The site has a "Forum"/message board- and the oldest topic was initiated on November 27, 2003.
So, NO... the site is NOT one with an extensive provenance.
It's almost as if the site were created with certain objectives and purposes in mind... which are being exploited as we speak.
Any candidate whose supporting faction must resort to elaborate devious serpentine intrigues to acquire or retain office... should be examined more carefully.
You've got a point there, RfromP ... I was prolly just over-reactin' to what I took, perhaps wrongly, to have been a challenge from you directed toward my homework. I may not reach the same conclusions you do, or favor the same causes, but I don't come by my opinions in a vacuum. Anyhow, there's no reason I should assume you'd have looked into my previous posts deep enough to discover I'm a real nitpicker for military minutiae and historical trivia ... its damned near an obsession with me. Whatever my other faults, I'm real big on gettin' the nuts and bolts and wings and guns and spears and whos and whats and wheres and whens and whys and hows right.
Oh, and Magus, thanks for the entertainment. Just FYI, the "Grey Ghost" site considerably predates -well, by a couple years, anyway - Kerry's first entrance into the opening preliminaries for this Presidential campaign. The "Kerry Page" found thereon is a relatively recent addition; it dates from late last summer. And that German US Navy fan site has been around since early 1999, evolving from an even older usenet newsgroup, which had its antecedents nack in the BBS infancy of The Web. A true "Labor of Love" with humble beginnings, it now averages between 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 hits across 100,000 unique visitorsh, with around 30GB of data transfer per month. Constantly growing in content, it currently catalogues over 650 past-and-present USN ships and nearly 6000 relevant photos, a large proportion of which are high-res images available nowhere else. It is a respected and valued resources for modelers, wargamers, military buffs, and naval history researchers, academic, commercial, and private. Your expressed opinion of either website seems at best disingenuous, if not wholly ludicrous.
Hey, just to get back on topic, did anybody see how KERRY WIPED THE FLOOR WITH BUSH last night?
Hold that thought dearly, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort to you in November, as The Democrats once again try to figure out how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.
kuvasz wrote:Re: North Korean negotiations. One would have to be mentally retarded to want the US to engage the NK's in other than direct bilateral negotiations, especially when the alternative allows the Red Chinese to poke their noses under the tent and attempt to fashion any US/NK agreement to their own purposes and to the potential detriment of US national security.
Well, that would make me mentally retarded than wouldn't it? <shakes head> You still haven't figured out how Carter poked his nose in and created this mess, have you? Nor have you figured out how Clinton went right ahead and agreed to pay the terrorists ransom in exchange for a BS policy that totally failed. Now you are suggesting one must be mentally retarded to not wish to resume it. Get a grip. Or at least familiarize yourself with the results of the idiotic agreement you defend.
kuvasz wrote: Unless of course, one disagrees with the words last night of our beloved C-plus Augustus that other nations should have no say so in what the US deems is appropriate for its security, or perhaps wants the US beholden to the Red Chinese for their quite willing and cheerful assistance in dealing with the NKs.
What makes you think those are the only two scenarios? Btw, do you believe in this unilateral approach to everything?
kuvasz wrote: Even George Bush, as stupid as he is, and he is quite stupid, is not so stupid to want to owe the Red Chinese for helping the US with NK when it is unnecessary and places into the hands of the Red Chinese an additional chit they can cash in during future trade and security negotiations with the USA.
I agree with most of this paragraph... and wonder how you could write it despite it being a direct contradiction to the previous two.
kuvasz wrote:Think again. By having the Red Chinese intercede with NK the US undermines its ability to protect Taiwan and pressure the Red Chinese on fair trade.
More voices have more leverage, Kuvasz, and since a nuclear free Korea is in everyone's best interest it only makes sense to unite against the murderous Kim. This fantasy of yours about owing China is only a possible side effect to Chinese involvement, not an automatic bi-product like you imply. I submit; it is you who needs to "think again".
Ps. You can get a snap shot of the history
here.
OCCOM BILL wrote: ... I submit; it is you who needs to "think again".
Given that to "think again" perforce would entail having thought in the first instance, there may be an insurmountable obstacle between your recommendation and its accomplishment by those to whom you offer the suggestion, Bill
timberlandko wrote:Hold that thought dearly, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort to you in November, as The Democrats once again try to figure out how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.
