Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

  • Thread starter Blair P. Houghton
  • Start date



Howard Kveck <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I mean, apparently this is an item that you seem to believe needs
>> to be kept in the public eye. Why is that? Do you believe that
>> Kerry will have a chance in the next election when he'll have to
>> run against Bob Kerrey or John McCain?

>
> Is that the same John McCain that heroic John O'Neill spent the
> primary season in the 2000 campaign trashing as "mentally unstable"
> and "brainwashed by the North Vietnamese while he was in captivity"?
> Do you really think that he'll get the Republican nod in '08? He
> simply does not fit in with the plan of action the Repubs are
> running now. Besides, he seems to have some integrity.


There are other candidates warming up on the Republican side, and I am
sure this is also true on the Democratic side. I highly doubt that
John McCain will be the Republican candidate, as he is not rabidly
partisan enough and is seen as too liberal and too independent by the
power brokers in the RNC. It's a shame, really- McCain is one of the
Republicans who does come across as having integrity and intelligence,
in a party co-opted by extremists and idealogues.

Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats still have their heads
up their asses, looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. They
will not mount a successful challenge in 2008.



Here's a Canadian perspective on the fallout from the election:


The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada
has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols
to stop the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among
leftleaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray
and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of
sociology professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing
their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day,
and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba
farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could
spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have
any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher
fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers
that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.

"Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and
Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals
near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive
them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an
Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of
drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet,
though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often
wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors
have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing
re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic
beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes
ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as
senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription
drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered
wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and
quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk
Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are
creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan
Sarandon movies.

"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just
can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history
majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada,
Vice President **** Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and
pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals,
a source close to Cheney said. "We're going to have some Peter, Paul &
Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage
stamps. The president is determined to reach out."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are other candidates warming up on the Republican side, and I am
> sure this is also true on the Democratic side. I highly doubt that
> John McCain will be the Republican candidate, as he is not rabidly
> partisan enough and is seen as too liberal and too independent by the
> power brokers in the RNC. It's a shame, really- McCain is one of the
> Republicans who does come across as having integrity and intelligence,
> in a party co-opted by extremists and idealogues.


That's exactly how I've seen it regarding a McCain candidacy for a few
years. It seems to become even more true as time marches on, too. They sure
are willing to use him in a campaign, though.

> Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats still have their heads
> up their asses, looking for the light at the end of the tunnel.


Probably an accurate statement, Tim. But it's still early days, and
there have been some good and interesting discussions going on (just
starting, however) regarding the direction the campaigns and messages are
going to go, as well as who will be delivering 'em.

> They will not mount a successful challenge in 2008.


As I said, it's still early days...

> Here's a Canadian perspective on the fallout from the election:
>
> The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada
> has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols
> to stop the illegal immigration.


(snipper)

Now that's pretty funny... Thanks.

--
tanx,
Howard

"You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911"
Atomic 7

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:51:05 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>FactCheck.org was one of the few sane, non-partisan sources of
>>>factual information during the last election. With the level of BS
>>>being floated by both the Dems and GOP, we desperately need this
>>>type of effort. To call them a "couple of dweebs" who don't do any
>>>"real research" is a disservice.

>>
>> I couldn't agree more. I was checking the site a couple times a day
>> during the runup to the election. It was very interesting to see
>> how both sides were spinning the facts into something else entirely.

>
>I'll second- or actually "third"- this. We have a political system in
>which we believe that both sides lying through their teeth will
>somehow lead us to the truth. Not that this is a new development, of
>course- the political campaigns of 100 and 150 years ago were far
>wilder. Some kind of objective fact-checking is crucial to provide a
>counterbalance to the whacko claims from both sides.


Hickey is pulling you into a trap. Both sides were spinning hard in
the recent election, but the degree of lies was far higher on the
administration. While we shouldn't tolerate spin on either side,
please don't give equal weight to spin of different degrees -- they're
not the same. Don't give equal weight to lies about details in one's
life and issues such as, say, aluminum tubes.

That sort of false equivalency is what led to the he-said-she said
lack of analysis on the part of the news media, and plays right in to
the neocons hands.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:51:05 -0600, Tim McNamara
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>FactCheck.org was one of the few sane, non-partisan sources of
>>>>factual information during the last election. With the level of BS
>>>>being floated by both the Dems and GOP, we desperately need this
>>>>type of effort. To call them a "couple of dweebs" who don't do any
>>>>"real research" is a disservice.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. I was checking the site a couple times a day
>>> during the runup to the election. It was very interesting to see
>>> how both sides were spinning the facts into something else entirely.

