7 points ahead in some of the recent polls. Assuming that he gets only a 5-point bump from the GOP Convention in September, and assuming he can carry that bump into November 11, that gives him a 12-point lead over Kerry. And most expers are predicting a 10-15 point bump, not a 5-point bump. I'd say that my 10-point prediction is actually a pretty conservative estimate.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 07/13/04 11:34 am:
Elliot-

If the republicans can win this election this will happen mainly due to electorial count again. If I recall, umpteen years ago in my government class, landslides are usually given for margin of popular victory over four percent. Forget the polls you can find them slanted both directions and these polls are so misleading, many with gibberish commentating articles trying to use numbers to explain what they mean, by both parties. What's more important is having a brother be the governer of Florida...just kidding of course, although the state of Florida seems to be always in the news screwing up something. Seriously though the fact is that there are many, many, people out there that bet on horses to win races because they like a certain color. The same has proven true with some of the undecided voters every election. They are not hard-core voters, they choose candidiates judging by appearance, personality and/or charisma. The other parts of the undecided either just now got involved in first time voting or have been out of circulation for awhile. The point being that republicans and democrats pitch there sells to these undecided voters.


Miltary spending...well see that's where I disagree with many of the previous presidents from both parties. I prefer more bases open and a stronger military stationed at home. That's where I would allocate the spending, at home. I will feel safer and I see my money at work. Besides the Air Force air shows, Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, etc... and not to forget the price reduced, on base, military discounts.



Bobby