Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

John Kerry: Nice wheels

Started by Doug Taylor · · Last activity · 414 posts · 15,640 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
6 April 2004
Last activity
18 June 2004
Original author
Doug Taylor
Posts
414
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
15,640
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 361–380 of 414
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. David Kerber said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob
    > Woodward is one of "you guys".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting
    a "gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth"
    as part of "anything"😉.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
    journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet
    members that served previous GOP administrations are
    disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

    Quoted message said:

    I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also
    trying to sell a book), but I have never believed a word
    Woodward has had to say, and if he says the same thing as
    someone else, then in my eyes it _reduces_ the original
    speaker's credibility.

    Quoted message said:

    How come these stories only come out from people who are
    trying to sell books?

    I think a different assessment than the utterly negative
    aspect given would be more appropriate. These books are
    written to document the subject in a way that cannot
    effectively be done in a press release, an interview, or
    panel discussion. That is true in world affairs as well as
    in this newsgroup on bicycles where an FAQ is written to
    document concepts accurately (in most cases) and for
    careful perusal.

    Why these books are brought to the public by a publisher
    should be obvious and that these publishers enlist the
    author to meet the public on book tours to answer questions
    and make a case for the books should also be apparent. Those
    who have attended such a book tour probably know that hard
    questions are asked and that the press reports on them.
    Writing and researching these works costs time and effort
    and deserves remuneration if they have any merit at all.
    That this is not the case has not been shown of any of the
    books in question. To say out of hand they are worthless
    lies, just because they are in print makes libraries into
    dens of iniquity from the outset. It's another thing to show
    where the author was wrong, but we haven't seen that here,
    only that the author is a liar.

    This reminds me of the readers of this newsgroup who think
    engineers are mindless nerds who have no practical
    experience or understanding of bicycles or they wouldn't be
    wasting time designing components instead of working at a
    bicycle shop where one is led to believe the real advances
    in technology take place.

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

  2. David Kerber said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob
    > Woodward is one of "you guys".

    Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting
    a "gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth"
    as part of "anything"😉.

    If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
    journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet
    members that served previous GOP administrations are
    disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

    I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also
    trying to sell a book), but I have never believed a word
    Woodward has had to say, and if he says the same thing as
    someone else, then in my eyes it _reduces_ the original
    speaker's credibility.

    What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's
    journalism? Did he misprepresent material facts in his
    reporting?

  3. Richard Ney said:
    David Kerber said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think
    >> Bob Woodward is one of "you guys".
    >
    > Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting
    > a "gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth"
    > as part of "anything"😉.

    If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker.
    Respected journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted
    cabinet members that served previous GOP administrations
    are disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

    I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's
    also trying to sell a book), but I have never believed a
    word Woodward has had to say, and if he says the same
    thing as someone else, then in my eyes it _reduces_ the
    original speaker's credibility.

    What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's
    journalism? Did he misprepresent material facts in his
    reporting?

    No, the media and DNC did.

    After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it
    seems that Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating
    that they took two sentences from the book way out of
    context, and that they were reaching a false conclusion
    when they want to use Woodward's book to accuse Bush of oil
    price fixing.

    That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions in
    the book (like Colin Powell not being privvy to war plans
    before Prince Bandar of Egypt, when in fact he was a major
    contributor to them and was briefed nearly daily on them).
    Woodward does have a history of letting drama overrule the
    cold facts - this book is apparently no different.

    Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the
    prices of oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was
    necessarily the wrong thing to do, but just to show that the
    effect of oil prices are far-reaching).

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame

  4. Mark Hickey said:

    After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it
    seems that Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating
    that they took two sentences from the book way out of
    context, and that they were reaching a false conclusion
    when they want to use Woodward's book to accuse Bush of
    oil price fixing.

    You must have glossed over the factual information
    cited from Woodwards book in preference for campaign
    rhetoric. What Woodward said is clearly cited in print,
    radio and TV media.

    Quoted message said:

    That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions
    in the book (like Colin Powell not being privy to war
    plans before Prince Bandar of Egypt, when in fact he was a
    major contributor to them and was briefed nearly daily on
    them). Woodward does have a history of letting drama
    overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
    different.

