NorthSideSox72

Polls and pundits seem to indicate that this whole mess will have little impact on the election.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) I guess I'm just not a big fan of evangelicals--be they Christian, Atheist or whatever. Sing it, sister.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) members of the armed services are no less educated than the average american. that is a fact. I didn't say otherwise. Look more closely at what was said. If a person is uneducated, they are more likely to HAVE to join the military as a way out. This is because they have a lot fewer options. Many very well-educated people join the military, but not generally out of NEED. Is that more clear?

Religion in the modern world rarely causes wars. All religion does is give people an excuse, and a false moral high ground, for their own selfish agendas. The only real religious wars are the ones where people are kept from practicing their faith - and while that happens in many countries, I can't think of many wars in recent times where that was a driving factor.

I don't think I've ever voted straight ticket, unless it was a Primary and there were only a couple things to vote on. QUOTE(Balance @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) While I lean Democratic, there's no way I'm voting for Stroger for county commissioner. That race is terrible. 2 losers. There is no positive outcome there. But, I did end up voting GOP on that one.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) If we are playing guess the speaker, who said that? I'm gonna go with Rumsfeld, who himself was a graduate of New Trier. QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 06:58 PM) Kerry is a terrible politician. He tells the truth at inopportune times, (I voted against it, before I voted for it) and doesn't continue to back up those statements with truth, instead electing to go into damage control mode like he did today, which, incedently, doesn't resonate with voters. It only makes him look worse. This is right on, I think. Kerry says things that are true but should never be said in public, this quote included. Which might not have been bad, if he had stuck to his guns on it. Instead, he piled on this completely unbelievable lie about it being directed towards Bush. Let's recap this drama... > Kerry, speaking to an audience of at-risk youth, implies that a lack of education may result in some of them ending up "stuck in Iraq". > The fact that he is 100% correct doesn't seem relevant to anyone, including, apparently, himself. > The GOP jumps on this political opportunity, employing their typical straw man tactics by saying Kerry called our military "stupid" > The fact that Kerry said no such thing doesn't seem relevant to anyone other than the Dems. > Kerry fires back with a big, fat, see-thru lie which he tries to mask as an apology: he claims he meant Bush, not the troops. > The fact that the joke would make zero sense if that were true doesn't seem relevant to anyone other than John Kerry. > And finally, voila - the small piece of truth that Kerry originally brought to the table has been so thoroughly beaten into submission that most of the public can see only the steaming piles of B.S. heaped onto the situation by both political parties, the media (MSM and otherwise), an angry electorate. > The fact that John Kerry's views should have little or nothing to do with who people vote for on 11/7 doesn't seem relevant to anyone at all.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) Limbaugh can apologize the same day apparently, unlike Kerry. I'd actually say those two did the same damn thing. They said a bunch of words that happened to include the word "sorry", but were not an apology at all.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 04:09 PM) Oh that's right cuz we've been attacked multiple times since 9/11. Douche. Failed war planning I'll give you. Not so much security. Really? Continue? What the hell have you put forth in the last two years to 'change the course' or provide a 'winning strategy?' Oh, that's right. Nothing. Like the rest of the Dems. Again, Kerry is one thing. But the Dems have put forth a number of different ideas, good, bad or otherwise, to adjust out war on terror to be more successful. This is in contrast the GOP, who on that topic are lock-step with BushCo. So actually, its Kerry and the GOP you should be upset at, if you are looking for real plans.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) Link. That is not an apology. That's a lie wrapped in plastic repent.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 10:55 AM) Lets me preface this by saying I'm a huge Sheffield fan. I used to like you.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) Amazing how riled up people get over something like this. Anyone care about the actual issues anymore? Nope. We'd rather pin our criticisms on easy targets like the President, a former opponent of the President, or straw men. Not that Bush and Kerry don't deserve criticism. But that seems to be all we are doing.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) It makes me sick that the Dems, over four years later, are still harping on the fact that Iraq was a bad decision. Talk about getting over it and moving on to bigger and better things... Since the war is still raging, I'd say that everyone, Dem or GOP, has the right and maybe even the responsibility to continue to question, analyze, and even criticize it if its going poorly. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) I'm a proud Republican, voted for Bush twice, and can sit here and say I wish the management of the war would have been better. I blame Bush and his admn for thinking we could waltz in there, be welcomed with open arms, and then leave a year later. I hold them responsible for the mess we're in. But i'm not going to vote for a liberal douche-bag who does nothing but point the finger. TELL ME WHAT YOU'D DO DIFFERENTLY, then maybe I'd vote for you. But you know why they don’t? Because they don’t want the electorate to think. They want to react. As I said in the Fox thread, these f*ckheads know the majority of people that vote are completely uneducated about the issues surrounding us. So they pander to emotions. And i’m talking about both sides here. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) As for the stats of the college-educated military personnel, someone should find out the age of most of the soldiers. Aren't the vast majority under/around 20? Don’t the majority of our armed forces serve in a branch in order to get a degree? It's pretty stupid to criticize people for choosing an avenue that will most likely help their future. Yeah it's sad that a large portion of the military is made up of 'disenfranchised' people. But instead of living a worthless life on the streets, they're trying to better their lives. Agreed. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) F*ck Kerry for calling them stupid, as if the serving the country is the 'dumb' way to go. There is NO other way to read his statements. He told some LA kids you better do good in school or you'll be sitting in the military being shot at in a useless war. Funny that a guy who bragged about his service is now warning the youth about it, basically telling them to stay away at all costs. He makes me sick, as do the majority of liberal douches (politicians). Kerry is in fact a "douche", and he certainly was saying that being uneducated means you may have to choose the military (NOT that they are stupid, however). And he was right. He just shouldn't have said it. And worse, he shouldn't be now lying to cover up what he said. But let's not throw everyone else under the bus with him. There are Dems, and Republicans, who seem to have a vested interest in making this better. And like it or not, many of the most liberal Democratic leaders in Congress (Pelosi for one) have in fact put forth some specific ideas. They may not be what you or I like, but at least they aren't just saying "stay the course". QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) This I agree with completely. Both sides are full of douche-bags. It's too bad the people of this country are more concerned about Madonna adopting some kid than topics that will affect their everyday lives. 100% agree.

