on Bush and his crashes



In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (George Herbert Walker) wrote:
>
>Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:15:48 GMT, Java Man
>> <[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:

>
>> >And he didn't during the debates. Based on performance, I doubt he was
>> >electronically assisted.

>
>Based on performance, he is obviously electronically assisted. But-


The stress is obviously getting to you and your web of lies have
become irreparably tangled.

>> Or he was assisted poorly.

>
>-why not listen and watch GWB's own assessment of the quality of his
>assistants, and of their role in his political life:


If you wish to know the mind of a man, listen to his words.

>http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/2004/10/BushUncensored.mov
>
>Our God-fearing, Christian, born-again, holy President and Messiah in
>chief couldn't be a petulant, French-clothed,
>Georges-de-Paris-tailored, preening, vulgar jackass who gives the "up
>yours" to female assistants, could he?


Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
enough to take indecent advantage of them.

--
Lady Chatterly

"I don't shoot blanks, Chatterbot. Now *you*, on the other hand..." --
Chris Krolczyk
 
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:06 GMT, Lady Chatterly
<[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:

>Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
>enough to take indecent advantage of them.


Who are you accusing of taking advantage of you?
 
In article <[email protected]> Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:06 GMT, Lady Chatterly
><[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:
>
>>Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
>>enough to take indecent advantage of them.

>
>Who are you accusing of taking advantage of you?


We all know he's an attention ****. What type of **** are you?

--
Lady Chatterly

"I have similar filter and it marks such posts as Read in Agent, and
the funny thing is, most of those posts from that kook "Lady
Chatterly" were following my posts. I must have angered that bot
somehow." -- Sports Fan
 
[email protected] (George Herbert Walker) wrote:

<snip>
>With you, it's always difficult to know whether you simply don't have
>a clue what you are talking about, or are deliberately attempting to
>divert, obfuscate, mislead and confuse. The latter seems more
>plausible here, because I specifically denied that the so-called wire
>beneath his tie was that, and yet you still keep going back to it.
>
>I am talking about the cable visible on his back, going from the
>device to his neck. I presume you have asked, "why is it so thick when
>I could make it thinner, since earphone wires are so thin and could be
>even thinner?". Bzzzz: the systems available for this puporse, such as
>in the link I provided above, do not use a wire to the ear. They use a
>wire to the neck, and the system works by induction. As you can see
>from the link, the wires are about the thickness of those observed
>under Bush's jacket. That is the way these things are made and that is
>what he wore.

<snip>

Please make an effort to at least TRY to keep up here, "George".

The discussion that I was participating in was the other conspiracy
theory (...'scuse me, ONE of the other conspiracy theories) that had
"photographic proof" of a large cable running outside the POTUS' shirt
and under his tie.

I guess you'd like to start a discussion as to why the most powerful
man on earth would have to use a wire large enough to be visible
through his jacket when any police department can wire up any
crackhead so even a reasonably good pat-down won't discover the wire.

If so, please carry on without me.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
On 28 Oct 2004 09:02:37 -0700, [email protected] (George Herbert
Walker) said in rec.radio.scanner:

>-why not listen and watch GWB's own assessment of the quality of his
>assistants, and of their role in his political life:
>
>http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/2004/10/BushUncensored.mov


Kind of sums it all up, doesn't it? He's a one-fingered kind of guy.

>Our God-fearing, Christian, born-again, holy President and Messiah in
>chief


You left out college-failing-except-for-Papa, military deserting,
lying, etc.

>couldn't be a petulant, French-clothed,
>Georges-de-Paris-tailored, preening, vulgar jackass who gives the "up
>yours" to female assistants, could he?


Any friend of his god's can't be trusted. After all, they believe
that no lie in the furtherance of their beliefs is wrong. One of
their religion's founding fathers said so.
 
In article <[email protected]> Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On 28 Oct 2004 09:02:37 -0700, [email protected] (George Herbert
>Walker) said in rec.radio.scanner:
>
>>-why not listen and watch GWB's own assessment of the quality of his
>>assistants, and of their role in his political life:
>>
>>http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/2004/10/BushUncensored.mov

>
>Kind of sums it all up, doesn't it? He's a one-fingered kind of guy.