>>
>>I'll second- or actually "third"- this. We have a political system in
>>which we believe that both sides lying through their teeth will
>>somehow lead us to the truth. Not that this is a new development, of
>>course- the political campaigns of 100 and 150 years ago were far
>>wilder. Some kind of objective fact-checking is crucial to provide a
>>counterbalance to the whacko claims from both sides.

>
>Hickey is pulling you into a trap. Both sides were spinning hard in
>the recent election, but the degree of lies was far higher on the
>administration. While we shouldn't tolerate spin on either side,
>please don't give equal weight to spin of different degrees -- they're
>not the same. Don't give equal weight to lies about details in one's
>life and issues such as, say, aluminum tubes.
>
>That sort of false equivalency is what led to the he-said-she said
>lack of analysis on the part of the news media, and plays right in to
>the neocons hands.


Oh, give us both a break, JT... we're all capable of interpreting the
information available at www.factcheck.org. You have to realize the
election is over and take off the blue (or red) filtered goggles now
and get on with life. There's no "false equivalency"... if you see a
wild discrepancy in the level of spin, it can only be because you
firmly believe that much of the spin on one side or the other is
actually true.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:48:29 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Oh, give us both a break, JT... we're all capable of interpreting the
>information available at www.factcheck.org. You have to realize the
>election is over and take off the blue (or red) filtered goggles now
>and get on with life. There's no "false equivalency"... if you see a
>wild discrepancy in the level of spin, it can only be because you
>firmly believe that much of the spin on one side or the other is
>actually true.


It's not about red vs blue or win vs lose. It's about right versus
wrong. Just because the person you voted for won the recent
presidential election doesn't mean people should ignore the issue of a
higher level of deception on the part of the Bush administration
because in the coming years if we are going to have any level of
security in the coming years. I sure won't ignore it -- not because
I'm trying to undo an election (your guy won! Yeah! So did the Sox!
Go team!) but because citizens shouldn't put up with the deceptive,
low-quality and destructive government in the future. And the public
in the US and the world would be better served by an actual emphasis
on lies and spin of all types, with a qualititative assessment of the
importance of all lies.

Yes, I actually think that the issue John Kerry spinning whether or
not he owns and SUV is less important than government officials
"spinning" information about weapons of mass destruction. In both
cases their is a problem with truth. Which is more important? I guess
you prefer "Well, all politicians lie a bit and it's equivalent."

That's ********.

So yes, you can say Kerry spun us on his SUV or maybe even lied about
it. He may even be lying about Botoz. Bill Clinton lied about sex.
George Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumfeld have lied and spun about war,
life and death.

These are not the same things.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:51:05 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>FactCheck.org was one of the few sane, non-partisan sources of
>>>>factual information during the last election. With the level of
>>>>BS being floated by both the Dems and GOP, we desperately need
>>>>this type of effort. To call them a "couple of dweebs" who don't
>>>>do any "real research" is a disservice.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. I was checking the site a couple times a
>>> day during the runup to the election. It was very interesting to
>>> see how both sides were spinning the facts into something else
>>> entirely.

>>
>>I'll second- or actually "third"- this. We have a political system
>>in which we believe that both sides lying through their teeth will
>>somehow lead us to the truth. Not that this is a new development,
>>of course- the political campaigns of 100 and 150 years ago were far
>>wilder. Some kind of objective fact-checking is crucial to provide
>>a counterbalance to the whacko claims from both sides.

>
> Hickey is pulling you into a trap. Both sides were spinning hard in
> the recent election, but the degree of lies was far higher on the
> administration. While we shouldn't tolerate spin on either side,
> please don't give equal weight to spin of different degrees --
> they're not the same. Don't give equal weight to lies about details
> in one's life and issues such as, say, aluminum tubes.


A lie is a lie, and both sides told and tell lies. While I agree that
the Republican lies were much more egregious, a lie is still a lie.
The difference is that George W. Bush's lies currently have power,
leading us into a war on false premises and causing the deaths of tens
of thousands. However, as the Good Book says, it's easier for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
Kingdom. GWB will burn in hell for his crimes, assuming his religious
paradigm is actually true.

> That sort of false equivalency is what led to the he-said-she said
> lack of analysis on the part of the news media, and plays right in
> to the neocons hands.


