Here is the link. In a 3 man race Zogby has it Bush 46%-Kerry 44% with Nadar at 2%.

<a href='http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm</a>

How about reporting EVERYTHING instead of the ONLY poll on that link that suports your position. Those damn polls are all over the page. Only one poll will determine this election, ...and it comes in November.

RebelKev Wrote:How about reporting EVERYTHING instead of the ONLY poll on that link that suports your position. Those damn polls are all over the page. Only one poll will determine this election, ...and it comes in November.

UM, I am under the impression that Maize is a lib, and the poll he quoted had Bush in the lead. So, what were you saying?

GrayBeard Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:How about reporting EVERYTHING instead of the ONLY poll on that link that suports your position. Those damn polls are all over the page. Only one poll will determine this election, ...and it comes in November.

UM, I am under the impression that Maize is a lib, and the poll he quoted had Bush in the lead. So, what were you saying?

No I am a Pro Life, Pro Military-(Former Military) Moderate Democrat-(Yes there are some of us). I am probably going to vote for Kerry, not a fan of his but I feel we need a change. I have a problem with the war in Iraq.

Maize Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:How about reporting EVERYTHING instead of the ONLY poll on that link that suports your position. Those damn polls are all over the page. Only one poll will determine this election, ...and it comes in November.

UM, I am under the impression that Maize is a lib, and the poll he quoted had Bush in the lead. So, what were you saying?

No I am a Pro Life, Pro Military-(Former Military) Moderate Democrat-(Yes there are some of us). I am probably going to vote for Kerry, not a fan of his but I feel we need a change. I have a problem with the war in Iraq.

Honestly, what is your problem with the war?

GrayBeard Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:How about reporting EVERYTHING instead of the ONLY poll on that link that suports your position. Those damn polls are all over the page. Only one poll will determine this election, ...and it comes in November.

UM, I am under the impression that Maize is a lib, and the poll he quoted had Bush in the lead. So, what were you saying?

No I am a Pro Life, Pro Military-(Former Military) Moderate Democrat-(Yes there are some of us). I am probably going to vote for Kerry, not a fan of his but I feel we need a change. I have a problem with the war in Iraq.

Honestly, what is your problem with the war?

I have always felt going into Iraq was unnecessary and I have always felt that Bin Laden should have been our number 1 target. I also felt N. Korea was a bigger threat to our National Security then Iraq because of the Kim Jung Il pretty much breaking every agreement.

N. Korea is/was suppling technology to other rogue nations and more then likely even terrorist organizations.

Maize Wrote:I have always felt going into Iraq was unnecessary and I have always felt that Bin Laden should have been our number 1 target. I also felt N. Korea was a bigger threat to our National Security then Iraq because of the Kim Jung Il pretty much breaking every agreement.

N. Korea is/was suppling technology to other rogue nations and more then likely even terrorist organizations.

I agree with you on N. Korea. The biggest problem with them is that they have delivery systems that can reach the west coast of the USA, so unless we want to risk the lives of millions of lefties, we can't just go barrelling into N. Korea. Could we defeat them? Oh Yeah, but the cost could be catastrophic to us.

If you think the Iraq war was unnecessary, how do you reconcile the fact that Kerry implored Clinton to take action against them? Then also being pro-military as you are, how do you reconcile his record on defense (or lack there of)?

North Korea is the prime example of why we needed to go to Iraq. We could not let Iraq become what NK is. You also can't deal with NK the same way we dealt with Iraq. They have an army of something like 5 million and wouldn't hesitate to nuke SK in retalliation.

I find it somewhat strange that people think Bin Laden should have been our focus now and forever until we caught him. As if catching him would have ended the war on terror right then and there. Bin Laden is on the run, he's not directing operations that we know of.

THe biggest threat we face today is terrorists getting their hands on chemical or biological weapons. And Iraq was the most likely place to get those give Saddam had them and used them.

And given the new information about the oil for food scandal, it's clear that France, Germany and Russia, the essentials according to Kerry to have a "real" coalition, were never going to join us to begin with.

I remember rational people screaming bloody murder when Clinton began his "nuclear fuel" strategy with North Korea. Of course, the mainstream media wouldn't dare run a story critical of their Golden Boy's foreign policy.

Much like they've run GIANT headlines touting parts of the Duelfer report that offer little new in substance, but provide political "gotchas" on their arch-enemy President Bush...while ignoring the substantive parts of the report - that Saddam was using Oil-for-food to bribe and weaken the UN sanctions so he could then return to his WMD programs. The report overall SUPPORTS the case for pre-emption, but you wouldn't notice it from the reporting.

Just like the jobs report today gets the screaming headline "JOBS REPORT A BLOW TO BUSH".

No, it's not. If the jobs report was disappointing, then it's a blow to AMERICANS.

And again, they gloss over the fact that the fiscal year ending Feb 2004 had an UP REVISION OF 280,000 jobs, leaving the net job loss since Bush took office at around 585,000 - not the 800,000 NBC so gleefully reports.

My God, I'm so tired of the media trying to shape news to fit their ideology. It's disgusting.

BearcatCarl Wrote:I remember rational people screaming bloody murder when Clinton began his "nuclear fuel" strategy with North Korea. Of course, the mainstream media wouldn't dare run a story critical of their Golden Boy's foreign policy.