    I see you missed the "Fresh Air" interview of Bob Woodward
    in which the "drama" you assume was evident neither in the
    cited passages discussed not in his responses to questions
    about the book. I found his demeanor to be more like that
    of Richard Clarke, understatement. It was certainly not
    that of the members of the Bush cabinet who did not
    respond to questions under oath and replied dramatically
    about issues unrelated to the questions of the committee.
    Anyone not sleeping should have the first reaction, what
    were they hiding.

    Quoted message said:

    Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the
    prices of oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was
    necessarily the wrong thing to do, but just to show that
    the effect of oil prices are far-reaching).

    Are you saying that if Bill Clinton in fact manipulated
    gasoline prices that it must be OK for George Bush to do
    likewise. In so many words you seem to acknowledge that
    George Bush did intercede to influence fuel prices.

    Make up our mind on which side of the fence you stand.

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

  5. Mark Hickey said:

    After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it
    seems that Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating
    that they took two sentences from the book way out of
    context, and that they were reaching a false conclusion
    when they want to use Woodward's book to accuse Bush of
    oil price fixing.

    You must have glossed over the factual information
    cited from Woodwards book in preference for campaign
    rhetoric. What Woodward said is clearly cited in print,
    radio and TV media.

    Quoted message said:

    That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions
    in the book (like Colin Powell not being privy to war
    plans before Prince Bandar of Egypt, when in fact he was a
    major contributor to them and was briefed nearly daily on
    them). Woodward does have a history of letting drama
    overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
    different.

    I see you missed the "Fresh Air" interview of Bob Woodward
    in which the "drama" you assume was evident neither in the
    cited passages discussed nor in his responses to questions
    about them. I found his demeanor to be more like that of
    Richard Clarke, understatement. It was certainly not that of
    the members of the Bush cabinet who did not answer questions
    under oath but replied dramatically about issues unrelated
    to committee questions. The first reaction of anyone not
    sleeping should have been, what were they hiding.

    Quoted message said:

    Besides, Prince Bandar said Clinton asked him to keep the
    prices of oil down in 2000 (not that I even think that was
    necessarily the wrong thing to do, but just to show that
    the effect of oil prices are far-reaching).

    Are you saying that if Bill Clinton in fact manipulated
    gasoline prices, that it is OK for George Bush to do
    likewise. In so many words you seem to acknowledge that
    George Bush interceded to influence fuel prices.

    Make up our mind on which side of the fence you stand.

    Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

  6. Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:

    What is the basis for your disbelief of Woodward's
    journalism? Did he misprepresent material facts in his
    reporting?

    No, the media and DNC did.

    Politicians and their ilk lie.

    Quoted message said:

    After all of Kerry's lofty claims of "outrageousness", it
    seems that Bob Woodward hisownself has gone public stating
    that they took two sentences from the book way out of
    context, and that they were reaching a false conclusion
    when they want to use Woodward's book to accuse Bush of
    oil price fixing.

    See Supra.

    Quoted message said:

    That said, there are some obvious "stretched" conclusions
    in the book (like Colin Powell not being privvy to war
    plans before Prince Bandar of Egypt, when in fact he was a
    major contributor to them and was briefed nearly daily on
    them). Woodward does have a history of letting drama
    overrule the cold facts - this book is apparently no
    different.

    Woodward appeared on tonight's NewHour with Jim Lehrer. He
    repeated the sequence (Rice/Bandar/Powell) of who knew what
    when. If Woodward's claim was "false", the WH would state
    that in unequivocal terms. I have not heard such a
    statement. Powell's admissions of knowing about the
    warplans, being involved, and of supporting the plan do not
    refute Woodward's claim.

  7. Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    (JP) said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The unemployment rate is 5.7%, which is better than the
    average for any of the last three (or is it four?)
    decades. It's also the same number that Clinton
    (rightfully) bragged about during his reelection
    campaign. There have been approximately 800,000 jobs
    added since August - still not as fast as anyone would
    like, but job growth is a lagging indicator. Jobs go
    away after the economy starts down, and come back after
    it's heading back up.

    When you consider the long-term unemployed, those who
    have given up looking for work, the rate is more like
    7.1%. But go to some place like Ohio; they don't need you
    or me quoting a bunch of statistics- they know what the
    reality is.

