Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
Find a Conversation
Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
| Fri, 09-03-2004 - 3:46pm |
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html
Edited 9/3/2004 4:13 pm ET ET by iminnie833

Pages
< I'm SO looking forward to Nov. 3 and a relatively quiet few years while the Associated Press and Rather-head Democrats lick their wounds in anticipation of Hillary in 2008.>
Awwww, did I steal your little surprise for '08??
< So you fault him for being a successful businessman?
I dont get it?>
It was a different world, different times, & the candidates were entirely different. It also wasn't an issue for me then because I didn't see that either candidate had misrepresented their service, or lack of it.
This time both sides are arguing that the candidates have misrepresented themselves. So now we are in a position of evaluating the candidates to determine if they did serve their full tours or not, if they did misrepresent their service or not, & if yes, was it intentional or significant or not, did they show courage or not, & whether or not their service in total was honorable.
So I see no contradiction in this not being an issue with Bush Sr vs Clinton, but declaring it an issue now. Certianly republicans must agree this is a different world now.
< Oh, you forgot to answer my question. Was this an issue for you during the Bush Sr/Clinton election? It's a pretty clear cut question with a simple one word answer. >
If you're saying that since "leftists" get away with narrowing broad definitions, (something I take it you disagree with) that gives you license to attach plaural pronouns to singular people. Genius. Go for it. "We" (meaning me) won't stop you guys (meaning you.) Everyone (meaning you) should strive for clarity when it's speaking.
Fox News says Kerry's people think it "may be possible" that it was "self-inflicted"??? I'd love to read what Kerry's staff actually said. Here's another quote, about which Fox News could, in it's unique way, "accurately" report that Salon.com says it "may be possible" Kerry's wound was self inflicted:
"Given the hurly-burly circumstance of Dec. 2, 1968, Kerry -- and the other men on the mission -- are not sure whether they were hit by enemy fire or if shrapnel from one of the other men on the Boston Whaler injured Kerry. It could have even been Kerry's own M-16 backfiring that caused the shrapnel wound. It doesn't really matter. The requirement makes it clear that you are awarded a Purple Heart for "Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action." Does anybody dispute that Kerry's wound was created by enemy action? As the stipulation also makes clear, Kerry would have been awarded a Purple Heart even if he never bled, if, for example, he had suffered a concussion from a grenade. So to set the record straight: Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart -- period. To say otherwise is to distort the reality of the medal."
That wouldn't be the jist of the entire paragraph, but Fox News COULD boil this down to "pundits at Salon admit that Kerry's wound might have been self inflicted."
See how that works?
Gee. funny thing, I thought
Let's look at what you posted:
I think you need to read Kerry's words more closely. When he says...
"'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet"
...he's talking about himself and the new crew of the PCF-44 as a group. His purple heart was awarded while he was with a smaller crew on a different boat (a "skimmer" called "batman") He's talking about their feeling of invincibility as a group. He's also trying to be a bit poetic about it, which seems to confuse alot of people looking for dirt.
To read this as some sort of legal statement about whether Kerry himself had never been shot at is absurd.
********************************
Look at how you interpret Kerry's words to mean something different than what he said. The "group", not himself and "a bit poetic". How sweet and how nice to be able to know what Kerry REALLY meant, despite his words.
If you've got the stomach for it, even his campaign admits Kerry's 1st purple heart was self-inflicted. http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/08_august/082504_kerry_purple_heart.htm
******************
Now let's look at the 2nd amendment and common leftist interpretations:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Leftists often argue that "the people" in the 2nd amendment context refers to a formal state militia, usually the National Guard, which was formed in 1903, and the constitution in 1783. http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt24.html
*********************
Are you still confused, or just eager to defend Kerry against all logic and reason and especially himself????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 9/8/2004 6:30 pm ET ET by janeigh
Edited 9/8/2004 10:24 pm ET ET by janeigh
Pages