f



Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
even more devastating than the first one.

Kerry is calling on Bush to condemn the ads, sending out legal threats to 
stations that play it, filing an FEC complaint, calling on the publisher to 
withdraw the book, complaining that Republicans gave the group 
money....everything but actually responding in any sort of substantial way 
to the myriad of claims these very credible veterans and war heroes who knew 
John Kerry are making. 

It's becoming very apparent that the reason John Kerry has been unable to 
refute what they're saying is because they're telling the truth. The media 
has spent a lot of time focusing on the weakest accusation that the Swiftees 
have made, that John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star (however, I would 
note that Larry Thurlow is only one out of four eye witnesses who say John 
Kerry was not under fire when came back and pulled Jim Rassman from the 
water after running away and leaving behind in the first place). 

However, Kerry been already been caught in a lie about going to Cambodia and 
in my personal opinion, it looks to be almost a certainty that John Kerry 
gamed the system and lied to acquire his first and third Purple Hearts. 

That's the type of thing that sinks a run at the presidency and as a matter 
of fact, had these accusations come out before John Kerry was the nominee, 
he WOULDN'T BE the nominee today. Of course, that's the biggest think John 
Kerry has going for him in this situation -- that the Democrats and the 
mainstream media are stuck with him at this point and so they'll have to 
desperately defend him no matter how much truth there is to the charges. 

But unfortunately for John Kerry, I don't think that's going to be enough. 
Kerry is not going to be able to ignore or censor the Swift Boat Vets for 
Truth, smearing them isn't going to be all that effective not only because 
they're vets and war heroes, but because there are just SO JUST SO MANY OF 
THEM making charges. Do you think that anybody other than partisan liberals 
(Including some of Kerry's allies in the mainstream media) are going to buy 
that all of these war heroes and vets who knew John Kerry got together and 
decided to lie through their teeth all in an effort to smear a guy they 
fought beside of in combat? If there were a handful of guys involved, sure, 
you'd have to consider that possibility. But who really believes that one of 
John Kerry's crew members, his doctor, every commanding officer he ever had, 
& large numbers of soldiers who fought by Kerry's side in other boats along 
with officers who served with JFK, all are participating in some sort of 
bizarre conspiracy to sink Kerry's run at the presidency? Come on, that's 
like something out of the "X-Files," it's just not possible. 

So, unless Kerry can actually respond to the Swiftees actual charges 
effectively, something he has not even STARTED to do at this point, I think 
the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, all by themselves, are going to finish 
him. If Kerry's telling the truth about his war record -- which I don't 
think he is -- he'd be smart to sign a 180 form so his records can be 
released and then he'd try to directly refute these charges. Make no mistake 
about it, this is a make or break issue for the Kerry campaign and it's 
looking increasingly likely that it's going to be break...
0
gactimus (1327)
8/21/2004 3:12:15 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

818 Replies
2143 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 35

Gactimus wrote:
> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
> even more devastating than the first one.

   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
well get used to saying "President Kerry."

0
forget5 (16)
8/21/2004 3:47:45 AM
Gactimus wrote:
> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>
>



The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where Kerry 
stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a meeting about a 
month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.


Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in 1971 and 
then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for what they are:  Bush 
paid scum. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 4:17:02 AM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> Gactimus wrote:
> > The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where Kerry
> stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a meeting about a
> month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>
>
> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in 1971 and
> then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for what they are:
Bush
> paid scum.


Can you prove that Bush paid these people?

If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.



0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 4:33:24 AM
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:

> Gactimus wrote:
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> 
>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state.
> If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
> well get used to saying "President Kerry."

The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this 
infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's 
pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.

It's sad to see a guy who has tried to derail the defense department 
with a stream of "no" votes and who was a traitor to his fellow soldiers 
wrapping himself in a battle flag.

Kerry or Bush...sheesh. A true dilemma.


0
8/21/2004 4:38:18 AM
Osprey wrote:
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>> Gactimus wrote:
>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>> crewman of war crimes.
>>
>>
>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>> what they are: Bush paid scum.
>
>
> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>
> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.




www.nytimes.com 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 4:39:41 AM
John Griffin wrote:
> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Gactimus wrote:
>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground
>> state. If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you
>> might as well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>
> The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this
> infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's
> pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.
>
> It's sad to see a guy who has tried to derail the defense department
> with a stream of "no" votes and who was a traitor to his fellow
> soldiers wrapping himself in a battle flag.
>
> Kerry or Bush...sheesh. A true dilemma.