    Yes, let's not pay any attention to the actual statistics.
    Rather, let's find a pocket that has been affected most
    and try to extrapolate that to the national level. Heh.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people
    out there who are so partisan that they HOPE the
    economic recovery stalls. Boggles the mind.

    The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that
    Americans don't fall for [censored] story that one month of
    job creation represents any kind of significant recovery.

    800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some
    statistical indicators showing the economy is "stalled"?
    C'mon, I know you can do
    it.

    I wonder how many of those jobs added are low wage, no
    benefits jobs that are filled by workers who used to work in
    better paying, skilled positions. If someone who worked in
    an IT call center for 20$/hr with benefits ends up working
    at Wal-Mart, is that really a bonus for the economy? For
    several reasons, that person's new job probably contributes
    a lot less to the U.S. economy than the previous one.

    I'm not trying to make a political statement, but stating
    that x amount of new jobs were added to the economy may not
    be the best indicator of it's current trend. Size isn't
    everything, right? :-)

    Peter.

  8. [email hidden] (Peter Van Buren) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that
    Americans don't fall for [censored] story that one month
    of job creation represents any kind of significant
    recovery.

    800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some
    statistical indicators showing the economy is "stalled"?
    C'mon, I know you can do
    it.

    The recession ended in 2001. Up until August (assuming
    you're right) there were no jobs created. Since then, only
    800k, an average of about 100k/jobs per month. The same data
    that shows 300k jobs created last month also shows that
    there was now wage growth. I don't know about you, but when
    there is no wage growth for American workers, and when jobs
    are being created at a paltry average of 100k/month, I will
    call that a stalled economy. You, OTOH, may wish to call an
    economy stalled when GDP is not growing. You are welcome to
    that definition if you like, but with around 2 *million*
    jobs lost since the economy started "growing" again, I'll
    stick with my definition.

    For comparison, as I stated before, Clinton had 23 months
    over eight years with 300k+ jobs; Bush has had one (1). Job
    creation lags behind recovery, but not to the degree we have
    seen under Bush. So I would say that this "recovery" is
    stalled at the part where jobs are created, because 100k
    jobs/month does not constitute recovery. If over the next
    year, the economy begins to create *good* jobs at the rate
    of 300k/month, then maybe we got something, but again, ONE
    MONTH OF JOBS DATA IS NOT A TREND OR A "RECOVERY"! And there
    is nothing about the economic conditions as I enumerated
    them previously that would cause me to put money on the
    economy continuing to grow over the next year enough to keep
    that rate up. But, if you're lucky (or unlucky, if you run a
    small business making relatively high-end low production
    titanium bicycle frames) the trend may last just long enough
    to get Bush re-elected before everything goes into the
    crapper again.

    Quoted message said:

    I wonder how many of those jobs added are low wage, no
    benefits jobs that are filled by workers who used to work
    in better paying, skilled positions.

    The jobs that were created were pretty lousy, mostly.

    Quoted message said:

    If someone who worked in an IT call center for 20$/hr with
    benefits ends up working at Wal-Mart, is that really a
    bonus for the economy?

    No.

    Quoted message said:

    For several reasons, that person's new job probably
    contributes a lot less to the U.S. economy than the
    previous one.

    Yep.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not trying to make a political statement, but stating
    that x amount of new jobs were added to the economy may
    not be the best indicator of it's current trend. Size
    isn't everything, right? :-)

    Bush/Rove will feed the public whatever they think they can
    get away with, which is just about anything, it appears. But
    there is an underlying truth: there is nothing about Bush
    economic planning that is designed to help people who net
    less than about $200k/year. Nothing.

    If you lose your current job, how long will you be
    unemployed and what are the chances that your next job will
    pay as much as the one you have now? For most people, their
    prospects are [censored]-poor.

    Hickey may call it a recovery; I call it [censored].

    JP

  9. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug Taylor
    [B]wonkette.comclass war alert 014496.php

    [censored], that bike's at least 10 years old -- no carbon, no titanium. Also, judging by the helmet, Senator Kerry hasn't been shopping in at leas 8 years.

