Thread: Kerry sets new record for flip-flops! 14 in one speech

Zogby is a known liberal poll. It is proven by the latest letter from Michael Moore on the website.

If by this you are saying that these results are not accurate then I disagree. Give me a minute while I recalibrate the polling machine and I will prove it!

I saw a report on the news last night that stated Bush was ahead, not counting the swing states.

i prefer kerry and if i lived in america i would vote for him he is a realist where as bush is a twat living in a fantasy world

But each to their own eh?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I saw a report on the news last night that stated Bush was ahead, not counting the swing states.

Polls only use likely voters...........which I don't like.
Rasmussen shows him 49 to 45 over Kerry with 213 Elec. votes. They show 10 toss ups. If Bush would win three of the ten(Florida, Penns. and Colorado) he would have 270. It also shows New Jersey and New York much closer than ever thought although I doubt Bush will pull those out. California is getting closer also. Minnesota is close. Bush should win Ohio. Wisconsin is also close.
I think Bush would have to explode to not win.
One good question is.........WHERE THE HELL IS EDWARDS????
You think he is chalking this one up to run against Hillary in 2008?

If Kerry hits Bush on issues than Bush is screwed. If Kerry keeps dicking around about non issues than we get Gdubya for another term.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

If by this you are saying that these results are not accurate then I disagree. Give me a minute while I recalibrate the polling machine and I will prove it!

No kidding.
Activists Find More E-Vote Flaws

Voting activist Bev Harris and a computer scientist say they found more vulnerabilities in an electronic voting system made by Diebold Election Systems, weaknesses that could allow someone to alter votes in the election this November.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,26...opstories_html

[QUOTE=dg806]Polls only use likely voters...........which I don't like.
/QUOTE]

It will be interesting how this plays out. I hear a lot of people who don't usually vote saying in this election they will definitely vote because they hate Bush/Kerry. Personally I think it's going to be closer than the polls are indicating, but ultimately Bush will have another term. Although this time he'll probably win legitimately (assuming no Diebold issues).

He believes in low taxes, but is a horrible fiscal spender which why we're in the largest deficit in the nation's history. Education is underfunded by $30 billion.(No child left behind) That's going to cause for the value of our dollar to decline. He claims he's anti-welfare, but he leaves people unemployed that creates more welfare for people. He claims to be complete anti-abortion, but abortion has not been completely banned. The partial birth bill claims that no abortion would be legal past 20 weeks. Do you know that between 95%-99% or the abortions in the U.S. are done prior 20 weeks the fetus is out of the womb. I don't think he stands strong in what he believes.
-------------------------
it's time for 'Quote of the Day' a brilliant synopsis of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which basically said ' We're fucked'. GWB needs to step up his reading comprehension skills.
Originally Posted by GWB's spin
"The CIA laid out a -- several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, like could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

-- George W. Bush, at a press conference Tuesday, discussing the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Originally Posted by Article on the NIE report
WASHINGTON — A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provides a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation and determined that, at best, stability would be tenuous, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said late Wednesday.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

The estimate, prepared for President Bush, contrasts with public comments in which Bush and his senior aides have spoken optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq.

Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He added: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving [Osama] bin Laden's ends."

Gen. Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and senior military officers over Iraq is worse than any he has ever seen with any previous U.S. government, including during Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
--------------
I'm convinced Bush could get on TV and say "Yeah, I dodged service and yeah I went into Iraq on some cowboy shit and yeah I'm trying to roll back civil liberties and yeah I'm hooking up the top 1% of the nation. But don't vote for that liberal." And Rush, etc., would say "What a brave president! What character!" And all the "conservative" crowd would just nod their heads.
------------------------------
Before Iraq the U.S. military was turning away qualified applicants. Now it applies "stop-loss" policies that forbid retirement or resignation by volunteers, and it has mobilized the National Guard and Reserves in a way not seen since World War II.

"We really have four armies," an Army officer involved in Pentagon planning for the Iraq War told me. "There's the one that's deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. There's the one that's left back home in Fort Hood and other places. There's the 'modular Army,' of new brigade-sized units that are supposed to be rotated in and out of locations easily. There's the Guard and Reserve. And every one of them is being chewed up by the ops tempo." "Ops tempo" means the pace of operations, and when it is too high, equipment and supplies are being used faster than they can be replaced, troops are being deployed far longer than they expected, and training is being pared back further than it should. "We're really in dire straits with resourcing," he said. "There's not enough armor for Humvees. There's not enough fifty-caliber machine guns for the Hundred and First Airborne or the Tenth Mountain Division. A country that can't field heavy machine guns for its army—there's something wrong with the way we're doing business."

"The stress of war has hit all the services, but none harder than the Army," Sydney Freedberg wrote recently in National Journal. "The crucial shortfall is not in money or machines, but in manpower." More than a third of the Army's 500,000 active-duty soldiers are in Iraq or Kuwait. Freedberg referred to a study showing that fifteen of the Army's thirty-four active-duty combat units were currently deployed overseas, and wrote, "That means that nearly as many units are abroad as at home, when historical experience shows that a long-term commitment, as with the British in Northern Ireland, requires three or four units recuperating and training for each one deployed." In the long run the U.S. military needs either more people or fewer responsibilities. At the moment, because of Iraq, it has very little slack for dealing with other emergencies that might arise.

Of the three members of the "axis of evil," Iraq had made the sketchiest progress toward developing nuclear weapons. In October, just before the Iraq War vote, a delegation of Americans in Pyongyang found that North Korea's nuclear-weapons program was actually up and running. As the weeks wore on, North Korea became more and more brazen. In December it reactivated a nuclear processing plant it had closed eight years earlier as part of a deal with the United States. Soon thereafter it kicked out inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and announced that it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea was dropping even the pretense that it was not developing nuclear bombs.

Meanwhile, in August of 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of two previously secret nuclear facilities, in Natanz and Arak. The first was devoted to uranium enrichment, the second to heavy-water production, which is a step toward producing plutonium. Months before the vote on war with Iraq, then, the United States had very strong indications that Iran was pursuing two paths toward atomic weaponry: uranium and plutonium. The indications from North Korea were at least as strong. If the very worst pre-war suspicions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had turned out to be true, the nuclear stakes would still have been lower than those in North Korea or Iran.

"How will history judge this period, in terms of the opportunity costs of invading Iraq?" said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, when we spoke. "I think the opportunity cost is going to be North Korea and Iran. I mean, in 2002 it became obvious that Iran has a full-blown nuclear-weapons program under way, no ifs or buts.



damn that was a lot........