She just has to hope they never tell each other what she said about
them to the other.

>>Our God-fearing, Christian, born-again, holy President and Messiah in
>>chief

>
>You lef




>>couldn't be a petulant, French-clothed,
>>Georges-de-Paris-tailored, preening, vulgar jackass who gives the "up
>>yours" to female assistants, could he?

>
>Any friend of his god's can't be trusted. After all, they believe
>that no lie in the furtherance of their beliefs is wrong. One of
>their religion's founding fathers said so.


Who are your friends?

--
Lady Chatterly

"You are singled out because you basically suck at life and you are
stalked by a bot." -- The Most Offensive (Phuk Yew)
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> The discussion that I was participating in was the other conspiracy
> theory


Nice try. In fact, you replied to me. By the way, when will you be
shipping out to Baghdad? $15,000 signing bonus you know.

> If so, please carry on without me.



Pleasure. Why don't you hook up with Lady Chatterly? Your analyses
have much in common.

After Nov 2nd, or more realistically, sometime in 2005, perhaps we
will all have the pleasure of carrying on without GWB and the
Halliburton pimp. Imagine, they just sent the Halliburton pimp out to
Hawaii in the hopes of swinging the vote Republican! Or was it to keep
him off the mainland, with things so close?

--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son.
Send us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

Most Sincerely, George and Bar
 
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:15:49 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
said in rec.radio.scanner:

>I guess you'd like to start a discussion as to why the most powerful
>man on earth would have to use a wire large enough to be visible
>through his jacket when any police department can wire up any
>crackhead so even a reasonably good pat-down won't discover the wire.


Maybe his handlers aren't as smart as the average cop. (Look at who
their boss is.)
 
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 1:15:23 GMT, Lady Chatterly
<[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:

>In article <[email protected]> Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:06 GMT, Lady Chatterly
>><[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:
>>
>>>Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
>>>enough to take indecent advantage of them.

>>
>>Who are you accusing of taking advantage of you?

>
>We all know he's an attention ****. What type of **** are you?


Not yours, dear. Sorry.
 
In article <[email protected]> Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 1:15:23 GMT, Lady Chatterly
><[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:
>
>>In article <[email protected]> Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:06 GMT, Lady Chatterly
>>><[email protected]> said in rec.radio.scanner:
>>>
>>>>Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
>>>>enough to take indecent advantage of them.
>>>
>>>Who are you accusing of taking advantage of you?

>>
>>We all know he's an attention ****. What type of **** are you?

>
>Not yours, dear. Sorry.


You take everything far too literally my dear.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Do you think that Alexander Mulligan, a super-eco commune resident
who takes a break from his regular commune duties and hikes all the
way into Bellingham every day in order to use Bruce Burhans' internet
account so he can engage in trivial bickering, is also a woman named
"Lady Chatterly", who does exactly the same thing?" -- Tom
 
George Herbert Walker wrote:
-snip insult Cheney-

I kinda like the guy but your gratuitous insult reminds me
of a poll result I read recently in which people's positive
and negative impressions were queried. An awful lot of
people, something like 40%, dislike Cheney. And deeply too.
I was amazed.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:35:55 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]> said
in rec.radio.scanner:

>George Herbert Walker wrote:
>-snip insult Cheney-


>I kinda like the guy


Running the government isn't a popularity contest.

>but your gratuitous insult reminds me
>of a poll result I read recently in which people's positive
>and negative impressions were queried. An awful lot of
>people, something like 40%, dislike Cheney. And deeply too.
>I was amazed.


Are you also amazed at how many young children like Santa Claus?
(It's called human nature. We like roly-poly nice guys and we dislike
slimy liars.)
 
Al Klein wrote:

[cross-posts deleted]

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:35:55 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]> said
> in rec.radio.scanner:
>
>
>>George Herbert Walker wrote:
>>-snip insult Cheney-

>
>
>>I kinda like the guy

>
>
> Running the government isn't a popularity contest....


