PDA

View Full Version : October 15: Six Battleground States Remain (Bush 264 EVs, Kerry 268 EVs, Tied 6 EVs)


RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 11:20 AM
Looking at the current polls the number of true Battleground states has started to firm up. Looking at the averages from the recent polls there are now only a handful of states where a) both candidates are drawing more than 45% in the poll results and b) both candidates are drawing less than 50% in the poll results. Personally, I don't see how either candidate is going to claim a state when they can't muster at least 45% in the state polls at this junction (although that could certainly change) and I'd identify such states as "strong" for either side.

Here's my list with 18 days to go based on the averages of the most recent polls taken in the last week:

<B>Florida:</B> Bush 49.3, Kerry 45.8 (Leans Bush)
<B>Ohio:</B> Bush 47.3, Kerry 48.3 (Leans Kerry)
<B>Pennsylvania:</B> Bush 45.3, Kerry 48.7 (Leans Kerry)
<B>Iowa:</B> Bush 46.8, Kerry 47.5 (Leans Kerry)
<B>New Hampshire:</B> Bush 46.3, Kerry 47.0 (Leans Kerry)
<B>New Mexico:</B> Bush 46.5, Kerry 46.5 (Tied)

States that have previously been designated "Battleground" states that are now STRONG Bush or STRONG Kerry (one candidate achieving more than 50% of the poll result or one candidate not achieving more than 45% of the poll result) include: Arkansas (BUSH), Arizona (BUSH), Louisiana (BUSH), Wisconsin (BUSH), North Carolina (BUSH), Tennessee (BUSH), Missouri (BUSH), Nevada (BUSH), Colorado (BUSH), West Virginia (BUSH), Minnesota (KERRY), Michigan (KERRY), Maine (KERRY - although the way the state proportions its electoral votes it is likely Bush will receive one of Maine's four EVs), Washington (KERRY), Oregon (KERRY), New Jersey (KERRY), Maryland (KERRY).

The states that are STRONG Bush now account for 237 EVs. States that are STRONG Kerry now account for 217 EVs. There are six states that account for 84 EVs that fall within my definition of Battleground or "toss-up". If the toss-up states go the way they are leaning right now the final results would be Bush 264 EVs, Kerry 268 EVs, Tied 6 EVs.

Katipan
10-15-2004, 12:06 PM
Bush now also has to worry about Arizona. The last time it went blue, we elected Clinton.

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:09 PM
So in other words, we won't have any clue until the evening of Nov 2, and maybe not even then

Taco John
10-15-2004, 12:11 PM
This one is going to the courts. Count on it.

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:12 PM
Oh, and what happened in Ohio? It looked like that was solid Bush for a while.

The latest poll I see for MO has Bush ahead by 1% which is inside the MOE.

http://www.race2004.net/states.php?state=mo

alnorth
10-15-2004, 12:14 PM
Bush does not have to worry about Arizona, he firmly has that state as of today, even if you look at a variety of recent polls.

Although I would be happy if Bush won Nevada and Wisconsin, I think both have to be considered in play. With Wisconsin, the strategic vision poll is the only one that thinks Bush has a solid lead, everyone else says that the Badger state is close.

Other than that, I have no complaints. If Bush wins, I hope like hell that he wins by at LEAST 5 Electoral Votes, because if that stupid amendment gets passed in Colorado, it WILL eventually get thrown out as unconstitutional. (Only the state legislatures can decide how to allocate EV's, not ballot initiatives) If that makes the difference in this race, the Democrats will throw another screaming crybaby fit about the 2004 election.

Boozer
10-15-2004, 12:15 PM
Bush now also has to worry about Arizona. The last time it went blue, we elected Clinton.

If I were Bush, I'd be much more concerned about Ohio. No Republican has ever won without taking Ohio. Ever.

Of course, the past few national (presidential and congressional) elections have defied precedent, too.

alnorth
10-15-2004, 12:18 PM
The latest poll I see for MO has Bush ahead by 1% which is inside the MOE.

None of the major polling firms have publicly released MO results in forever. They hadnt bothered to do so because Kerry has pulled most of his advertising in the state after his own internal polling told him that it wouldnt be worth the effort, so we have to presume that Missouri is no longer in play.

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:19 PM
The latest Gallup poll shows CO a dead heat, and the previous day's Zogby actually showed a slight Kerry lead there. These polls are over a week old though, maybe someone has new ones.

Could you imagine if Kerry won CO and the amendment passed, giving the needed EV's to Bush?

So much potential for a big mess.