The country is already there, dude, thanks to the capitulation of the
Democrats under Clinton.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Java Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > From Wikipedia:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

>
> Note: you can put anything you like in that thing. Why do you suppose it has
> an "Edit the Page" function?
>
> > "Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined
> > SBVT. All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his
> > presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him. Kerry
> > crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations."

>
> Perhaps you'd like to ask that crew NOW that they aren't in line for
> administration positions.
>
> > "Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers
> > who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War.

>
> False. Several of the officers had given him positive performance
> evaluation. If you'd have been in the service you'd know that if you didn't
> frag the commanding officer you got everything on the right hand column. The
> fact that Kerry's reviews WEREN'T perfect says a whole lot about how
> difficult he was.
>
> > These
> > included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive
> > evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry
> > for a Silver Star.

>
> Note that Hibbard submitted Kerry for a Silver Star on the strength of a
> Spot Report that was written by Kerry and the contents of which has been
> proven to be mostly untrue.


Note that what you said is false. The after-action report, just like
the Silver Star citation issued in March 1969, is detailed and
accurate. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

I know I have an unfair advantage when it comes to some of this, but
don't let that deter you.

> > SBVT counts, in total, 16 of the 23 surviving
> > officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members."

>
> However, all but two have asked Kerry to not use their picture in his
> campaign and have given negative interviews concerning him that agree with
> the sentiments of the SBVT. Other officers have claimed that Kerry offered
> bribes of one sort of another to them to stand by him. And even those whom
> he had standing with him on the stage wouldn't back up Kerry's lies.


Bribes? I never heard that one. Would you care to elaborate?

> > "No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents
> > for which he was decorated."

>
> However, each of these incidents had a patrol group. That means that there
> were MANY other boats in the group and each one was in close proximity of
> the others and everyone saw pretty much what was going on except, for
> instance, when Kerry ran away from the fight in which he was awarded the
> Bronz Star when he REPORTED that he had stayed while everyone else had run.


No, everyone didn't see what was going on -- their views of actions
was typically from a similar, but in many ways different perspective.

> Look, Kerry would fill out the reports and all this medals and stuff
> happened long AFTER Kerry was gone so no one really had a straight idea of
> what had happened and most of them simply didn't know what was being
> reported by Kerry.


What do you mean "long after Kerry was gone"? Gone from where --
Vietnam?

> > "SBVT founder and spokesman John O'Neill wrote Unfit for Command: Swift
> > Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry with co-author Jerome Corsi.
> > The book was published by the conservative Regnery Publishing. A best-
> > seller upon release in August 2004, it criticized Kerry's judgment in
> > battle, his truthfulness, his entitlement to certain medals, and his
> > later anti-War activities. The book was based in part on interviews with
> > some 60 Swift boat veterans who served in Kerry's division. Several
> > members of Kerry's crew stated that O'Neill failed to interview them;
> > some who were interviewed asserted that O'Neill edited their statements
> > to strip out material favorable to Kerry. [15]
> > (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?
> > pagewanted=3&hp) Neither of the co-authors claimed any firsthand
> > knowledge of Kerry's service. "

>
> Well, that's incorrect. After Kerry left, John O'Neill was the following
> boat commander. All of Kerry's crew became O'Neill's crew.


That is absolutely, totally, 100%, factually incorrect. Not a one of
Kerry's crew served a single day with O'Neill.

O'Neill took over the boat about two months after Kerry left. The crew
was long gone.

>That may not be
> "first hand information" but it is a hell of a lot closer than Kerry ever
> got. Even Kerry's crew wouldn't support his lies.


Every one of the guys on Kerry's two boats, with the exception of one
(Steven Gardner), support him.

> All of this information was available to anyone that wanted to buy the book
> or go to the Swift Boat Vet site. But rather than actually learning
> something dolts like Blair P. Houghton spout nonsense as if they had a clue.


Unfit for Command sounds like it would be right up your alley. I read
it, but didn't learn much that I didn't know already, except to see to
what lengths people can go to stretch, misrepresent, and spin the
truth. . . and sometimes ommit it altogether.

Doug
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Java Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > From Wikipedia:
> > > "Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined
> > > SBVT. All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his
> > > presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him. Kerry
> > > crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations."

> >
> > Perhaps you'd like to ask that crew NOW that they aren't in line for
> > administration positions.

>
> As if any where in line for such a position? Exactly what
> administrative function does handling a small boat qualify you for?
>
> It would be more interesting to see how much we hear from these "SBVT"
> group now that they aren't being funded by Republicans using every
> trick in the book to try to win an election. My guess is that the
> SBVT will crawl back into the woodwork. It's not like anyone's
> heard from them lately.


