| To: stockman_scott who wrote (150295) | 11/1/2004 4:47:59 PM | | From: Jim Willie CB | | | | my call: Kerry wins by a wider margin than expected
like 40-50 electoral college votes
and the electoral college students were denied crib sheets
(translation: Florida and other GOP corruption was stemmed)
Kerry wins important states
Ohio, Penna, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia
and the nobrainer Calif and New York
difficult labor backlash from outsourcing and economic stress hurts the Bushy, Idiot Prince
Bushy wins Missouri, Nevada, and W.Virginia
and almost all the farmer illiterate states
and the nobrainer Texas, but closer than expected
all other states go as expected, or are too small to matter much
on exit polls, the economy turns out to be much more important
like I have been saying all along
and when mentioned, Iraq sentiment is cited as a Bushy negative
/ jim |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (150275) | 11/1/2004 4:52:55 PM | | From: michael97123 | | | | "The problem with Bush, is not that his methods are immoral. The problem is, they just don't work. They don't get the promised results."
I am not here to question your principles, especially the beautiful but dangerous illusion of pacifism. I just dont understand how you can say that you became a pacifist, not because bush methods are immoral but because they failed. It seems to be he succeed in afganistan to some degree. And you became a pacifist before iraq where admittedly things havent gone well. Pacifism is the opposition to war, period. Not just some war or failed war. If you are a pacifist, you would have to be against WW2 or do you date pacifism from 9/11? mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (150111) | 11/1/2004 4:54:30 PM | | From: Noel de Leon | | | | "One can, however, take an open-eyed look at the man's history, not just what he's been saying for the last month."
I didn't realize you don't support Bush II, although I must say that what Bush II has said for the past month isn't very encouraging either. Bush II's performance in debates 1, 2, and 4 was not that encouraging to say the least. That, combined with his history(you pointed out some of his problems, I others) should make Bush II a clear number 2. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Noel de Leon who wrote (150301) | 11/1/2004 4:58:12 PM | | From: Nadine Carroll | | | | You're correct. I should have written:
Just for the record the Mujahadeen and indirectly OBL were supported by the US while the USSR was in Afghanistan. That support was massive
At the time, OBL was more a co-supporter of the Mujahadeen than a leader in his own right. Al Qaeda didn't exist yet either. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: skinowski who wrote (150274) | 11/1/2004 5:07:04 PM | | From: michael97123 | | | | "Clash of Civilizations is when the Muslim world is controlled by theocratic extremists -- and WE do business with them."
We do that with the Saudis now and even if they are not theocratic extremeists themselves they have been the prime funders of such thinking. Iran also is an example and they were involved in terror from their inception as well. They were just never able to do it on as grand a scale. And now they move toward nukes. I wonder if these regimes would be willing to actually commit suicide in setting off wmds against us? Or when faced with annihilation, do they moderate. Goes for NK too. mike |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Noel de Leon who wrote (150304) | 11/1/2004 5:07:08 PM | | From: Nadine Carroll | | | | Bush II's performance in debates 1, 2, and 4 was not that encouraging to say the least
A curious assessment of the three presidential debates. I thought Bush stunk in 1, tied in 2, and won in 3. Bush was never the greatest debater, and Kerry's rep for mental agility is much overstated. Bush gave him quite a few opportunities in the debates that Kerry just let go by. But then, people think Kerry is bright just because he's a pompous blowhard who says things in convoluted fashion. Kerry's bright enough, but no genius. Like Bush. Kerry's better verbally, Bush is much smarter emotionally; that's why Bush is the better politician, imo.
I don't think Kerry would be able to function as President. At all. Half his voters want him to reverse Bush's policies, the other half to continue them more diplomatically. Kerry himself has never run anything or even wielded influence in the Senate. Kerry likes pondering 25 options before making any decision, and he procrastinates. And this is the opinion of his own aides! This is a recipe for total dysfunction. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (5) |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (150303) | 11/1/2004 5:35:50 PM | | From: Jacob Snyder | | | | <It seems to be he succeed in afganistan to some degree>
Define "success". Be specific, using verifiable and reproducible parameters. I think I can, using your own definition of success (whatever it is), and citing authorities you believe in, show that Afghanistan has not been a success. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
