it depends wot ur definition of is is

* the wsjoped is astonishing in its rabidity. its hurts me to read it, but read it i must when im feeling sufficiently brave (not very often). they make faux look tame "These are bitter-enders who will never surrender and have to be killed.... As we've said, we think the stronger Kerry ground, on politics and substance, would be to criticize President Bush for not prosecuting the war fiercely enough." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005638

* words mean so little - this from wsj "The only lesson Kerry seems to have learned since 1971 is that it isn't a good idea to demonize American servicemen as war criminals. (Though he remains too stubborn to apologize for having done so then.)" the flipflopper is too stubborn... http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005637

* smalltown: today i saw a mother who was old enuff to be a mother.

* i dont have much sympathy 4 gaygop hypocrites http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=293

* "This column has reported for a decade that South Korea had continued a covert nuclear program. Japan, according to my Asian intelligence sources, also developed a covert program capable of producing nuclear weapons in under three months. North Korea has 2-9 nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them over all Japan and as far as Hawaii and the U.S. I also believe Taiwan likely has an advanced, secret nuclear weapons program." iran is toast. btw - i havent got a clue about that explosion in nthkorea except to say that it was astonishing how many times i was told it "wasnt a nuke" - even before there was any story about it maybe being a nuke, "it wasnt a nuke" . http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0919-01.htm

* if (becos) the 'debate' terms are tightly controlled for bush, he will 'beat' kerry. and they will be. and he prolly will. thats just sad. if kerry doesnt say 'W is Wrong' 100 times then he is toast.

* "According to the September 12 Washington Post: “The IAEA, which has suspected South Korea of violating the non-proliferation treaty for six years" who'd have thunk/heard? iran is toast.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/599/599p15.htm

* nader is the only 'no-war' candidate

* btw - imagine if nader actually worked *against* bush by taking some of the far right vote instead of the ABB crowd which will prolly vote overwhelmingly jfk.

* who'd have thunk? the patriot killed a british helicopter and they tried to cover it up http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/19/friendly_fire_shootdown?mode=PF - and theres a missile shield launching untested in a coupla months.

* the funny thing about the election swinger rhetoric is that it seems to assume 3 groups - bush voters, kerry voters, and voters who havent decided. i havent seen a single poll that does a national qnaire across both voters and nonvoters - and therefore we have a lot of foucs on people who will apparently vote but havent decided who for, without even looking at those who are pro-kerry or bush, but need to be convinced to actually vote. if we see all this attention on swingvoters (ie those who will vote buit havent decided who for), then surely the elasticity in the will/wont vote curve is equally important. we see those stories of people trying to sign up voters, but theres not the slightst bit about the elasticity or importance (in aggregegate) of these efforts. its an odd omission. its an obvious question.


________________________________________________________________________________
Your More Fears. Your More Fears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com