FACT:    John Kerry voted YES on 16 of the last 19 defense budgets. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 4:40:36 AM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> Osprey wrote:
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >> Gactimus wrote:
> >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> >> crewman of war crimes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >
> >
> > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >
> > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>
>
>
>
> www.nytimes.com

Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
that you called others.



0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 4:54:49 AM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in 10idki5b9i6m00@news.supernews.com on
8/20/04 9:40 PM:

> FACT:    John Kerry voted YES on 16 of the last 19 defense budgets.
> 
Perhaps, but did he really mean it?

And if he is not in lock step with the President and his wishes on defense,
doesn't that mean he wants the terrorists to win?

Come on, John, you have heard the right wingers enough to know the "truth".

:)

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
8/21/2004 4:59:34 AM
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:39:41 -0700, "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Osprey wrote:
>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>> Gactimus wrote:
>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>> crewman of war crimes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>> what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>
>>
>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>
>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>
>
>
>
>www.nytimes.com 
>
	I take it that by posting a link to the left-wing NYT, you
have no proof that Bush "paid these people".
	You're just another liberal liar ala M. Moore.
0
jimpgh2002 (98)
8/21/2004 5:14:30 AM
In article <efmdi0dufipul78qufcm0g8lqpam6rntvi@4ax.com>,
 jimpgh2002  <jimpgh2002@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:39:41 -0700, "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> >Osprey wrote:
> >> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>> Gactimus wrote:
> >>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> >>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> >>> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> >>> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> >>> crewman of war crimes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> >>> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> >>> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>
> >> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >www.nytimes.com 
> >
> 	I take it that by posting a link to the left-wing NYT, you
> have no proof that Bush "paid these people".
> 	You're just another liberal liar ala M. Moore.

Since you've authorized the use of ad-hominem arguments, I can now only 
say that since you're a right-winger in favor of Bush, nothing you say 
about Kerry or his supporters can be trusted.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
8/21/2004 5:27:32 AM
In article <10idki5b9i6m00@news.supernews.com>,
 "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> John Griffin wrote:
> > Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gactimus wrote:
> >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>
> >>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground
> >> state. If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you
> >> might as well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> >
> > The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this
> > infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's
> > pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.
> >
> > It's sad to see a guy who has tried to derail the defense department
> > with a stream of "no" votes and who was a traitor to his fellow
> > soldiers wrapping himself in a battle flag.
> >
> > Kerry or Bush...sheesh. A true dilemma.
> 
> 
> 
> FACT:    John Kerry voted YES on 16 of the last 19 defense budgets. 

And, of course, voting against a bill doesn't remotely mean that you're 
against everything (or even anything) in the bill.

-- 
"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today.... He married
a Texas girl, I want you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West Texas
girl, just like me."
                       -- George W. Bush in Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
0
znu2 (2031)
8/21/2004 5:49:54 AM
In article <-LednXBq2q3sTbvcRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > Gactimus wrote:
> > > The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > > not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where Kerry
> > stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a meeting about a
> > month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> >
> >
> > Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in 1971 and
> > then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for what they are:
> Bush
> > paid scum.
> 
> 
> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> 
> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it 
says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters 
seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort 
of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to 
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race. 

BTW, I will ask the rhetorical question of why you are trying to change 
the subject here, but I already know the answer.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/21/2004 5:50:45 AM
In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > Osprey wrote:
> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > >
> > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > www.nytimes.com
> 
> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
> that you called others.

Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/21/2004 5:51:43 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > >
> > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > www.nytimes.com
> >
> > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
morons
> > that you called others.
>
> Care to explain why he failed?
>

Because he didn't prove that Bush paid those people.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/21/2004 9:24:46 AM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:51:43 GMT, David Fritzinger
<dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>Care to explain why he failed? 

Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.

It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
individual who paid for it.

I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
yesterday. I reckon it has legs.


all the best -- Dan Ford 
email: warbird@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
0
warbird (1)
8/21/2004 9:26:25 AM
In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
> even more devastating than the first one.

You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 

Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be 
HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home 
enjoying them.