Would that were true.

They're so full of themselves, and still funded, that they could (and
perhaps will) go on forever.

Doug
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> >>It would be more interesting to see how much we hear from these "SBVT"
> >>group now that they aren't being funded by Republicans using every
> >>trick in the book to try to win an election. My guess is that the
> >>SBVT will crawl back into the woodwork. It's not like anyone's
> >>heard from them lately.

> >
> > In fairness, it should be pointed out that this was the culmination of
> > a 30 year running battle between O'Neill and Kerry, dating back to
> > their televised debate.

>
> Actually dating back to when John O'Neill took over command of the Swift
> Boat and crew that Kerry deserted. That ignorant John O'Neill only talked to
> the people that Kerry was scaring the hell out of with his false heroics and
> murderous actions towards the Vietnamese.


I mentioned this earlier (to you?), but O'Neill never spent a day on a
Swift Boat with ay of Kerry's crew.

Muderous actions towards Vietnamese? Would you care to elaborate?

Doug
 
Right, Todd, but those who rely on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News garbage will
never hear you.

"Todd Kuzma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Factcheck.org is nothing but a couple of dweebs who write that stuff up
> almost entirely without any real research.


Now you are really talking out of your ass. FactCheck.org is a project
oif the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania. They are highly regarded and actually follow academic
standards for research. They were often quoted by both sides, including
**** Cheney during the VP debate except he screwed up the URL and
instead sent people to one of George Soros' sites.

FactCheck.org was one of the few sane, non-partisan sources of factual
information during the last election. With the level of BS being
floated by both the Dems and GOP, we desperately need this type of
effort. To call them a "couple of dweebs" who don't do any "real
research" is a disservice.

Todd Kuzma
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:51:05 -0600, Tim McNamara
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>> Todd Kuzma <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>FactCheck.org was one of the few sane, non-partisan sources of
> >>>>factual information during the last election. With the level of BS
> >>>>being floated by both the Dems and GOP, we desperately need this
> >>>>type of effort. To call them a "couple of dweebs" who don't do any
> >>>>"real research" is a disservice.
> >>>
> >>> I couldn't agree more. I was checking the site a couple times a day
> >>> during the runup to the election. It was very interesting to see
> >>> how both sides were spinning the facts into something else entirely.
> >>
> >>I'll second- or actually "third"- this. We have a political system in
> >>which we believe that both sides lying through their teeth will
> >>somehow lead us to the truth. Not that this is a new development, of
> >>course- the political campaigns of 100 and 150 years ago were far
> >>wilder. Some kind of objective fact-checking is crucial to provide a
> >>counterbalance to the whacko claims from both sides.

> >
> >Hickey is pulling you into a trap. Both sides were spinning hard in
> >the recent election, but the degree of lies was far higher on the
> >administration. While we shouldn't tolerate spin on either side,
> >please don't give equal weight to spin of different degrees -- they're
> >not the same. Don't give equal weight to lies about details in one's
> >life and issues such as, say, aluminum tubes.
> >
> >That sort of false equivalency is what led to the he-said-she said
> >lack of analysis on the part of the news media, and plays right in to
> >the neocons hands.

>
> Oh, give us both a break, JT... we're all capable of interpreting the
> information available at www.factcheck.org. You have to realize the
> election is over and take off the blue (or red) filtered goggles now
> and get on with life. There's no "false equivalency"... if you see a
> wild discrepancy in the level of spin, it can only be because you
> firmly believe that much of the spin on one side or the other is
> actually true.
>

No, I think JT is correct. But it is usually the case that the sitting
administration is guilty of more lies during an election campaign
because they've got a record to defend. Challengers usually have a much
easier time attacking a sitting administration factually because the
administration has a record to attack. It's sad but true.

However, the Bush administration has used "political euphemism" better
than most, having focus-group tested their "sound bites" for the most
contentious issues likely to figure in the campaign. Take, for example,
"the war on terror" as a phrase. Notice the administration NEVER talks
about the "war in Iraq". It is ALWAYS "the war on terror".

Or take the labelling of Kerry as a "flip-flopper". Factcheck.org shows
that the Bush administration's label greatly exaggerated Kerry's
tendency to switch positions, but the label was carefully crafted, focus
group tested, and it stuck. As one wag put it, "the winner is the guy
who succeeds in imposing his label on the facts." This packaging of
issues is the essence of modern political communication strategy, and
the Bush campaign was far more expert at its use.