  10. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug
    [B]17-Apr-02

    PHONY TO THE CORE: The "Ole Family Ranch" in Crawford is a
    Set Completed the Same Day the Election was Stolen By
    Cheryl Seal

    Have you seen all those article and pictures of Bush "at
    home on the ranch" in Crawford - the ones that imply that he
    is "just an ole ranch hand" more comfortable on the family
    homestead than in the "Big City," be it Austin or
    D.C.? Well, if you bought this image, you've been royally
    snuckered. The Bush family homestead in Crawford is
    nothing more than an elaborate set. The house, built in
    2000, was designed to be ready for Bush to step into -
    like a set awaiting an actor - during the 2000
    presidential election. Not only was the "ranch" created
    in 2000 - so, essentially, was the "town" of Crawford!
    Before then only about 400 people lived in the area. The
    Crawford Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture were formed
    shortly after the ranch was finished.

    The 1,600 acres on which the "ranch" sits was purchased in
    1999 for an undisclosed price, but it was a helluva lot less
    than the current real estate agents' appraisal of $1.2
    million. Yep, worth $1.2 million, but G.W. has a sweet deal
    at the tax appraiser's office, where the property is valued
    at about $988,000. Oh, and that "homey ole ranch house?"
    It's actually a 10,000-square-foot single level
    mansion/compound that won't even be 2 years old until this
    November! The compound features a swimming pool for
    daughters Jenna and Barbara, who apparently loudly demanded
    it - the Bushes call it the girls' "Whining pool." Btw - we
    hear Bush got a sweet deal on the house construction, (the
    cost, of course remains undisclosed): the builders came from
    a religious community in El Mott, Texas. The original
    completion date of the house was November 7 - election day
    2000. In other words, the curtain went up on the set on
    schedule for "show time." The very timing of this event
    indicates that Bush was absolutely confident that the
    election would be successfully engineered in his favor.

    The whole idea behind the ranch set, of course, was so that
    the public could be treated to footage of Bush seeking a
    quiet "retreat" at the family ranch. Americans would thus
    assume that the ranch was a rooted family homestead or
    compound like the one Kennedy's had in Martha's Vineyard or
    FDR had at Campobello. But when Bush retreated into his
    "homestead" in November, 2000, he was merely walking onto a
    prepared set upon which the paint had barely dried, let
    alone even the barest of roots put down! When we see photos
    of Bush bombing around the ranch in his leather jacket in
    his "ole pickup," supposedly knowing every tree and bush -
    it's all pure fantasy! If Bush knows every tree and bush
    after actually spending, all told, a total of about 2
    months on the ranch (if you put the odd days end to end)
    since it was bought, then I''d like to know when he found
    time to hold all those endless Crawford press conferences!
    Seems to me he'd be way too busy introducing himself to
    trees and bushes.

    Until Bush and handlers decided that a rural ranch would be
    a slick bit of PR for the presidential campaign, Bush had no
    interest in a "home on the range." Instead, his preferred
    weekend retreat was to the Rainbo Club, an exclusive
    lakeside hunting club in Henderson County, about an hour
    south of Dallas, much closer to the comforts of Austin. When
    a Bush run for president began to look like a pretty good
    bet, the 1,600 acres were bought and the Bushes started
    making weekend trips to a 60-year-old ranch house that
    existed on the property - not of course, before refurbishing
    it! - so they could build the "lore" that would take in the
    American public, hook, line and sinker.

    In an interesting side note - while Bush is anti-
    conservation in his presidential policies to please his
    corporate pals, in his OWN home, he has installed several
    conservation/energy saving features, including solar panels
    for heating water, rainwater collection for landscape
    irrigation, an air conditioning system that uses groundwater
    and a gray water recycling system. The obvious impression
    here is that Bush, being all PR show and no substance or
    real convictions, wants to cover all the bases. Block
    conservation when it is expedient, but have some
    conservation "stuff" to show off when that is expedient.