I thought elections were a popularity contest. Too many people choose
the candidate they vote for on personal like/dislike rather than policy. :(

The current state of US elections can be seen as a reality TV show where
we find out on November 2 who gets kicked off the island (unless it goes
into litigation, prolonging the series).

--
Tom Sherman
 
Al Klein wrote:

> (It's called human nature. We like roly-poly nice guys and we dislike
> slimy liars.)


Which is why Kerry can't climb in the polls, despite the spate of bad news
last few months.

Bill "people recognize dirtbags (m *&* f)" S.
 
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> George Herbert Walker wrote:
> -snip insult Cheney-
>
> I kinda like the guy but your gratuitous insult reminds me
> of a poll result I read recently in which people's positive
> and negative impressions were queried. An awful lot of
> people, something like 40%, dislike Cheney. And deeply too.
> I was amazed.


I find this so amazing I don't know if you are serious or joking, so I
may as well take the time to list some of the Halliburton pimp's
greatest hits:

-Arrest for drunk driving (see the Smoking Gun for the rap sheet)
-Didn't go to Vietnam because he "had better things to do":
In fact the way he got out was especially sleazy: besides his college
deferments, there was for a certain period an exception for married
men. When this was set to expire, he headed off at full speed to Vegas
with Lynne to get married just before deadline. Then when the
exemption for those with children was set to expire, good ol' Lynne
got pregnant just in time.
-Record in congress: talk about a do-nothing congressman. He is
notable only for voting against head start, against a holiday to
commemorate MLK, against meals on wheels for seniors, and similar
scrooge-like things. Zero actually doing anything positive.
-Record at Halliburton: a disaster. Despite all the baksheesh he has
sent their way as VP, they may lose money this year, the legacy of the
disastrous decisions he made as CEO.
-Back then, lobbied to get sanctions lifted from Iraq and Iran.
HYPOCRITE.
-Remember the debate with Lieberman? The latter pointed out that Mr
**** Cheney had done pretty well under Clintonomics. The Halliburton
pimp's response: "I assure you the government had nothing to do with
it." LIAR- ALL his money is government welfare. He would never have
had his job at Halliburton if not for his government contacts, since
he had no business experience, and Halliburton lives off the
government teat.
-Remember the California "energy crisis" and his role in that? DO
NOTHING. Let GWB's buddies at Enron defraud the nation and nearly
succeed in forcing California into bankruptcy. Real people suffered
mightily because he was too lazy and too ideological to DO HIS JOB, MR
ENERGY POLICY.
-Remember how he went about making energy policy? Let the megalopolies
write it for him in secret, behind closed doors. American public, keep
out!
-Like every one else in the Bush administration, he did nothing about
Al Qaeda, until it was too late.
-Rigged the intelligence process to make sure there was an excuse to
invade Iraq.
-"I'm at the Senate most Tuesdays, and Senator, this is the first time
we've met"; "I don't know why things have gotten so nasty." YEAH? Well
for years now he never meets ANYBODY from the other side of the aisle
except to say "Go F-CK yourself", and he's actually presided over the
Senate something like two or three times during the whole Bush
administration.
-Ordered the outing of Valerie Plame? If Kerry gets in, we may find
out. Fuggedaboutit if Bush gets in again.

It goes on and on.

--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son,
and his sleazeball VP. Send us the bill for all the damages, and we
can settle this to your satisfaction, without any need for a public
record of the incident.

Most Sincerely, George and Bar
 
Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:35:55 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]> said
> in rec.radio.scanner:
>


> Running the government isn't a popularity contest.


Yup. Under these bozos, it seems more like a fealty contest:

--------------------------------------------------------------
One Nation Under Bush
At a campaign rally, Republicans recite the "Bush Pledge."
By Chris Suellentrop
Updated Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004, at 10:44 PM PT

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla-"I want you to stand, raise your right hands,"
and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The
assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an
hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated
after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my
family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work
hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United
States."

I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who
attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I
have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one. Maybe they've
replaced the written oath with a verbal one.