Rick
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>


> ... but because citizens shouldn't put up with the deceptive,
> low-quality and destructive government in the future.


This is amusing. I'm pretty sure you're deceiving me. You'll put up with a
destructive government just fine, just so long as it destroys in the way you
want it to.

> And the public
> in the US and the world would be better served by an actual emphasis
> on lies and spin of all types, with a qualititative assessment of the
> importance of all lies.


No, the US public would be better served by a government that restricted itself
to the actual task delegated to it and no more: protecting liberty.


You are all dumbasses.
 
Steve Juniper wrote:
> Right, Todd, but those who rely on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News garbage
> will never hear you.


And many people will miss your point because you top-posted it, giving no
indication what the heck you're talking about.
 
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:41:29 GMT, Java Man
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But it is usually the case that the sitting
>administration is guilty of more lies during an election campaign
>because they've got a record to defend. Challengers usually have a much
>easier time attacking a sitting administration factually because the
>administration has a record to attack. It's sad but true.


Generally true. (That's also a reason it seems easier to be elected
president after being a governor than being a senator.) In the recent
election, it's worth noting that Kerry had a long record in the senate
to attack -- in some ways a longer record on national issues than his
opponent..

JT




****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, I actually think that the issue John Kerry spinning whether or
>not he owns and SUV is less important than government officials
>"spinning" information about weapons of mass destruction. In both
>cases their is a problem with truth. Which is more important? I guess
>you prefer "Well, all politicians lie a bit and it's equivalent."
>
>That's ********.


A couple facts to prime the pump...

First, Kerry's position on Iraq based on the same intelligence Bush
had access to was pretty much the same - so claiming some sort of
moral supremacy is just so much hot air. They both saw Iraq and their
WMD in proximity to terrorists as a huge threat.

Second, to read the info at www.factcheck.org and come away claiming
that his SUV ownership was one of his major lies is simply ludicrous.
Have you actually ever gone to that site?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
In article <[email protected]>,
g-spot <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, the US public would be better served by a government that restricted
> itself
> to the actual task delegated to it and no more: protecting liberty.
>
>
> You are all dumbasses.


Well, I'm sure that you can all enlighten us then. The debate over the
proper role of government has been raging in earnest since Plato.
Perhaps in those 2000+ years you can tell us which political leader or
philosopher has advocated that the the only role that government should
play is "protecting liberty."

Also, you could probably explain to a dumbass like me what "protecting
liberty" means. I'm sure that it looks great on a bumpersticker, but
you had better explain it to me anyway.

By the way, you should probably stop using the internet since it was
developed by the government outside of its legitimate scope of
"protecting liberty." You wouldn't want to encourage such inappropriate
behavior now would you?

Todd Kuzma
 
Tom,

I haven't heard you reply yet to the posted information about
factcheck.org. That's unlike you. I was expecting better. Don't you
have a snappy comeback? You can tell me how I'm wrong, or you can admit
that you're wrong. It's up to you. Either way is fine with me.

Maybe you can tell us all more faerie tales about how O'Neill was a
non-partisan observer and not a GOP hack recruited by Tricky ****
himself to smear Kerry because he was giving legitimacy to the anti-war
movement.

Todd Kuzma
 
On 11/23/04 6:29 PM, in article
[email protected], "Todd Kuzma"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I haven't heard you reply yet to the posted information about
> factcheck.org. That's unlike you. I was expecting better. Don't you
> have a snappy comeback? You can tell me how I'm wrong, or you can admit
> that you're wrong. It's up to you. Either way is fine with me.
>
> Maybe you can tell us all more faerie tales about how O'Neill was a
> non-partisan observer and not a GOP hack recruited by Tricky ****
> himself to smear Kerry because he was giving legitimacy to the anti-war
> movement.
>
> Todd Kuzma


I do not know what stuff you are referring to but this whopper was a doozy!

http://factcheck.org/article294.html
 
I prefer top-posting unless the post to which I'm responding can be seen
in its entirely on the opening screen. If people are paying attention
they'll understand. If they're not interested they can bypass it quickly
without having to scroll through a bunch of other stuff to get the point.
Even when I read a top post responding to a complex matter I can usually
tell right away if the rest of the material might interest me. It might have
made more of a difference before higher speeds became common.
--
Steve

"If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand, we would be
too simple to understand it."
- Peter
Kramer -

"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Steve Juniper wrote:
> Right, Todd, but those who rely on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News garbage
> will never hear you.


And many people will miss your point because you top-posted it, giving no
indication what the heck you're talking about.