    So, in short, we have a "president" who, ON THE SAME DAY -
    November 7, 2000 - stole an election and had the last nail
    driven into a phony ranch set. But with a completely
    snuckered press corps, we also have had a completely
    snuckered public. And a platoon of completely snuckered
    world leaders, chief among them Blair and Putin, who have
    been hosted at the "ole ranch" set and completely taken in.
    Alas, the Crawford ranch is a symbol of the utter corporate
    phoniness of this administration. The whole scenario reminds
    me of those type of sophisticated con artists (like the ones
    who recently convinced several investors they could turn
    sand into gold! ) who blow into town, rent an upscale office
    space just long enough to give them enough credibility to
    hoodwink investors. Then, once they have fleeced enough
    "marks," they disappear. What makes the Bush case much, much
    worse is that I doubt he will disappear.

    Additional Notes on "Rancho Boguso" from Bonafide Texans

    Apparently Rancho Boguso has done time not just as a small-
    time cattle ranch but was once a pig farm as well! And
    those horses you see in photos? Window dressing only - Bush
    can't ride!!!

    Read with interest your article at Democrats.com. Being from
    Waco I know well what you say. Crawford first of all is
    closer to Waco than the Branch Davidian Compound but this is
    never said.

    For your information Bush was just given a saddle as a gift
    that is now on tour around the state. This saddle is of NO
    use to him since he does't ride horses. Ask Vincinte Fox -
    who wanted him to go riding on Bush's trip to Mexico.

    Another fact is that he doesn't own any of the cattle on
    his "ranch". They are the cattle of the previous owner,
    who helps run the "Movie Set". He's a cowboy with more hat
    than cattle.

    "MikeYankee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So what?

    Does anybody out there seriously believe that GWB,
    also born with a silver spoon in his mouth, is a man
    of the people?

    Mike Yankee

    (Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete
    everything after "com".) [/B]

    [/quote]

  11. [This is clearly the most important political information concerning our future votes. Thank you for such an incredibly detailed exposition on GWB’s not so old ranch. This info along with the knowledge that Kerry is a cyclist is enough to cement my vote….NOT! 🙄 🙄 🙄

  12. Well said ! I'm going to copy this to send to some of my non-cycling ABB (you know that's Anybody But Bush) friends.

    I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush dialogue. Then I remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high school who thought math and science were tough subjects - so they opted for shop class or history (isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?). Of course, they were happy if they broke 1000 on their SATs and got into the best "party college". Hey, they got college degrees (even though they didn't exactly understand what Economics was really about) and a job. They are now for Bush because they like his cliches (he has no substance). Then they join a Republican group, or babble with Rush or another similar mindless lemming support group.

    I'm basically a Southern Conservative. I'm for guns, a strong military, the death penalty, smaller government, and lower taxes. However, Bush is a walking nightmare. He has taken an economy with a major multi-hundred billion surplus and turned it into - what is it now - A 400 billion deficit? That is what is called bad management. At least Haliburton and the oil companies are making money. Do any of you numbnuts find it curious that our oil industry exective branch managers (Bush and Cheney - they are in what is called "The Executive Branch"😉 are managing our country during the largest gas price increase in the history of the country.

    So take it from someone who took those science, math, and econ courses, to put Bush and Cheney back in office for another 4 years will result in environmental, legal, and economic damage that will take many, many years for some quality leadership to repair.

    Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by Appkiller
    C'mon, the reason the guy was a clerk is 'cuz everyone knew
    he was a little short in the head and liked to drink A LOT.

    I am shocked every time I hear someone I regard as a real
    cyclist saying anything in support of "the environment will
    fix itself no matter what I do" Dumbya.

    Read this 41 page report and be very afraid and very angry.
    Bush doesn't care about our kids (no child left behind,
    unless, of course, it costs money), he doesn't care about
    water or air quality, in fact, I don't think he cares about
    anything unless he's told to.

    ucsusa.orgpage.cfm
    ageID=1322

    Get with the program and engage your brain - the triumvirate
    of pure evil (dumbya, cheney, rove) is motivated by greed
    and supported/enabled by stupidity. Have you paid attention
    to what they have been doing or have you been too busy
    wondering why the sign said "Mission Accomplished" but our
    kids keep dying?

    And how about that brilliant exit strategy - "we have a date
    but no plan and we don't know who we're gonna transfer power
    to but we're too busy thinking up lies about Kerry to worry
    about that". Damn fine strategery.