Bush can't even stick to one excuse for sending American troops off to 
kill and die at a time when we needed to focus our resources on the 
terrorist threat.  It makes it worse he's a coward trying to denigrate a 
decorated American war hero (John Kerry), while troops are bravely 
fighting in a foreign land as we speak!  What a slap in the face 
Republicans are to our troops.  Pathetic.

Greg
0
greg153 (13)
8/21/2004 9:37:33 AM
ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message news:<znu-3F28F8.01495421082004@individual.net>...
> In article <10idki5b9i6m00@news.supernews.com>,
>  "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > John Griffin wrote:
> > > Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > >>
> > >>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground
> > >> state. If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you
> > >> might as well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> > >
> > > The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this
> > > infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's
> > > pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.
> > >
> > > It's sad to see a guy who has tried to derail the defense department
> > > with a stream of "no" votes and who was a traitor to his fellow
> > > soldiers wrapping himself in a battle flag.
> > >
> > > Kerry or Bush...sheesh. A true dilemma.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > FACT:    John Kerry voted YES on 16 of the last 19 defense budgets. 
> 
> And, of course, voting against a bill doesn't remotely mean that you're 
> against everything (or even anything) in the bill.

shhh... let the intellectual midgets have their little fun on usenet....
0
imouttahere (3635)
8/21/2004 10:38:22 AM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:26:25 -0400, Cub Driver
<warbird@mailblocks.com> wrote:
>
>Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
>friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
>blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.
>
>It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
>individual who paid for it.
>
>I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
>Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
>and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
>and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>
>I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
>yesterday. I reckon it has legs.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford 
>email: warbird@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The newest TV commercial from the Swifties features Paul Galanti, a
naval aviator who spent nearly seven years in the NVN prison camps. I
know him personally. He most assuredly isn't in the employ of a
political party or campaign and he is an honorable and very articulate
man. 

Pay attention to what Pablo says in the commercial. 


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
0
8/21/2004 2:31:05 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > >
> > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > www.nytimes.com
> >
> > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
morons
> > that you called others.
>
> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.

He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.

He is, like many liberals, a liar.

So you didn't think.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 2:34:56 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
<dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it 
>says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters 
>seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort 
>of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to 
>Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race. 

Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
campaign. 

Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org  and his investment of
several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
to be heard. 

And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
his record in the Senate. 



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
0
8/21/2004 2:38:09 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:

>Gactimus wrote:
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>> even more devastating than the first one.
>
>   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>well get used to saying "President Kerry."

As a long time Colorado resident and a political scientist, let me
suggest that Zogby is a long way from CO. The recent primary election
which brought a lot of attention to both party's candidates for US
Senate had both races with high participation, but the Republicans
came out in much higher numbers than the Dems. 

Registration in the state is approximately 40% Republican, 30% Dem and
30% unaffiliated. Among the unaffiliated, the largest sectors are
suburban and rural voters who are more likely to identify with
conservative rather than liberal values. 

Prediction here is that Coors will beat Salazar by 55% to 45% and that
Bush will carry the state easily. 


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
0
8/21/2004 2:42:15 PM
Osprey wrote:
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>> Osprey wrote:
>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>>>> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>>>> crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>>>> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>>>> what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>> history.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.nytimes.com
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
>>> morons that you called others.
>>
>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>
> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>
> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>
> So you didn't think.


You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the latest 
swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 2:44:33 PM
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Gactimus wrote:
>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state.
>> If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as
>> well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>
> As a long time Colorado resident and a political scientist, let me
> suggest that Zogby is a long way from CO. The recent primary election
> which brought a lot of attention to both party's candidates for US
> Senate had both races with high participation, but the Republicans
> came out in much higher numbers than the Dems.
>
> Registration in the state is approximately 40% Republican, 30% Dem and
> 30% unaffiliated. Among the unaffiliated, the largest sectors are
> suburban and rural voters who are more likely to identify with
> conservative rather than liberal values.
>
> Prediction here is that Coors will beat Salazar by 55% to 45% and that
> Bush will carry the state easily.
>

Then add Colorado to the list of low IQ states. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 2:48:34 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> Osprey wrote:
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> >>>> Osprey wrote:
> >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> >>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> >>>>>> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> >>>>>> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> >>>>>> crewman of war crimes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> >>>>>> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> >>>>>> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>> history.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> www.nytimes.com
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> >>> morons that you called others.
> >>
> >> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >
> > He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >
> > He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >
> > So you didn't think.
>
>
> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the latest
> swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.

Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked for the
person to prove it, and that person, including you, was unable to do so. So
I don't have to disprove anything.  The disproving began when the originator
of the claim failed to back it up with proof.  Call me an ignorant
jackass...I got the last laugh..:o)




0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 2:56:00 PM
In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>even more devastating than the first one.

>So, unless Kerry can actually respond to the Swiftees actual charges 
>effectively, something he has not even STARTED to do at this point, I think 
>the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, all by themselves, are going to finish 
>him. If Kerry's telling the truth about his war record -- which I don't 
>think he is -- he'd be smart to sign a 180 form so his records can be 
>released and then he'd try to directly refute these charges..

You are several steps behind. This has been done already. 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

"Kerry released a stack of his military records - including after-action 
reports, citations for his medals, boat battle damage reports and his 
officer efficiency reports. These records - and the military records of at 
least one of his accusers - cast serious doubt on some of the more 
inflammatory charges raised by the group."

All this stuff does is reinforce the idea among the undecided that Bush =
Lies.

David Gergen, Bill O'Reilly and other people who are not known for their
fondness for the Democrats are saying: this is going to hurt Bush in the
long run.

I'm half tempted, as a Kerry supporter, to send the Swift Boat guys a few
bucks so they can run their laughably false ads in other states. This is
going to implode on them.

The media (notably Chris Matthews, but there are a growing number) are
beginning a little payback for being led down the garden path with respect
to Saddam. They were suckered, they're pissed about it, and they aren't
going to let Bush off easy on this stuff. Chris Matthews wiped the floor
with Larry Thurlow and Michelle Malkin Thursday night, the NY Times,
Knight-Ridder and the Washington Post did a full-tilt boogie on the money
and the connections between Rove and the Swift Boaters, and honey, you
ain't seen nothin' yet.

Bring it on!

David Derbes

0
loki6 (507)
8/21/2004 3:00:38 PM
In article <-LednXBq2q3sTbvcRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>> Gactimus wrote:
>> > The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>> > not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where Kerry
>> stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a meeting about a
>> month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>>
>>
>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in 1971 and
>> then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for what they are:
>Bush
>> paid scum.
>
>
>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>

Did President Bush reach into his pocket, pull out his wallet, and give
legal tender to the Swift Boat people? Surely not.

However, there is considerable evidence that a close friend of Karl Rove,
a prince of a fellow named Bob J. Perry, who has in the past year given
a miserly five million bucks to the Republicans, has helped them out to
the tune of a hundred grand. 

'Course, that's all a coincidence; hell, Rove says he hasn't even talked
to Perry in a year. 

And if you believe _that_, you're a bigger fool than most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/21/2004 3:09:50 PM
In article <timberwoof-3910F9.22273220082004@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof  <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>In article <efmdi0dufipul78qufcm0g8lqpam6rntvi@4ax.com>,
> jimpgh2002  <jimpgh2002@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

>> 	I take it that by posting a link to the left-wing NYT, you
>> have no proof that Bush "paid these people".
>> 	You're just another liberal liar ala M. Moore.
>
>Since you've authorized the use of ad-hominem arguments, I can now only 
>say that since you're a right-winger in favor of Bush, nothing you say 
>about Kerry or his supporters can be trusted.

I am afraid that this is exactly where Karl Rove is taking his party:
only liars need apply.

I'm a lefty, and a Democrat, and I say that Rove is doing enormous damage
to his party, and therefore, to his country. America needs two strong, 
opposing parties. It's the only way to have a healthy government. Four more 
years of Rove and Bush, and the Republicans are going to be radioactive.

David Derbes

>-- 
>Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
>http://www.timberwoof.com
>Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html


0
loki6 (507)
8/21/2004 3:15:19 PM
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...


You either have shit for brains or are a diehard Republican (I don't
know if there is a difference).

How do you "answer" a group that

(1) said nothing for 30 odd years, or said/wrote in the past the exact
opposite of what they are saying now ?

(2) Say that Kerry is lying, Kerry's boatmates are lying, Rassmann is
lying

(3) Say that the Navy citation for one of their group is lying

(4) Say there were no bullet holes, and when confronted by a report
that there were bullet holes that day , then they say they were from a
previous day

These guys can lie endlessly and there is simply no way of refuting
their allegations completely.