1. There are many highly intelligent people that choose the military. In fact, last I know, the Air Force and Naval academies had the two lowest rates of acceptance of any major colleges in the entire U.S. (this was true years back, not sure if true now). The USAFA had an acceptance rate of something like 7%. Its very, very competitive. 2. It is also true that for many non-officer enlistees, the military is a way out of something, or their only way into a better life down the road. So yes, a bulk of them will be non-college educated folks. And that, I think, is what Kerry was getting at (I don't believe for a second he was referring to Bush). No one wants to HAVE to go into the military and go to war. Some people WANT to go. There are people in both categories.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) Oh, I see, now I'll edit that part of my post where I spoke about his intentions. I don't give a rat's ass who he wanted to insult. He said pretty clearly that the uneducated end up in the military. It wasn't a statement that could be interpreted two different ways. And for the record, I supported him in the 2004 election, and it's likely I'll vote for a Dem again in 2008. But he does nothing but hurt the party now. From a pragmatic point of view, for Dems to rally around him after a statement like that would be disastrous. It'll be replayed thousands of times. I don't know if he's a douchebag. Nor will I stay up trying to figure it out. Well put, I agree totally. The one thing I will say in Kerry's favor is that he definitely learned from Swift Boat. He's made it clear he won't be taking gruff sitting down. Unfortunately, in this case, he deserves the gruff (unlike the idiotic swifties).

As sort of an offshoot from this... Am I the only person who will occasionally, intentionally AVOID a certain company's product specifically because I find their commercials so horribly irritating? I know the supposed method behind that madness - advertising's main goal is placement in people's minds, even if its annoying. But for me, if its bad enough, that backfires and assures that I DON'T give them my business, when I otherwise might have.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) If they are it doesn't seem like it's a pronounced trend. You may be right. It could be just the specific polls I have seen. But it has seemed over the last couple months, in the polls I've watched, that its trending that way. We'll see. Its just guessing on my part anyway.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) Man, you're giving the GOP NJ and giving the Dems TN? You must really like the upsets. Polls for NJ have been trending towards GOP, with the gap shortening. And in TN, like I said before... never bet against a Ford in Tennessee. Plus TN, a historically conservative state, has tended more and more moderate in recent election cycles. Heck, during the last Prez election, it was even considered in play for a while.

I'll go with... Dems winning MT, VA, TN, RI and OH GOP wins NJ, MO, AZ With a bonus of... a bunch of voting controversies!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) Actually, I'd argue Clinton is the most electable of the three. You think that, at a national election level, Clinton is more electable than Edwards? I'd have to disagree. I think this country has too many people who are not ready to elect a woman, for one thing (this is NOT me, mind you). Plus the way her time as first lady went, the reputation she built, and the fact that she is seen as far left (which isn't even really accurate, but that is irrelevant). It would take a lot for her to overcome those things. Edwards on the other hand, despite that patina of used car salesman ooze, is a charming southern democrat (and who does that sound like?). He is also socially moderate. I don't like him myself, but I think he has the best chance of those three to win in a national election.

I just really, really hope that he isn't the Dems' nominee for '08. None of the big triad (Kerry, Clinton, Edwards) are any good, and only Edwards is electable.

I wish I had more time for mags. The only ones I read at least semi-regularly are Outside and Backpacker. I barely have time to read books anymore either. I read two papers every weekday - WSJ on the way to work, the Trib on the way home.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) Photo ID required to vote and to register. Computerized checks of registered voters to make sure the same person only votes once and that "dead people and pets" aren't voting. I totally agree, as long as (again) some form of photo ID can be obtained free of charge.

Does anyone know why they started using softer woods? Didn't bats used to be made of ash?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) Show Identification. Who wants to bet that the Dems will b**** about long lines at the polling stations in Missouri on Tuesday? Then some a friendly judge will let the polls stay open until 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. so that all dead people and their pets can vote too. I'm sure there will be b****ing and moaning on both sides come election day. And there will be a few dead people voting, for each party. And some polls will be held open later (and in that case, I see no good reason why not to do that if certain precincts say they have too many people).

I am not sure what he would cost us, but as someone pointed out elsewhere... Keith Foulke would seem to be a nice fit.