[Lerkfish]

is what you find at the bottom of the page:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086

This morning, I was comparing campaign anecdotes with my friend Joe Trippi._ And while I'll never acknowledge, post-Butter cow, that Joe has given me anything useful..._ Joe's experiences are similar to mine:_ Neither of us, in all of our travels in recent weeks, have found any Al Gore voters from 2000 who say they are planning to vote for George W. Bush this time around._ On the other hand, it has not been that difficult to find Bush voters from 2000 who will be voting this time for John Kerry.

I've checked with several respected Republican pollsters... and they tell me, privately, they are finding the same thing._ It's one of the reasons that in the battleground states in particular, there is an incredibly intense focus on the GOP side at registering new voters or getting Republicans and evangelicals who stayed home 4 years ago to promise they won't stay home this time.

Bush political advisor Karl Rove thinks a few million Evangelicals stayed home in 2000 because of the old Bush drunk driving arrest that came out the weekend before the election._ If Rove is wrong, and a large number of Evangelicals did not stay home... the Bush campaign this fall is facing some serious trouble.

The math on this is pretty simple: Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by 500,000 votes._ And he did this despite Ralph Nader receiving 2.8 million votes._ (Pat Buchanan, who took votes from the GOP side... received 448,000 votes.)

If, as the pollsters indicate, there are few Gore voters who are switching to the Republicans this time, and if there are a larger number of Bush voters who are switching over to support Kerry, the math doesn't work for the Bush-Cheney campaign._ Add in a portion of the Nader 2000 voters who, seeing how close things were 4 years ago, will support Kerry, and the numbers for Bush-Cheney get even more challenging.

[KaBlooey]

...which is why you will see Bush/Cheney become even more ruthlessly vile in their campaign in the next 2 months.

[voodoo]

It is remarkable obvious. Come this fall you'll have a president John F. Kerry in the White House. The hand has already been dealt. The winner is obvious.

[KaBlooey]

In Befire Zimphire �

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
...which is why you will see Bush/Cheney become even more ruthlessly vile in their campaign in the next 2 months.

If Kerry weren't a lying sack of distortions then there wouldn't be anything to attack.

Blame Kerry.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If Kerry weren't a lying sack of distortions then there wouldn't be anything to attack.

Blame Kerry.

Come on! Debate on issues not obscure history. When a candidate becomes president everybody who voted for or against him because of personality, dubious history or whatever will feel a fool.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Qualifications for perhaps the most important elected position in the world are most important. What happened 30 years ago is especially relevant with his ability to lead the very same military he smeared so badly.

[lurkalot]

.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Qualifications for perhaps the most important elected position in the world are most important. What happened 30 years ago is especially relevant with his ability to lead the very same military he smeared so badly.

Nah, military ain't everything. The president controls so many other moer important things - more important for real live breathing people.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Nah, military ain't everything. The president controls so many other moer important things - more important for real live breathing people.

This is precisely why Kerry can't be CIC.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
This is precisely why Kerry can't be CIC.

Being CIC is not all that. It isn't a significant issue.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If Kerry weren't a lying sack of distortions then there wouldn't be anything to attack.

Blame Kerry.

If the woman didn't have a vagina, there would be nothing to rape.
Blame the woman.



how about this:? how about regardless of whether there is something to attack on the other candidate, the person talks about what they would do once in office? Crazy Idea, I know.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
This is precisely why Kerry can't be CIC.

Well, certainly Bush has proven himself to an incompetent CIC.
Under his watch, we were savagely attacked because he failed to take seriously what some advisors and the previous administration warned him about.
He invaded two countries and still has not captured the man who masterminded the attack, and even go so far as to claim he doesn't care if OBL is caught, that's not important.
He preemptively invades a country on false pretenses, elevating the tension levels and increasing the number of terrorists recruited in response to that.
He has spread the military thin across two theatres instead shoring up defenses at home, to the point where reserves are overextended in hazardous duty beyond what is reasonable.
nearly a thousand fighting men and women are now dead, with many more than that wounded to find WMDs that didn't exist any longer. Meanwhile, Al Queda has been free to attack at will around the world.

not much to recommend him...do you want me to go on?

[voodoo]

What surprises me, looking at recent polls is that Kerry doesn't have a big lead in California. Frankly I am quite surprised!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
What surprises me, looking at recent polls is that Kerry doesn't have a big lead in California. Frankly I am quite surprised!

my gut feeling is that the race is misleading in a lot of ways. I think the traditional polling methods will be farther off than normal. I have no proof or anything, just a gut feeling..mainly from the size of attendance at Kerry rallys' versus the intimate "town meeting" size bush rallys.