Much like they've run GIANT headlines touting parts of the Duelfer report that offer little new in substance, but provide political "gotchas" on their arch-enemy President Bush...while ignoring the substantive parts of the report - that Saddam was using Oil-for-food to bribe and weaken the UN sanctions so he could then return to his WMD programs. The report overall SUPPORTS the case for pre-emption, but you wouldn't notice it from the reporting.

Just like the jobs report today gets the screaming headline "JOBS REPORT A BLOW TO BUSH".

No, it's not. If the jobs report was disappointing, then it's a blow to AMERICANS.

And again, they gloss over the fact that the fiscal year ending Feb 2004 had an UP REVISION OF 280,000 jobs, leaving the net job loss since Bush took office at around 585,000 - not the 800,000 NBC so gleefully reports.

My God, I'm so tired of the media trying to shape news to fit their ideology. It's disgusting.

So are you implying that there is a liberal bias in the mainstream press? :rolleyes:


Your kidding, right? :chair:

GrayBeard Wrote:

Maize Wrote:I have always felt going into Iraq was unnecessary and I have always felt that Bin Laden should have been our number 1 target.&nbsp; I also felt N. Korea was a bigger threat to our National Security then Iraq because of the Kim Jung Il pretty much breaking every agreement.

N. Korea is/was suppling technology to other rogue nations and more then likely even terrorist organizations.

I agree with you on N. Korea. The biggest problem with them is that they have delivery systems that can reach the west coast of the USA, so unless we want to risk the lives of millions of lefties, we can't just go barrelling into N. Korea. Could we defeat them? Oh Yeah, but the cost could be catastrophic to us.

If you think the Iraq war was unnecessary, how do you reconcile the fact that Kerry implored Clinton to take action against them? Then also being pro-military as you are, how do you reconcile his record on defense (or lack there of)?

Like I said I have problems with Kerry as well. You will not see me defending him very much but you will see me defending the President even less.

Maize Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

Maize Wrote:I have always felt going into Iraq was unnecessary and I have always felt that Bin Laden should have been our number 1 target.  I also felt N. Korea was a bigger threat to our National Security then Iraq because of the Kim Jung Il pretty much breaking every agreement.

N. Korea is/was suppling technology to other rogue nations and more then likely even terrorist organizations.

I agree with you on N. Korea. The biggest problem with them is that they have delivery systems that can reach the west coast of the USA, so unless we want to risk the lives of millions of lefties, we can't just go barrelling into N. Korea. Could we defeat them? Oh Yeah, but the cost could be catastrophic to us.

If you think the Iraq war was unnecessary, how do you reconcile the fact that Kerry implored Clinton to take action against them? Then also being pro-military as you are, how do you reconcile his record on defense (or lack there of)?

Like I said I have problems with Kerry as well. You will not see me defending him very much but you will see me defending the President even less.

Well, can I ask you another question...What part of Kerry's platform do you agree with?

GrayBeard Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

Maize Wrote:I have always felt going into Iraq was unnecessary and I have always felt that Bin Laden should have been our number 1 target.  I also felt N. Korea was a bigger threat to our National Security then Iraq because of the Kim Jung Il pretty much breaking every agreement.

N. Korea is/was suppling technology to other rogue nations and more then likely even terrorist organizations.

I agree with you on N. Korea. The biggest problem with them is that they have delivery systems that can reach the west coast of the USA, so unless we want to risk the lives of millions of lefties, we can't just go barrelling into N. Korea. Could we defeat them? Oh Yeah, but the cost could be catastrophic to us.

If you think the Iraq war was unnecessary, how do you reconcile the fact that Kerry implored Clinton to take action against them? Then also being pro-military as you are, how do you reconcile his record on defense (or lack there of)?

Like I said I have problems with Kerry as well. You will not see me defending him very much but you will see me defending the President even less.

Well, can I ask you another question...What part of Kerry's platform do you agree with?

Which one, he keeps changing. My vote is probably more Anti Bush then Pro Kerry. I do agree with him on some of his tax purposal but not at the expense of Small Businesses. I also agree with the fact we need to add more Special Ops and we do need 2 more fully equip, fully manned Army Divisions.

If the election were held today, I'm voting for Bush. Sit down, GrayBeard -- you read it right.

Whether I agree (well, I don't agree) on how we ended up in Iraq, and the Middle East, we're there, and if something were to happen to our standing President, there's no way I can stomach this phase -- "John Edwards, President and Commander-in-Chief".

If something were to happen to our standing Prez, I have more confidence in Cheney's ability to lead the country as Commander-in-Chief, than any of the other 3 participants (Bush, Kerry, Edwards).

To balance my vote, I'm electing every Democrat congressional candidate on my ballot -- David Price (House), and Erskine Bowles (Senate).

MongoSlade Wrote:If the election were held today, I'm voting for Bush. Sit down, GrayBeard -- you read it right.

Whether I agree (well, I don't agree) on how we ended up in Iraq, and the Middle East, we're there, and if something were to happen to our standing President, there's no way I can stomach this phase -- "John Edwards, President and Commander-in-Chief".

If something were to happen to our standing Prez, I have more confidence in Cheney's ability to lead the country as Commander-in-Chief, than any of the other 3 participants (Bush, Kerry, Edwards).

To balance my vote, I'm electing every Democrat congressional candidate on my ballot -- David Price (House), and Erskine Bowles (Senate).

For me Cheney hurt President Bush because of his health issues. To me he looks and move much older then a normal 62 year old. My father is 62 and gets 100% Military Disability. Again just my observation on Dick Cheney.