It's never been a mystery to me. The average American is an unspeakable ignoramus. That is the biggest problem facing liberalism.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Does anyone here believe, or believe that John Kerry believes that Bi-lateral talks with NK won't lead to the end of Multi-lateral talks?
Apparently so.
hi finn, how are ya?
have the multi-lateral talks produced anything yet? i mean anything new that haddened already been in place for 50 years?
Good grief DTOM you gave Iraq 11 years of UN resolutions and wanted more time still, do you really think that the NK problem can be resolved in less than 2 years?
hmmm. well i guess you're doing fine. lol!
i didn't ask about resolved. i asked about new results. i mean really, right now, all that has happened that i've heard of is that the bush administration has basically agreed to reinstate the things that clinton had been doing.
there's nothing new about north korea at all. li'l kim is no different than his dad. except shorter. the little ba$tard...
gee wizz. not everything is a full frontal attack on bush.
but since you brought it up, where's your patience when it comes to saddam 'shame??
haven't heard you gripe about castro, when i think of it.
waiting game? maybe he's gone toothless and we're just waiting for him to kick the bucket?
hmmmm...
Sorta reminds me of an old joke, ILZ ... a proud mother stood watching a parade. As a body of soldiers, among which was her son, marched smartly by, the matron turned to a freind and commented with disgust, "Look at 'em, will ya ... hundreds of 'em, and every one of 'em out of step but me dear Johnny"
Am watching the debate on the net and laughing my guts out on the Bush performance !!
What a joker !!
Bush got a bounce in the post debate polls.
The 10/1 state by state electoral numbers.
http://www.geocities.com/samboni1342/state_polls.htm
BUSH: 295
KERRY: 197
UNDECIDED: 46
malarky. every single one is PRE-debate.
sorry. my mistake... this one does say 9/28 -9/30. so it may be post debate;
Pennsylvania
21
44
45
Kerry +1
Mason-Dixon
9/28-9/30
625 LV
4%
Dem +4
DontTreadOnMe wrote:sorry. my mistake... this one does say 9/28 -9/30. so it may be post debate;
Not very likely: the debate took place in the evening of the 30th, the data for this poll was gathered on the 28th, 29th and the 30th. At the most it'll have included a narrow tailend margin of a sample from after the debate. And like you righthly pointed out, every single other poll included in the overview he linked to was from before the debate.
Not that I think Kerry is suddenly going to jump, like, 6% in the polls or anything, but we're not going to know one way or another for a few days still.
Multiple postings, multiple answers - this shouldn't get a habit :wink:
RfromP wrote:
Cut & paste, cut & paste. Are you capable of forming and expressing your own opinion?
Are you capable of ever backing up anything you say? I guess your opinion is gospel and we should all think like you do, because it's your "opinion". You are a fine example of a Kerry supporter. DAMN the posting of sources. If I didn't post the "source" you all would be crying, "Where is your source for that information?".
Typical Kerry supporter!
Twisted evil!
As the Kerry campaign hoped, he has gotten at least a slight bounce in the polls from this first debate. Expect the campaign to get very negative now as foreign vulnerable policy was Bush's strong suit and he is vulnerable on domestic policy issues.
Kerry Gets Momentum from Debate, Bush Attacks
By John Whitesides
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush lashed out at Democratic challenger John Kerry's "confusing contradictions" on Friday after a feisty first debate that gave new momentum to Kerry, who said Americans had finally heard the two rivals "talk about the truth."
The day after the first of three face-to-face encounters between the White House contenders, Kerry aides were buoyed by a flurry of polls crowning their candidate the winner and showing improved voter perceptions of him.
Bush responded aggressively at campaign stops in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. He ridiculed the Massachusetts senator's call for an international summit on Iraq and his remark that a preemptive U.S. strike should pass "a global test" of understanding and legitimacy.
CNN Link
"He (Bush) ridiculed the Massachusetts senator's call for an international summit on Iraq and his remark that a preemptive U.S. strike should pass "a global test" of understanding and legitimacy."
That reversion to type was not Kerry's finest moment in the debate.
Larry434 wrote:That reversion to type was not Kerry's finest moment in the debate.
Ok, good point. That's one side of a debate, on an issue that can and should be discussed. The problem seems to be that the Bush campaign has no intention of engaging in that debate and instead is resorting to ridicule. If one of the purposes of a presidential campaign, is the public airing of the issues of the day, by the major figures involved in the decision making, we are not getting it at the moment.