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:20 PM
None of the major polling firms have publicly released MO results in forever. They hadnt bothered to do so because Kerry has pulled most of his advertising in the state after his own internal polling told him that it wouldnt be worth the effort, so we have to presume that Missouri is no longer in play.

The poll I am quoting is from Oct 5. I wouldn't call 10 days "forever" ago.

This graph shows MO looks to be back in play, at least as of earlier this month. If it were one poll I'd be willing to throw it out, but there are two polls at the end of the graph (Zogby and Survey USA) that show MO being a lot closer.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/missouri.png

Katipan
10-15-2004, 12:22 PM
Bush does not have to worry about Arizona, he firmly has that state as of today, even if you look at a variety of recent polls

Yes now. However, the Dems are salivating over the 16 point loss he's had in this state since the Debates started. We're being heavily campaigned Kerry.

alnorth
10-15-2004, 12:27 PM
I wouldn't call 10 days "forever" ago.

At this point, yes 10 days is "forever". Regardless, the fact that Kerry pulled his ads will likely cause his decision that he cant win Missouri at a price that would be worth it to come true, even if he theoretically might have. He wants those dollars elesewhere for a better chance at a payoff.

Yes now. However, the Dems are salivating over the 16 point loss he's had in this state since the Debates started. We're being heavily campaigned Kerry.

Good Luck!

Suffice it to say that if Bush cant win Arizona, then it wont even matter, because in that scenario he will be losing very, very badly nationwide.

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:27 PM
Dems campaigning in AZ? Seems like a waste of money.

Although I see what you're saying

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/arizona.png

KCN
10-15-2004, 12:30 PM
At this point, yes 10 days is "forever". Regardless, the fact that Kerry pulled his ads will likely cause his decision that he cant win Missouri at a price that would be worth it to come true, even if he theoretically might have. He wants those dollars elesewhere for a better chance at a payoff.



IIRC Kerry pulled his ads back in Aug/Sep, which looking at that graph I posted I could see why. But I think at this point anyone who would be swayed by an ad (is anyone?) would have already made their choice. If I were to put money down it'd be that Bush takes MO, but I disagree that MO is a walk for him. I thought it was dumb for Kerry to pull out back then. Perhaps MO doesn't have enough EV's to make campaigning there worthwhile.

Iowanian
10-15-2004, 02:12 PM
I don't know for sure how Iowa will go.............but I do know that several members of my family, who have never voted for a Repub president, will vote for Bush this year. I also know that at the State fair, straw polls were run every day, and each day Bush was winning with a 55-45% spread.

I think Bush wins Iowa this year, unlike last time.

Taco Bell
10-15-2004, 03:42 PM
.

the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 05:35 PM
polls will give you a heart attack....this election will be as close as 2000, and as taco mentioned- several states will end up in the courts, there are already voter registration "shenanigans" in Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota (i think)....this election could be one big (. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )ing train wreck....

MonicaLewinski
10-15-2004, 05:41 PM
I don't know for sure how Iowa will go.............but I do know that several members of my family, who have never voted for a Repub president, will vote for Bush this year. I also know that at the State fair, straw polls were run every day, and each day Bush was winning with a 55-45% spread.

I think Bush wins Iowa this year, unlike last time.

That's good news.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:37 PM
Bush now also has to worry about Arizona. The last time it went blue, we elected Clinton.

Last polls I checked had him averaged out at more than 10-points ahead of Kerry. I think the Kerry campaign conceded Arizona in August...

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:41 PM
This one is going to the courts. Count on it.

For months I thought this would be a landslide for whoever won. I think it was trending that way until the first debate. Now I'm not so sold on my own prediction. If Kerry doesn't win two out of the big three in the first two hours of the election (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio) I think it will be hard for him to win. If Bush loses two of the three and doesn't win Wisconsin and/or Iowa it's going to be hard to see how he wins.

As far as what you're saying Taco, I have no doubt that the Dems are already planning how to attack the results in certain areas (they've already filed lawsuits in some states). I think the GOP is poised to pounce as well, but I've got a feeling that the Dems aren't going to concede no matter what the results show - which is really kind of sad.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:44 PM
Oh, and what happened in Ohio? It looked like that was solid Bush for a while.

The latest poll I see for MO has Bush ahead by 1% which is inside the MOE.

http://www.race2004.net/states.php?state=mo


If the Kerry camp thought they had a chance there they'd a) visit once in the last couple weeks and b) they'd spend more money there.