I have a feeling that the polls will continue to have them close to even,
but the popular vote will come down to 65-72% Kerry.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my gut feeling is that the race is misleading in a lot of ways. I think the traditional polling methods will be farther off than normal. I have no proof or anything, just a gut feeling..mainly from the size of attendance at Kerry rallys' versus the intimate "town meeting" size bush rallys.

I have a feeling that the polls will continue to have them close to even,
but the popular vote will come down to 65-72% Kerry.

It all comes down to who shows up to vote and if Kerry is inspiring people better to stand up and go out and vote, then you may well be very correct. Such a result wouldn't surprise me - this will be an interesting november!

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, certainly Bush has proven himself to an incompetent CIC.

Bush didn't go before a Senate committee and smear every single person in uniform as Kerry did.

Under his watch, we were savagely attacked because he failed to take seriously what some advisors and the previous administration warned him about.

Because we all know that the terrorists phoned Bush and told him that they were going to attack exactly when and how they did.

He invaded two countries and still has not captured the man who masterminded the attack, and even go so far as to claim he doesn't care if OBL is caught, that's not important.

Why don't you go to the caves of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or wherever and find him if he's that easy to find?

He preemptively invades a country on false pretenses, elevating the tension levels and increasing the number of terrorists recruited in response to that.

The war with Iraq was never officially over. There was never a peace treaty. I suppose the sailors who died under Clinton's watch don't deserve a response.

He has spread the military thin across two theatres instead shoring up defenses at home, to the point where reserves are overextended in hazardous duty beyond what is reasonable.
nearly a thousand fighting men and women are now dead, with many more than that wounded to find WMDs that didn't exist any longer. Meanwhile, Al Queda has been free to attack at will around the world.

not much to recommend him...do you want me to go on?

When Bush goes in front of a Senate committee and calls the military a war crime machine then let me know.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If the woman didn't have a vagina, there would be nothing to rape.
Blame the woman.

If the woman asks for sex then she can't be blamed for rape.

how about this:? how about regardless of whether there is something to attack on the other candidate, the person talks about what they would do once in office? Crazy Idea, I know.

Maybe Kerry should stop making himself into the war hero that he isn't.

[mo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I have a feeling that the polls will continue to have them close to even,
but the popular vote will come down to 65-72% Kerry.

You may be right about the polls being wrong -- but I can't imagine a breakdown that much exceeds 4 or 5 points in either direction, and that's if the fence-sitters all break the same way in October. (Like 1980, for example.) I don't see a lot of people changing their minds out there. I'd be sort of gratified if the winner got a majority of the vote, instead of the plurality that the top-vote-getter (inevitably clumsy choice of words in light of 2000) has gotten in the last three elections.

Some polls will be flat-out wrong, and some will be wrong within their margin of error (and thus be technically right), but when you keep seeing the same data in poll after poll in state after state, it seems to me you have to believe that the electorate is narrowly divided in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and (somewhat unexpectedly) Arizona.

I do see one small point in your favor: the recent stories quoting some Bush aides about trying to focus on energizing the base and building turnout instead of wooing swing voters. You can either take that as an ominous sign for them, or a good idea in the current landscape, or maybe it's just a hip fake.

I wager we'll all probably be waiting for the New Mexico re-count two days after the election. Here's to me being wrong.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Bush didn't go before a Senate committee and smear every single person in uniform as Kerry did.

You know, I think you have grossly mischaracterized his testimony, and even though I've pointed that out before, you continue to do so...
regardless, Do you really want me to start listing Bush's wrongs? He lied to the american people, the UN, and the world that his intelligence was ironclad, and that Saddam posed a threat to the US, and that preemptive invasion was the only option. Because of that, which even he now admits the intelligence was faulty, 4,000 Iraqis are dead, 1,000 american servicemen are dead, and countless wounded. The infrastructure of and entire country continues to be disrupted....and this is just one issue of his foreign policy.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Because we all know that the terrorists phoned Bush and told him that they were going to attack exactly when and how they did.

what does that have to do with I said? I said his advisors gave him indications and warnings that he chose to ignore. If you want to say the terrorists were his advisors, you go ahead. That's not what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Why don't you go to the caves of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or wherever and find him if he's that easy to find?

I thought we DID go the caves of Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever. If he's not easy to find, then what is the WOT all about? are you saying there is no way to find him, so don't try? instead lets arrest Saddam, cause he's easy? you make no sense.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
The war with Iraq was never officially over. There was never a peace treaty. I suppose the sailors who died under Clinton's watch don't deserve a response.

this does not address what I said. I honestly think you dont understand how to debate an issue.