    Nice economy and deficit too. Nice jokes about WMD (hey,
    Brit Hume, screw you, you unfeeling [censored]).

    dumbya only is president because big business and the
    supremes put him there. He only got into an ivy league
    college 'cuz daddy put him there. He only got into the Guard
    'cuz daddy put him there. The only thing that he has brought
    to the table is his checkered past and minimal intellectual
    function, which, I guess, made him a perfect mannequin for
    the cheney/rove moron management team.

    I can see it:

    r: "No, George, its nu-ku-lar. Say it."

    s: "But Karl, all the smart people say nu-cle-ar."

    t: "Now, George, you know that you aren't smart and we
    don't like pretenders. Plus, if you sound like the idiot
    you are, the public won't be put off by your feigned
    ability to think, speak and understand at a level beyond
    their own."

    u: "Yes Karl - hey, can I have that beer now?"

    v: "No, George, remember, we told everyone you gave that up.
    And no more pretzels!"

    <Cheney walks in>

    w: "Got him trained yet?"

    x: "Yeah, Karl, am I trained yet? Hey, I gotta make wee-
    wee." <bumps his head on lamp as he leaves> "Doh."

    Holy [censored], this guy just blows the lid right off the old
    Peter Principle. But maybe I misunderestimate him. Make the
    pie higher! Put food on your family!

    App, who is looking forward to Bush trying to run for a
    third term on the grounds that he didn't really win the
    first time.

  13. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by Mark Hickey

    B (Appkiller) said:

    C'mon, the reason the guy was a clerk is 'cuz everyone knew
    he was a little short in the head and liked to drink A LOT.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    It's kinda funny don't you think?

    Those who are taking issues with Kerry generally state
    specific actions, quotes and voting records.

    Those who are taking issue with Bush figure foaming at the
    mouth and spewing vindictives will make their point
    sufficiently. It does make the point, but probably not the
    one you intend.

    Oh and BTW, the sailors aboard that boat put up the "Mission
    Accomplished" sign.. you should take it up with them.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame

    Quoted message said:

    I am shocked every time I hear someone I regard as a real
    cyclist saying anything in support of "the environment will
    fix itself no matter what I do" Dumbya.

    Read this 41 page report and be very afraid and very angry.
    Bush doesn't care about our kids (no child left behind,
    unless, of course, it costs money), he doesn't care about
    water or air quality, in fact, I don't think he cares about
    anything unless he's told to.

    ucsusa.orgpage.cfm
    geID=1322

    Get with the program and engage your brain - the
    triumvirate of pure evil (dumbya, cheney, rove) is
    motivated by greed and supported/enabled by stupidity. Have
    you paid attention to what they have been doing or have you
    been too busy wondering why the sign said "Mission
    Accomplished" but our kids keep dying?

    And how about that brilliant exit strategy - "we have a
    date but no plan and we don't know who we're gonna transfer
    power to but we're too busy thinking up lies about Kerry to
    worry about that". Damn fine strategery.

    Nice economy and deficit too. Nice jokes about WMD (hey,
    Brit Hume, screw you, you unfeeling [censored]).

    dumbya only is president because big business and the
    supremes put him there. He only got into an ivy league
    college 'cuz daddy put him there. He only got into the
    Guard 'cuz daddy put him there. The only thing that he has
    brought to the table is his checkered past and minimal
    intellectual function, which, I guess, made him a perfect
    mannequin for the cheney/rove moron management team.

    I can see it:

    r: "No, George, its nu-ku-lar. Say it."

    b: "But Karl, all the smart people say nu-cle-ar."

    r: "Now, George, you know that you aren't smart and we
    don't like pretenders. Plus, if you sound like the idiot
    you are, the public won't be put off by your feigned
    ability to think, speak and understand at a level beyond
    their own."

    b: "Yes Karl - hey, can I have that beer now?"

    r: "No, George, remember, we told everyone you gave that
    up. And no more pretzels!"

    <Cheney walks in>

    c: "Got him trained yet?"

    b: "Yeah, Karl, am I trained yet? Hey, I gotta make wee-
    wee." <bumps his head on lamp as he leaves> "Doh."