Kerry is trending in the right direction in OH to be sure, but I don't think he has much of a chance in Missouri.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:50 PM
The latest Gallup poll shows CO a dead heat, and the previous day's Zogby actually showed a slight Kerry lead there. These polls are over a week old though, maybe someone has new ones.

Could you imagine if Kerry won CO and the amendment passed, giving the needed EV's to Bush?

So much potential for a big mess.


You bring up an interesting situation...I don't think there's anyway Bush doesn't get EVs out of Colorado. Most Kerry people are going to vote in favor of splitting the EVs while most Bush people are opposing it. If Kerry wins the state the voters will probably also pass Amendment 36 meaning Bush would get 4 EVs and Kerry 5 EVs. If Bush wins the Amendment most likely won't pass and Bush will get all 9.

As Taco was mentioning upthread, expect the mother of all hypocritical lawsuits to be filed by one side or the other if this Amendment passes and it keeps one side from winning. If Kerry has enough but the Amendment passage throws 4 EVs to Bush and makes him the winner the Dems will say it is not legal. Expect the reverse if Bush has the upper-hand and is denied it by the Amendment passing.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:53 PM
Now I remember why the MO numbers are screwy...it's the Survey USA results that are skewing everything...for some reason SUSA polls Missouri REALLY tight while everyone else has Bush up 6-7 points.

And Al is right that there hasn't been a new Missouri poll since the beginning of the month, although Rasmussen had one on 10/6 for their pay site that showed Bush up 51-45.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 07:57 PM
polls will give you a heart attack....this election will be as close as 2000, and as taco mentioned- several states will end up in the courts, there are already voter registration "shenanigans" in Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota (i think)....this election could be one big (. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )ing train wreck....


I've got no problem with this thing being litigated if the need arises, but if either side just starts complaining about results because they're losing (as the Dem manifesto of how to cry voter intimidation even if it never actually happens underscores) I think there will be a swift and immediate backlash.

The part of me that enjoys elections and debating with all you fine folks for another month while the courts sort things out takes a backseat to both sides really striving towards making democracy work the way it's supposed to. Nixon could have (and would have) had a beef about Texas in 1960 while Gore could have drawn out the whole Florida thing last time. Both stood aside for the good of the country. If either side reaches I don't think it will make either of them look good.

the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 08:32 PM
I've got no problem with this thing being litigated if the need arises, but if either side just starts complaining about results because they're losing (as the Dem manifesto of how to cry voter intimidation even if it never actually happens underscores) I think there will be a swift and immediate backlash.

The part of me that enjoys elections and debating with all you fine folks for another month while the courts sort things out takes a backseat to both sides really striving towards making democracy work the way it's supposed to. Nixon could have (and would have) had a beef about Texas in 1960 while Gore could have drawn out the whole Florida thing last time. Both stood aside for the good of the country. If either side reaches I don't think it will make either of them look good.

the democrats let the republicans walk all over them in Florida last time (remember James Baker) ....you're crazy if you think they'll let that happen again, and they shouldn't

there's already documented voter registration fraud, by republicans, in Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota ( i checked on this, it is not north dakota)...after the last election, if I were the DNC, I'd have my lawyers lined up too....

Michael Michigan
10-15-2004, 08:44 PM
President Bush was in Iowa today. Blue state.

Kerry was in Wisconsin. Blue state.

Vice President Cheney was in Michigan. Blue state.

Edwards was in Ohio. Red state.

The race is in very few states right now. These four plus Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine.

RINGLEADER
10-15-2004, 10:28 PM
the democrats let the republicans walk all over them in Florida last time (remember James Baker) ....you're crazy if you think they'll let that happen again, and they shouldn't

there's already documented voter registration fraud, by republicans, in Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota ( i checked on this, it is not north dakota)...after the last election, if I were the DNC, I'd have my lawyers lined up too....


Dude, Bush won the vote according to every method that Gore was advocating. A bunch of media companies told me so.

BTW, the Dems didn't let the Republicans walk all over them...they went to court and lost, appealed and won and then the GOP took it to the Supremes and lost 7-2 (although 2 others weren't as committed in their opinion that the recounts couldn't be done in time).

Again, if there are legitimate reasons to litigate a close election then the rules should be followed and it should be litigated - I just get the impression from how the Dems are acting that they want to contest it even if it's clear that they've lost.