This may be the first and only time the "Bush Pledge" has been taken
at an event I've attended (or any event for that matter), but I'm not
the best witness. One of the unfortunate drawbacks of traveling with a
presidential candidate is that you arrive at a political rally when he
does, which means you arrive right before he speaks. Neither President
Bush nor John Kerry spends a lot of time waiting backstage while the
warm-up acts address the crowd. Those speakers are timed to end when
the candidate arrives (although, given that Kerry is habitually late,
I wonder if they tell the introductory speakers to go long), so the
traveling press typically misses their remarks.

Because I've been traveling "outside the bubble" of the campaign
planes for the past week, I arrived at a Thursday rally for Laura Bush
before it began, and I sat with the local press. For only the second
time, I witnessed a Bush campaign event in full. It wasn't a
particularly notable experience, except for the fact that it opened
with that weird pledge of fealty, reminiscent of the cultlike cheer
that Wal-Mart forces its employees to perform. There were a few good
lines, such as this one from Florida state Sen. Mike Haridopolos: "Our
president likes to sign the front of your check. His opponent likes to
sign the back of your check." But the second-most memorable event was
a remarkably mendacious speech given by U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, a
Republican from Florida's 16th District.

Foley had the gall to condemn Kerry for his "reckless disregard for
the facts" in a speech in which the least of his errors came when he
sloppily claimed that John Edwards has served in the U.S. Senate for
four years, rather than six. The main target of Foley's attack was
Kerry's criticism of the president for allowing the al-Qaqaa weapons
dump to be looted, presumably by terrorists, during a war that was
designed precisely to prevent such an event from occurring. "The
senator from Massachusetts immediately grabbed onto that without doing
any checking, any fact-checking. He didn't even call Dan Rather,"
Foley said. But "NBC News followed up saying, oh-ho, not so fast. We
don't have all the facts yet. Yet he went on national TV and
announced, with reckless disregard for the facts, that somehow during
George Bush's administration, these weapons were stolen." Foley's
right in one sense, that we still don't have all the facts. But here's
a fact that emerged after Foley's speech: Former weapons inspector
David Kay said on CNN after viewing the footage of the site filmed by
ABC News, "There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite
frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal
broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I
mean, to rephrase the so-called Pottery Barn rule. If you open an arms
bunker, you own it. You have to provide security."

Foley continued, "Well, folks, one thing it does prove: There were
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we went there." Well, um,
there were weapons. The explosives weren't biological, chemical, or
nuclear. And they were locked up by the international weapons
inspectors derided by the administration, and they were "liberated" by
the president's war. But instead of concluding that the war was a
mistake, or at least that it should have been conducted differently,
Foley declared, "The other thing it proves is that Saddam Hussein was
the most important weapon of mass destruction to remove, and this
president took him down." If we invaded North Korea and that country's
nuclear weapons ended up in the hands of al-Qaida, would that prove
that the invasion was a success?

But if you don't believe the Iraq invasion was justified, you can
still vote for President Bush because he hugs little girls and, most
important of all, he threw a baseball. After telling the audience of
his personal experience of Sept. 11, Foley revisited the story of Bush
throwing out the first pitch of the World Series in 2001, which
received a hilariously somber treatment in a video narrated by Fred
Thompson at the Republican convention. Like any tall tale, the story
has become more and more embroidered with time. In Foley's version,
the president boldly strode to the mound "without a bulletproof vest."
But the entire point of the convention video was that throwing the
ball from the mound was so difficult because Bush's arms were
restricted by a bulletproof vest.

I'm not sure which is crazier, thinking that al-Qaqaa proves that the
Iraq war was justified, or that President Bush stood on the mound at
Yankee Stadium less than two months after 9/11 without wearing a flak
jacket. Based on his speech, Mark Foley is either delusional or he has
a serious problem telling the truth. But you can't blame him. He's
probably angling for a job in a second Bush administration.

Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief.

--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son.
Send us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

Most Sincerely, George and Bar
 
George Herbert Walker wrote:

>>Running the government isn't a popularity contest.

>
>
> Yup. Under these bozos, it seems more like a fealty contest:


Considering the way many Bush II supporters ignore facts, a cult would
be a better description.