    Holy [censored], this guy just blows the lid right off the old
    Peter Principle. But maybe I misunderestimate him. Make the
    pie higher! Put food on your family!

    App, who is looking forward to Bush trying to run for a
    third term on the grounds that he didn't really win the
    first time. [/B]

    Hey Mark - you are lost in space. Try to get yourself some "lernin' ".

  14. leapn said:

    I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush
    dialogue. Then I remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high
    school who thought math and science were tough subjects -
    so they opted for shop class or history (isn't that what
    Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).

    Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.

    You must have some real credentials if you think that's
    weak... wanna impress us with 'em? Heh.

    <snipped the rest of the blather>

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame

  15. Mark Hickey said:
    leapn said:

    I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush
    dialogue. Then I remember all the dumb-asses I knew in
    high school who thought math and science were tough
    subjects - so they opted for shop class or history (isn't
    that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).

    Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.

    You must have some real credentials if you think that's
    weak... wanna impress us with 'em? Heh....

    Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons
    Shrub was admitted into Yale?

    Besides, what university would turn down a member of a
    prominent wealthy and powerful political family, considering
    the potential future financial rewards for that university?
    They are also likely to go to unusual measures (intensive
    personal tutoring, etc.) to make sure the scion scrapes by
    with a C average (like Shrub) and graduates.

    If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale
    and Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are
    obviously rather misguided.

    --
    Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

  16. Tom Sherman said:
    Mark Hickey said:
    leapn said:

    I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush
    dialogue. Then I remember all the dumb-asses I knew in
    high school who thought math and science were tough
    subjects - so they opted for shop class or history
    (isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).

    Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.

    You must have some real credentials if you think that's
    weak... wanna impress us with 'em? Heh....

    Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary
    reasons Shrub was admitted into Yale?

    Besides, what university would turn down a member of a
    prominent wealthy and powerful political family,
    considering the potential future financial rewards for
    that university? They are also likely to go to unusual
    measures (intensive personal tutoring, etc.) to make sure
    the scion scrapes by with a C average (like Shrub) and
    graduates.

    If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into
    Yale and Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are
    obviously rather misguided.


    Last time I checked it was pretty difficult to fly a
    fighter jet..... a little more of a brain stretch than
    peddling a bike! He has to have some intellligence,
    somewhere. Chris Dorn

  17. Tom Sherman said:

    Mark Hickey wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.

    You must have some real credentials if you think that's
    weak... wanna impress us with 'em? Heh....

    Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons
    Shrub was admitted into Yale?

    <snip>

    Spin it as you will, Bush earned a Bachelors in history from
    Yale and an MBA from Harvard, getting better grades along
    the way than the "intellectual" he ran against in 2000.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame

  18. Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into
    Yale and Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are
    obviously rather misguided.

    Hardly anyone ever seems to complain about affirmative
    action for dumbasses- the kids that grew up with every
    conceivable advantage, accomplished nothing and then went on
    to an Ivy League school (where they also accomplished
    nothing) based on a preference derived from their parents'
    wealth and power.

    At least the UT Law School had the common decency to reject
    Bush's application.

    JP

  19. Quoted message said:

    Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary
    reasons Shrub was admitted into Yale?

    How do you know that? Do you know what Bush's SAT
    scores were?

    Certainly, the admission rate for legacies is higher at top
    universities than for non-legacies. No question Bush's
    family had some role at Yale. Yet lots of well qualified
    students who are legacies and come from prominent families
    get denied at Yale (and other top schools)?

    But what about Harvard for his MBA? That is even more
    selective and no legacy advantage.

    You may not like Bush. I don't particularly care for him
    either. But it's wrong to say he's stupid. No one who gets
    elected president is stupid. He has led a privileged life.
    So has John Kerry. Big deal.

  20. Eagle Jackson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary
    reasons Shrub was admitted into Yale?

    How do you know that? Do you know what Bush's SAT
    scores were?

    566 verbal, 640 math. Average of the Yale freshman class was
    670/705 at that time.

    Quoted message said:


    Certainly, the admission rate for legacies is higher at
    top universities than for non-legacies. No question Bush's
    family had some role at Yale. Yet lots of well qualified
    students who are legacies and come from prominent families
    get denied at Yale (and other top schools)?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.