But these guys have put themselves out there and they already stand
discredited from the motive standpoint (if anybody believes that they
are not coordinated with the Bush campaign, they probably believe the
tooth fairy too).  Its only a matter of time before the skeletons in
their closets stand revealed.  Apart from the trailer-park feel many
of them exude - I am almost certain that amongst them these swiftboat
turds are proud possessors of several felony convictions after they
retuned from Vietnam which will be unearthed in the immediate future. 
These are small-timers who might even crack under the pressure the
Kerry campaign is going to bring to bear on them and might even turn
on their fellow turds if there is exposure to civil/criminal penalties
for what they have been doing.

Once it is established that these are a hateful, miserable failures
destroyed by their Vietnam experience with an axe to grind - why
should anyone have to "answer" their charges ?

I'll bet that when the whole thing blows over - the only people who
would need to answer for themselves are the swiftboat turds and the
Bush campaign.
0
analyst41 (233)
8/21/2004 3:34:51 PM
Osprey wrote:
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
>> Osprey wrote:
>>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>> Osprey wrote:
>>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
>>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
>>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
>>>>>>>> in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>>> history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.nytimes.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
>>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
>>>>
>>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>>>
>>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>>>
>>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>>>
>>> So you didn't think.
>>
>>
>> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
>> latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
>
> Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> laugh..:o)


Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close 
friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know 
that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/21/2004 3:37:51 PM
In article <h6nei0hbt1c3a4001r144k40oml3ma89ev@4ax.com>,
Ed Rasimus  <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
><dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it 
>>says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters 
>>seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort 
>>of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to 
>>Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race. 
>
>Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
>Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
>gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
>Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
>campaign. 

I haven't seen the ad, and I am willing to posit that both you yourself
and Paul Galanti are honorable, brave men who have served this country
well. Thank you for that service.

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points. 

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and 
had told him that. Remember, Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, and as such a spokesman. Unfortunately there is no
doubt that atrocities were committed; I am old enough to remember the
name of William Calley and the town of My Lai. I'm sure that you
remember these names as well. They were aberrations, and those who
committed these crimes were punished; but they did happen. They happen
in every war. It would be passing strange had they not happened in
Viet Nam, a particularly nasty war as wars go. Let me say at once that
in my opinion, the crimes committed by the other side were far more
frequent than on ours.

Next, I believe that Mr. Galanti and many other veterans are angry at
Kerry for his testimony, and believe that they were tarred with the 
brush of being a war criminal. I do not believe that was the main
thrust of Kerry's testimony, by the way; I think he was trying to say
that the war was badly conducted, and one of the symptoms of bad 
conduct by the upper echelons of the military is that discipline had
failed in some cases, as evidenced by these few atrocities. I remember
many returning veterans were accused by idiots my own age with being
baby killers and all the rest. There is no excuse for the terrible
behavior of those who weren't there insulting those who were. Mr.
Galanti and others, perhaps including you, have much to be angry about.
I'm not sure that John Kerry is the appropriate target for that anger,
but I wasn't there, and I don't know.

Finally, I want to say that while Mr. Galanti is doubtless an honest man,
there are many dishonest men in the employ of the Bush administration
who will make whatever use they can of honest, decent men who happen to
share their opinions about Kerry not being the right choice for the next
President. I would be very careful about who I let get me in front of a
camera were I your friend. By all means let Mr. Galanti and others do what
they wish to re-elect Bush, but it should be on their own terms. Mr. Rove
and Mr. Perry have, in my opinion, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards
the truth, and that is putting it very charitably. 

Best wishes to you, sir.

David Derbes

>
>Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
>underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
>contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
>that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
>ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
>by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org  and his investment of
>several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
>right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
>to be heard. 
>
>And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
>most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
>country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
>accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
>by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
>his record in the Senate. 
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org


0
loki6 (507)
8/21/2004 3:45:19 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 07:44:33 -0700, "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
in alt.fan.art-bell in message <10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com>:

>You're certainly an ignorant jackass.