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
When Bush goes in front of a Senate committee and calls the military a war crime machine then let me know.

Again, bizarrely, this has nothing to do with my contentiont that Bush is a dunce at military strategy.

you are like shootin fish in a barrel, but wacky fish.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You know, I think you have grossly mischaracterized his testimony, and even though I've pointed that out before, you continue to do so...

Doubt it, to me and many other veterans the words of Kerry in 1971 speak for themselves.

Do you really want me to start listing Bush's wrongs?

You pollute the forum every day with them. What's to stop you from doing some more?

That's not what I'm saying.

It is what you said.

I thought we DID go the caves of Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever.

Yes, how many caves are there? You know how easy it is to hide in rough terrain? I suppose you've never been to such a place.

If he's not easy to find, then what is the WOT all about? are you saying there is no way to find him, so don't try?

Did I say that?

I honestly think you dont understand how to debate an issue.

And somehow you do?

Again, bizarrely, this has nothing to do with my contentiont that Bush is a dunce at military strategy.

Bush didn't use his few months in uniform to smear the memories and lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers like Kerry did. How many Vietnam veterans had to come home to allegations of being being babykillers and war criminals because of Kerry's fradulent testimony based not on his personal direct observations but due to "what others told him?" Or perhaps Kerry really did all those things he accused others of?

[Lerkfish]

you know, the funniest thing about this is you spent dozens of posts calling me crazy.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Someone who posts several dozen threads a week against the current administration and those left of center really isn't in the position to question another's sanity.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Someone who posts several dozen threads a week against the current administration and those left of center really isn't in the position to question another's sanity.

not sure you posted here what you really wanted to.

here's what you probably wanted to post:

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Someone who posts several dozen threads a week against the current administration and those right of center really isn't in the position to question another's sanity.

anyways, you already got to call me insane...you got first blood. Too late to whine and act the victim now.

[Mr. Bob]

You know what I find really, (and I mean really) funny. It�s all of you people that, actually, think any of this will even matter.

The seeds are already sewn, now it is just time to wait for the crop of destruction.

Anyway, its not like if Kerry does become president, he will wave the magical Jesus wand, and fix all of Americas problems. Also, even if you hate everything that Bushola has done, keep in mind, that the whole congress thing had an equal amount of fault too.

Anyway, I find it really funny how all of you liberal people think Kerry is the panacea to all of your woes. If anything, he is (at least) just as much of a bastard as Bush, he just hides it better.

For the most part, the way I think about it is, the majority of Americans are brain dead cattle, walking wherever the gate leads them. The winning party is only determined by which side gives better propaganda. I guess, the Kerry campaign is doing just that.

If you really think the 2004 election will change anything, well, think black is white, and call me when Satan crawls out of the earth and starts devouring everybody. I�ll be eating Pop Tarts in the mean time.

[Dr.HermanG.]

They are both bastards and it's a sad reflection on the state of affairs in this country when we can't find a single honest leader to run for office.

[Spliffdaddy]

Bob speaketh the truth.

[Mr. Bob]

Also Lerkfish, not to have any personal attacks, but as someone who seems to want to �get the word out�, judging by the amount of Anti-GOP threads written, you should really look at the definition of�

Impartial

You might just find out the truth. Or as the left says, truff.

I mean, I wouldn�t want another fellow American to just be ruled over by propaganda, and brainlessly follow one political party in America. Because you really do understand that, well both, suck, right?

[Spliffdaddy]

Instead of anti-Dubya rhetoric, let's hear why we should support Kerry.

Sounds like Kerry is acceptable only because Dubya sucks.

How about some pro-Kerry threads?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Also Lerkfish, not to have any personal attacks, but as someone who seems to want to �get the word out�, judging by the amount of Anti-GOP threads written, you should really look at the definition of�

Impartial

You might just find out the truth. Or as the left says, truff.

I mean, I wouldn�t want another fellow American to just be ruled over by propaganda, and brainlessly follow one political party in America. Because you really do understand that, well both, suck, right?

LOL...I'm always amused by that tactic.

the right tries to insist the left must be impartial rather than partisan, while retaining their own partisanship. Sorry, I won't castrate myself to make things easier for you.

I note you do not ask LoganCharles or HermanG or Zim or Simey to be impartial. Now, why oh why is that?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
You might just find out the truth. Or as the left says, truff.

The entire left says, truff? Thuck ffat.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If the woman didn't have a vagina, there would be nothing to rape.
Blame the woman.



how about this:? how about regardless of whether there is something to attack on the other candidate, the person talks about what they would do once in office? Crazy Idea, I know.

