document.write(' | ');document.write("robert");document.write("
CA
11/12/2004 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("democrats have hate for a platform and therefore can only work against the president.");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Jeffrey");document.write("
MN
11/7/2004 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("It was interesting to hear the commentator bring up the possibility of fraud in the reporting of the exit polls. Many think that the exit polls may have been correct and the election results tainted. Like the precinct in Columbus that created 4000 Bush votes out of thin air. Are their others? I’m certain that the results will be audited by impartial 3rd parties. I’m not complaining though. I love the one party state. No messy need to consider the opinions that don’t agree with our own. World opinion be damned. The Bible guides me into Faluja and righteousness. One nation bathed in blood. God bless the USA. ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Mike Rinner");document.write("
CO
11/6/2004 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("Susan Lee believes that Bush can't claim a mandate on economic issues becauase 80% of the 20% who identified economic issues as most important voted for Kerry. What fuzzy thinking! What this really means is that only 16% of voters were strongly in favor of income redistribution and for the government to create jobs. [Susan's words] I would submit that most of the remaining 84% of voters believe the opposite, that this wasn't one of the defining issues for them, but that Bush's ecomic positions are simply part of the overall mix of his policies that make up his mandate. So 16% disagree most strongly with the president's economic policies invalidate a mandate for them? I'm sure that 16% also disagreed so strongly about the president's moral positions that this would have been the most important issue to them, but for the fact that the Democrats had already convinced them to hate Bush for other reasons - but I don't hear anyone saying that the President lacks a mandate to pursue moral issues. ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Jack");document.write("
OH
11/6/2004 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("It appears that these message boards have been ABUSED by at least two BUSH HATERS, Robert Mortimer in MA (no surprise!) and Steve in FL, who thought that it is OK to post comments totally irrelevant to the PBS WSJ Editors show. I wonder why the above WSJ EDITORS did not EDIT these unacceptable and OFFENSIVE comments out of the list of WELL INTENTIONED comments by all the other posters?");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Jerry");document.write("
AZ
11/6/2004 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("I am not sure what some recent viewers - commentators are doing watching your show. They obviously strongly disagree with the majority of your opinions, and they would be far happier watching other PBS Shows. ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' |
|  |
');