Hydrae
10-15-2004, 10:38 PM
If this election is a screwed up in the end as the last one we are really going to look like crap around the world. Here we are touting democracy as the best form of government (firmly believe it is BTW) and have conducted a war to establish it. To have us squabbling over the results should make a lot of people around the world have second thoughts about whether we have a clue what we are talking about when it comes to politics.

penchief
10-16-2004, 03:25 PM
If this election is a screwed up in the end as the last one we are really going to look like crap around the world. Here we are touting democracy as the best form of government (firmly believe it is BTW) and have conducted a war to establish it. To have us squabbling over the results should make a lot of people around the world have second thoughts about whether we have a clue what we are talking about when it comes to politics.

Here, here. When our politicians are more concerned with winning and ramming their agenda down our throats democracy suffers because the win-at-all-costs Rove mentality devalues the truth in favor of distorting the truth to play on the sensibilities of rational people.

How else can you explain the blatant misstatements and outright lies that have emerged from the White House over the course of their term, the presidential campaign, and more specifically the debates (i.e., "I never said that," or "I never met you before tonight").

The only conclusion that I can come to is that conservatives like being lied to about the issues most important to our democracy or they just plain don't understand what liberty and democratic governance is all about.

Brock
10-16-2004, 03:30 PM
Oops, Bill Clinton told more lies than Bush ever thought about. But don't tell penchief.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 03:42 PM
If this election is a screwed up in the end as the last one we are really going to look like crap around the world. Here we are touting democracy as the best form of government (firmly believe it is BTW) and have conducted a war to establish it. To have us squabbling over the results should make a lot of people around the world have second thoughts about whether we have a clue what we are talking about when it comes to politics.
We have a Republic, not a Democracy.

Get it straight man.

Boozer
10-16-2004, 03:44 PM
We have a Republic, not a Democracy.

Get it straight man.

You know, Cuba has a republic, too.

Calcountry
10-16-2004, 03:48 PM
You know, Cuba has a republic, too.
Would you rather our government change to a pure Democracy?

penchief
10-16-2004, 03:50 PM
Oops, Bill Clinton told more lies than Bush ever thought about. But don't tell penchief.

Bullshit. No he didn't. Not even close. Close your right-wing manifesto for a moment.

If you want to compare Lewinsky to Iraq it just shows how dillusional conservatives are. Clinton was trying to avoid embarrasment about a matter that was below the radar and relatively unimportant when assessing the big picture. Overzealous power-hungry conservatives thrust the Lewinsky scandal on an unwilling populace with the aid of the corporately owned media.

The big difference is that this administration lies about every aspect of policy and the conduct of the PEOPLES' BUSINESS. They thrust America in directions that would not have been possible without the blatant lies that were told to inspire fear and contempt. Kinda like they do to get elected.

It's a HUGE DIFFERENCE. Conservatives clearly believe that the means justify the ends. They condone, defend, and explain away lies by this administration that have a direct impact on the livelihood of everyday Americans and the integrity of our great nation.

Clearly, conservatives enjoy the lies of their leader because winning is the greatest virtue of all. To the winner goes the spoils. They get to ram their agenda down the throats of the American people who would otherwise disagree with the details of that agenda. Why else do the retrocons continue to restort to religious fundamentalism, nationalism, and character assassination? Because it appeals to the sensibilities of America while diverting attention away from their distortions and their true agenda. It's brilliant but detrimental to the progress of humankind.

Clearly, conservatives enjoy the lies that Bush, Cheney, and Rove execute because it moves their agenda along.

FringeNC
10-16-2004, 03:52 PM
You know, Cuba has a republic, too.

Huh?

republic:

"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."

Brock
10-16-2004, 03:58 PM
Bullshit. No he didn't. Not even close. Close your right-wing manifesto for a moment.

If you want to compare Lewinsky to Iraq it just shows how dillusional conservatives are.

Hell, I wasn't even talking about Lewinsky. That's a whole other pack of lies. He told quite a few beauties on Bosnia ALONE.

Instead of just admitting the obvious, you jump right into spin mode. It's hilarious.

penchief
10-16-2004, 04:09 PM
Hell, I wasn't even talking about Lewinsky. That's a whole other pack of lies. He told quite a few beauties on Bosnia ALONE.

Instead of just admitting the obvious, you jump right into spin mode. It's hilarious.

Bosnia? At least Clinton said it WAS about human rights and conservatives went bizerk about it. Now Iraq is about human rights? Give me an effin break, Brock. Conservatives can't have it both ways. Iraq is such a noble effort because we are digging up graves after the fact? Bosnia was a real and ongoing genicide. Clinton told us why we were going to Bosnia. He didn't change his justification half a dozen times and he didn't outright distort the facts and marginalize those who called him on his lies the way this administration did.