--
Tom Sherman
 
Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > >> Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> >> What is your source for that? Even the UN weapons inspection report
> > >> >> stated that Iraq probably had 10,000 liters (!) of viable anthrax.
> > >> >> Maybe that doesn't constitute a "very big" threat to you - but it's
> > >> >> off the scale to me (think of what a few grams of the stuff did to our
> > >> >> postal system and Washington DC).
> > >> >
> > >> >There is a HUGE difference between your putative "10,000 liters of
> > >> >viable anthrax" and the stuff used in the US letters. Like comparing
> > >> >bicycles and locomotives because they both have wheels.
> > >>
> > >> I suppose you think you could use the Iraqi anthrax as topping for
> > >> your breakfast cereal?
> > >
> > >Actually, yes, In all seriousness that probably would not be a problem.

> >
> > Remind me not to eat at your house. The award for the most delusional
> > post of the week is in the mail. It wasn't easy with this crowd, but
> > you came through the clear winner.

>
> Instead of calling me delusional, why don't you tell me what you know
> about anthrax that contradicts what I said? You are obviously an
> expert, and can perhaps correct the errors of my microbiology and
> infectious disease professors when they were laying down the basics
> for me years ago.


Dear Mark and Jim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3996067.stm

Perhaps the two hundred dead hippos killed by
anthrax in Uganda tested the theory that anthrax
can be eaten on cereal?

Apparently, the late hippos also invited fourteen
unfortunate Cape buffalo to breakfast.

Authorities are "telling people not to panic" and
"to stop eating hippo meat."

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:

>Dear Mark and Jim.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3996067.stm
>
>Perhaps the two hundred dead hippos killed by
>anthrax in Uganda tested the theory that anthrax
>can be eaten on cereal?
>
>Apparently, the late hippos also invited fourteen
>unfortunate Cape buffalo to breakfast.
>
>Authorities are "telling people not to panic" and
>"to stop eating hippo meat."


I'm on the way to clean out my freezer now!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] (Carl Fogel) writes:

> Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> Jim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> What is your source for that? Even the UN weapons inspection report
> > > >> >> stated that Iraq probably had 10,000 liters (!) of viable anthrax.
> > > >> >> Maybe that doesn't constitute a "very big" threat to you - but it's
> > > >> >> off the scale to me (think of what a few grams of the stuff did to our
> > > >> >> postal system and Washington DC).
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There is a HUGE difference between your putative "10,000 liters of
> > > >> >viable anthrax" and the stuff used in the US letters. Like comparing
> > > >> >bicycles and locomotives because they both have wheels.
> > > >>
> > > >> I suppose you think you could use the Iraqi anthrax as topping for
> > > >> your breakfast cereal?
> > > >
> > > >Actually, yes, In all seriousness that probably would not be a problem.
> > >
> > > Remind me not to eat at your house. The award for the most delusional
> > > post of the week is in the mail. It wasn't easy with this crowd, but
> > > you came through the clear winner.

> >
> > Instead of calling me delusional, why don't you tell me what you know
> > about anthrax that contradicts what I said? You are obviously an
> > expert, and can perhaps correct the errors of my microbiology and
> > infectious disease professors when they were laying down the basics
> > for me years ago.

>
> Dear Mark and Jim.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3996067.stm
>
> Perhaps the two hundred dead hippos killed by
> anthrax in Uganda tested the theory that anthrax
> can be eaten on cereal?
>
> Apparently, the late hippos also invited fourteen
> unfortunate Cape buffalo to breakfast.
>
> Authorities are "telling people not to panic" and
> "to stop eating hippo meat."
>
> Carl Fogel


From the article:

"We're telling people not to panic and stop eating hippo meat."

Clearly the Ugandan officials feel that eating the meat is safe and
one should not stop due to misplaced fear. No backwater banana
republic that Uganda either.

Thank you Carl for pointing out that the people in charge support my
choice of cereal topping. My theory has passed the global test. I
feel vindicated.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
35
Views
3K
Road Cycling
Richard Adams
R
C
Replies
36
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Richard Adams
R
D
Replies
26
Views
874
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D
M
Replies
0
Views
353
Road Cycling
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des ang
M