What is with you and comparing Kerry to a rape victim????

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL...I'm always amused by that tactic.

the right tries to insist the left must be impartial rather than partisan, while retaining their own partisanship. Sorry, I won't castrate myself to make things easier for you.

I note you do not ask LoganCharles or HermanG or Zim or Simey to be impartial. Now, why oh why is that?

:sigh:

Hmm, lets look at the political lounge, hmm, it seems a good 3/7th of the threads are from LerkFish, and all about why we should get a democrat in office this January.

Now, as I said, this election really doesn�t matter all that much. But, sadly Lerky, (I can call you Lerky, right, as because we are talking mano a mano, were technically friends right) you have shown yourself to have an agenda.

Now, what does having an agenda mean, obviously that you may not care about getting the truth out to people, but trying to persuade people.

Now, you probably hate Bush, which is fine, no problems there. But, if I can go down a forum, and see post after post about why the GOP is bad, and Bush is bad, and there all from Lerky, well, that just makes a buzzer go off.

I mean c�mon Lerkey. I am just trying to help you out here. But, when you only care about one of two evils, well, it makes you seem like a political pawn, which sadly entitles most of Americas political activists. I don�t want to see that happen to you Lerky.

Now, I am not trying to persuade you to vote for Bush, as you already have your mind made up, I can tell that for myself. I just find it sad when people disseminate propaganda (in the volume that it seems you participate in) to help some political agenda.

This is no tactic to belittle you Lerky, I am just trying to help you out man. You know, because were friends and all now, right.

Talk to you later Lerky.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
:sigh:

Hmm, lets look at the political lounge, hmm, it seems a good 3/7th of the threads are from LerkFish, and all about why we should get a democrat in office this January.

Now, as I said, this election really doesn�t matter all that much. But, sadly Lerky, (I can call you Lerky, right, as because we are talking mano a mano, were technically friends right) you have shown yourself to have an agenda.

Now, what does having an agenda mean, obviously that you may not care about getting the truth out to people, but trying to persuade people.

Now, you probably hate Bush, which is fine, no problems there. But, if I can go down a forum, and see post after post about why the GOP is bad, and Bush is bad, and there all from Lerky, well, that just makes a buzzer go off.

I mean c�mon Lerkey. I am just trying to help you out here. But, when you only care about one of two evils, well, it makes you seem like a political pawn, which sadly entitles most of Americas political activists. I don�t want to see that happen to you Lerky.

Now, I am not trying to persuade you to vote for Bush, as you already have your mind made up, I can tell that for myself. I just find it sad when people disseminate propaganda (in the volume that it seems you participate in) to help some political agenda.

This is no tactic to belittle you Lerky, I am just trying to help you out man. You know, because were friends and all now, right.

Talk to you later Lerky.

I note you do not ask LoganCharles or HermanG or Zim or Simey to be impartial. Now, why oh why is that?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Maybe because we don't start dozens of threads every week showing our hate for a person like you do.

Seriously, you need professional help before you do something serious like attempt suicide. Your fixation with Bush isn't healthy. You're liable to go off the deep end completely if he wins again.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Maybe because we don't start dozens of threads every week showing our hate for a person like you do.

Seriously, you need professional help before you do something serious like attempt suicide. Your fixation with Bush isn't healthy. You're liable to go off the deep end completely if he wins again.

thanks for your concern. Don't worry, I'm not suicidal. Why would I be? my guy's gonna clobber your guy....pssst. look at the thousands of Kerry rally attendees. Makes you a little nervous, huh?


Here's the deal:

If I see the handwriting on the wall, but you refuse to look at the wall, am I blind?

[Spliffdaddy]

We don't read walls.

So stop building them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We don't read walls.

So stop building them.

Thanks for you concern.

now, do you have anything even remotely on topic to contribute?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Also Lerkfish, not to have any personal attacks, but as someone who seems to want to �get the word out�, judging by the amount of Anti-GOP threads written, you should really look at the definition of�

Impartial

You might just find out the truth. Or as the left says, truff.

I mean, I wouldn�t want another fellow American to just be ruled over by propaganda, and brainlessly follow one political party in America. Because you really do understand that, well both, suck, right?

More comedy:

Daily Show:

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.

CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized pi�ata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.

STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be right back.

[voodoo]

Bush is gaining. Hello?! People of USA?? 47% even?

[mo]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Bush is gaining. Hello?! People of USA?? 47% even?

Indeed, this is so, at least according to polls, take it for what it's worth.