Face it. Conservatives like to be lied to and they support blatant liars only because it advances their cause (which ultimately benefits only corporate America and the power elite). Unfortunately, it is to the detriment of the single most important country on the planet and the values that used to be the hope of the world.

Brock
10-16-2004, 04:12 PM
Bosnia? At least Clinton said it WAS about human rights and conservatives went bizerk about it. Now Iraq is about human rights? Give me an effin break, Brock. Conservatives can't have it both ways. Iraq is such a noble effort because we are digging up graves after the fact? Bosnia was a real and ongoing genicide. Clinton told us why we were going to Bosnia. He didn't change his justification half a dozen times and he didn't outright distort the facts and marginalize those who called him on his lies the way this administration did.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are rationalizing lies, which is something you said only conservatives do. You effing hypocrite.

penchief
10-16-2004, 04:17 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd say you are rationalizing lies, which is something you said only conservatives do. You effing hypocrite.

Brock, explain to me which lies I am rationalizing. Please.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

When a lie can be detected within five minutes of being told the way Bush & Cheney's lies during the debates have, it seems to me that reasonable people would want to call into question their honesty and their motives. It also seems to me that it calls into question their respect for (and estimation of) the American people. It doesn't seem to me that they think a whole lot about our intelligence or how the outcomes of their lies affect everyday Americans.

Brock
10-16-2004, 04:21 PM
Brock, explain to me which lies I am rationalizing. Please.

The lies he told about Bosnia. The ones you want to pretend never happened, so your moronic generalizations about conservatives can appear to be true.

Boozer
10-16-2004, 04:26 PM
Huh?

republic:

"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."

Most dictionaries have this as the first defintion: "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president " See http://www.m-w.org; see also the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Germany, et al.

penchief
10-16-2004, 04:29 PM
The lies he told about Bosnia. The ones you want to pretend never happened, so your moronic generalizations about conservatives can appear to be true.

Brock, you can't keep talking about the lies told about Bosnia if you can't tell anyone what they were.

I'm asking you to explain to me why I am wrong. Please.

Brock
10-16-2004, 04:31 PM
Brock, you can't keep talking about the lies told about Bosnia if you can't tell anyone what they were.

I'm asking you to explain to me why I am wrong. Please.

What about when he said American troops would only be there for a year, for one? Like you didn't know what I was talking about, you disingenuous hypocrite. Everything you have been saying about "conservatives" is true about YOU.

penchief
10-16-2004, 04:47 PM
What about when he said American troops would only be there for a year, for one? Like you didn't know what I was talking about, you disingenuous hypocrite. Everything you have been saying about "conservatives" is true about YOU.

Wait one minute. You are showing your true colors. Let's break this down.

So what you are telling me is that because circumstances on the ground dictated a change policy (i.e. how long the operation would take) similar to the same thing we were told about Iraq (1 year) is the equivalent to making up lies about the reason we attacked a country that didn't have anything to do with attacking us?

It is fair to say that neither Bush nor Clinton could control events on the ground. I don't criticize Bush for lying about how long the war would last. I blame him for lying about the reasons we attacked another country without justification. With the facts that are already in it is difficult for any reasonable person to deny that this administration intentionally stretched the truth, misled the American people, and basically outried lied to our country in order to accomplish a political agenda to the detriment of just about everybody but themselves.

I don't see how you can even compare the two. This administration will shamelessly and unabashedly lie about anything to promote their political agenda, even if it is detrimental to America.

So please Brock, give me an example that is equivalent. And please stop with the personal attacks. I know I criticize conservatives in general but I stop short of personally attacking you unless you get carried away, which you often do.

Again, I can only come to the conclusion that conservatives either believe these lies, condone them, or like being lied to.

Obviously the lies aren't true, so I think conservatives like being lied to because I think they like hearing what they want to hear even if they know that it isn't true.

Brock
10-16-2004, 04:55 PM
Wait one minute. You are showing your true colors. Let's break this down.

{Lengthy rationalization for lying by President whose party I support}



Thank you for proving my point, hypocrite. I knew you wouldn't let me down. As usual, you want to try to say "these lies aren't equivalent to those lies". They're both lies, but you don't want to address that point, because it exposes you for what you are: A hypocrite.

penchief
10-16-2004, 05:07 PM
Thank you for proving my point, hypocrite. I knew you wouldn't let me down. As usual, you want to try to say "these lies aren't equivalent to those lies". They're both lies, but you don't want to address that point, because it exposes you for what you are: A hypocrite.

