WHO WON THE DEBATE?

I took all the money today...and I did it with an 87. My game has been in the toilet recently...so a day with enough pars to keep me under bogey golf was a blessing.

I cannot tell you how much I would enjoy playing with McG and Bill. Gotta think this out a bit more...but who knows.

Maybe it will happen.

Although considering the posts you guys have both made in the political threads...it probably should wait until quite a bit after the election.

Go Jints!!!

I never got an 87 Frank but I can break 100 pretty regularly...my hat is off. It's the hardest game.

Bear, so sorry I missed your Myrtles post but the late 70's when we were touring is a haze if you know what I mean.One thing I picked up was a love of shag music, I have quite a collection.

Who won the 3rd Kerry-Bush debate is as useful a question as who won the third inning of the Yanks-Bosox game last night. The "game" not a single inning, nor is a single debate the entire campaign, and although the tactics played in an inning are a part of over-all game strategy and can have consequences in latter innings and the direction of a campaign can be affected by a single (or series of) debate(s), they are not the entire campaign.

What has been made clear from this debate and in conjunction with the previous two debates is that American viewers have been able to see an image of John Kerry unfiltered by the distorting prism of $100,000,000 of an anti-Kerry Bushevik propaganda smear, and apparently from the indications of most political polling, the more the public sees of him unfiltered and in juxtaposition with George Bush the more they like what they see of John Kerry. That is of course, based upon polling, so if one disputes the polling one can logically dispute this conclusion.

It has been clear for quite a while that around 50% or more of the American public do not consider that George Bush has done a good job as president overall. Niggling specifics about whether the public likes George Bush's approach to the "war on terra" is, like the aforementioned middle inning of little consequence as a stand alone issue.

John Kerry's strategy, a sound one from his perspective, has been to use the debates for tactical advantage to arrive at a place in the minds of a sufficient number of Americans to be a viable alternative to George Bush as president come election day.

Clearly, he has done just that.

In a direct way under our republican constitution, I consider defeating a sitting American president in his/her re-election bid a psychological form of regicide by plebiscite, and as Americans on the whole seem to be essentially satisfied peasants, they are going to have to be very uncomfortable with the current devil they know or sufficiently comfortable with the devil they don't know quite as well to reject a sitting president.

To many, John Kerry may well be the fruit of the loins of Beelzebub, but as the seconds tick away until November 2nd, George Bush looks like Old Scratch himself to many more.

Today, for the first time ever, I believe that John Kerry will win the upcoming election, and I think that because of his performance in the three debates he has satisfied enough Americans that he is a viable alternative to George Bush and that he is capable of doing as good or better than the current occupant of the White House.

But as we know, opinions are like a$$holes; we all have them, and as we also know, both abound on able2know.com.

I have a friend that has liberal leanings. I have finally convinced them to say they "may actually vote for Bush because Kerry has so little to offer."

And yes...I do think Bush is a moron.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And yes...I do think Bush is a moron.

Frank, you do a disservice to and insult morons everywhere.

Frank
If Bush is a moron what does that say about the American people who put and may keep him in office?

Consider his is the finger that could trigger Armageddon.

The Fundie Christians WELCOME Armageddon and would HASTEN it... to prove their devotion.