Again, you want to call me a hyporcrite without backing up you words. Maybe I am giving you too much credit. It seems like it is completely impossible to have a civil or intelligent discussion with you because you sound just like Bush running for office. No substance, just innuendo.

Yeah, I'm a liberal scum just like Kerry. I'm from PA while Kerry is from Mass. Unfortunately, Bush running around the country just saying "liberal, liberal, liberal" appeals to people like you. I prefer to have my politicians not be gigantic posers (little posers only). Bush is the biggest poser since Grant. It doesn't matter how ignorant he sounds, guys like you sop it up as if it were your life's blood.

Lies are okay if they bolster your argument, right? Don't address the issues or defend the lies, just call your opponent hypocritical scum.

By the way, don't talk to me about hypocricy when you're pointing the finger from the right. The right-wing in this country can't get any more hypocritical than it's behavior over the past dozen years or so. But hypocricy doesn't matter to the right, only winning matters.

Brock
10-16-2004, 07:04 PM
Lies are okay if they bolster your argument, right?


That is obviously your opinion. I'll bet you are not really bothered at all when Kerry lies about Bush starting up the draft.

penchief
10-16-2004, 07:33 PM
That is obviously your opinion. I'll bet you are not really bothered at all when Kerry lies about Bush starting up the draft.

I love how you continue to hit back with absolutely nothing.

Brock, you are being exposed as nothing more than a shill in the same vien as Ann Coulter.

Brock
10-16-2004, 07:35 PM
I love how you continue to hit back with absolutely nothing.

Brock, you are being exposed as nothing more than a shill in the same vien of Ann Coulter.

I'll bet you have no clue what your neighbors really think of you.

penchief
10-16-2004, 07:39 PM
I'll bet you have no clue what your neighbors really think of you.

Keep it up Brock, you're a gem. You continue to show this chiefs community how weak you are. Is that all you got, Brock? If so, that is really lame. Stick to the issues. Don't use the Bush/Rove Method and try to insinuate that I am a dispicable person. C'mon.

Brock
10-16-2004, 07:40 PM
Keep it up Brock, you're a gem. You continue to show this chiefs community how weak you are. Is that all you got, Brock? If so, that is really lame. Stick to the issues. Don't use the Bush/Rove Method and try to insinuate that I am a dispicable person. C'mon.


Kerry's pet parrot. ROFL ROFL ROFL

Brock
10-16-2004, 07:42 PM
I'm done abusing you, it's been fun, but I've accrued enough rep points for one day. See you around, hypocrite.

penchief
10-16-2004, 07:43 PM
Kerry's pet parrot. ROFL ROFL ROFL

I love how you just keep proving my point. What, are you twelve? If so, I apologize for the mismatch. Please let me know how old you are. If you are under age, I will let up because, as you know, liberals have an over-developed sense of fairness.

Brock
10-16-2004, 07:44 PM
I love how you just keep proving my point. What, are you twelve? If so, I apologize for the mismatch. Please let me know how old you are. If you are under age, I will let up because, as you know, liberals have an over-developed sense of fairness.


Squawk!

penchief
10-16-2004, 07:49 PM
I'm done abusing you, it's been fun, but I've accrued enough rep points for one day. See you around, hypocrite.

Yeah, you abused me like Bush abused Kerry during the debates. Nice try. Go ahead and run home to mama....errr, I mean Karl. Go get some pointers for our next encounter. You are going to need them.

Who gave you rep, Lat? You don't have to prove to me that there are a lot of mindless conservatives on this board who like to be lied to by their idols, GW, Mr. Halliburton, and Boss Hog.

headsnap
10-16-2004, 08:18 PM
But hypocricy doesn't matter to the right, only winning matters.
that's laughable coming from the left.

penchief
10-16-2004, 08:25 PM
that's laughable coming from the left.

It's better to laugh than to cry. When looking at the record of this administration and how they have lied to explain it, if we couldn't laugh about it we'd probably have to cry.

There has never been a more dishonest presidency than the presidency of George W. Bush.

Not even close. Nixon is lagging far behind. In fact, I'd trade one Bush for ten Nixons.

DenverChief
10-17-2004, 10:04 PM
Huh?

republic:

"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."


Peoples Republic of Korea? Peoples Republic of China?

beavis
10-17-2004, 11:21 PM
I'm done abusing you, it's been fun, but I've accrued enough rep points for one day. See you around, hypocrite.
You sure about that? Here's some more.