Me too!
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with.  But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system.  They're guilty as charged.  But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events."  Alexa connects some totally different dots.  8/6/04 (n3p8h0lvp0u3tj0j4vi7gjmo069gb96fhm@4ax.com)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
0
vgorilla (185)
8/21/2004 4:57:41 PM

John wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>
>>>  Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state.
>>>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as
>>>well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>>
>>As a long time Colorado resident and a political scientist, let me
>>suggest that Zogby is a long way from CO. The recent primary election
>>which brought a lot of attention to both party's candidates for US
>>Senate had both races with high participation, but the Republicans
>>came out in much higher numbers than the Dems.
>>
>>Registration in the state is approximately 40% Republican, 30% Dem and
>>30% unaffiliated. Among the unaffiliated, the largest sectors are
>>suburban and rural voters who are more likely to identify with
>>conservative rather than liberal values.
>>
>>Prediction here is that Coors will beat Salazar by 55% to 45% and that
>>Bush will carry the state easily.
>>
> 
> 
> Then add Colorado to the list of low IQ states. 
> 

Really?  How come that state can better manage their budget than 
California or New York can?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/21/2004 5:38:38 PM

John wrote:

> Osprey wrote:
> 
>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>
>>
>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>
>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com 
> 

Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
news or facts anymore.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/21/2004 5:39:40 PM

John wrote:

> Osprey wrote:
> 
>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>>>>>>>>>or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>>>>>>>>>where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
>>>>>>>>>veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
>>>>>>>>>accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
>>>>>>>>>in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>>>>history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
>>>>>>cheating morons that you called others.
>>>>>
>>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>>>>
>>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>>>>
>>>>So you didn't think.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
>>>latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
>>
>>Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
>>for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
>>unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
>>disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
>>up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
>>laugh..:o)
> 
> 
> 
> Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close 
> friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know 
> that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush. 
> 

What makes you think that Carl Roves is in charge for Bush?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/21/2004 5:42:42 PM

Gactimus wrote:

> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's
> even more devastating than the first one.
>
> Kerry is calling on Bush to condemn the ads, sending out legal threats to
> stations that play it, filing an FEC complaint, calling on the publisher to
> withdraw the book, complaining that Republicans gave the group
> money....everything but actually responding in any sort of substantial way
> to the myriad of claims these very credible veterans and war heroes who knew
> John Kerry are making.
>
> It's becoming very apparent that the reason John Kerry has been unable to
> refute what they're saying is because they're telling the truth. The media
> has spent a lot of time focusing on the weakest accusation that the Swiftees
> have made, that John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star (however, I would
> note that Larry Thurlow is only one out of four eye witnesses who say John
> Kerry was not under fire when came back and pulled Jim Rassman from the
> water after running away and leaving behind in the first place).

When under fire you have two choices get cover or remove the threat. Usually the
best coarse of action is get cover or move out of range and than remove the
threat. In other words when your boat comes under fire, a good commander doesn't
just stay there until it goes down in a ball of flames. This is not cowardice it
is good strategy.

>
>
> However, Kerry been already been caught in a lie about going to Cambodia and
> in my personal opinion, it looks to be almost a certainty that John Kerry
> gamed the system and lied to acquire his first and third Purple Hearts.
>
> That's the type of thing that sinks a run at the presidency and as a matter
> of fact, had these accusations come out before John Kerry was the nominee,
> he WOULDN'T BE the nominee today. Of course, that's the biggest think John
> Kerry has going for him in this situation -- that the Democrats and the
> mainstream media are stuck with him at this point and so they'll have to
> desperately defend him no matter how much truth there is to the charges.

This is one of those points that makes me go HUH?  If these guys are just a
bunch of non partisan patriots, how come they waited until after Kerry became
the democratic nominee. It seems like maybe they should have come forward
sometime in the last 25 or 30 years instead of now.

>
>
> But unfortunately for John Kerry, I don't think that's going to be enough.
> Kerry is not going to be able to ignore or censor the Swift Boat Vets for
> Truth, smearing them isn't going to be all that effective not only because
> they're vets and war heroes, but because there are just SO JUST SO MANY OF
> THEM making charges. Do you think that anybody other than partisan liberals
> (Including some of Kerry's allies in the mainstream media) are going to buy
> that all of these war heroes and vets who knew John Kerry got together and
> decided to lie through their teeth all in an effort to smear a guy they
> fought beside of in combat? If there were a handful of guys involved, sure,
> you'd have to consider that possibility.



> But who really believes that one of
> John Kerry's crew members,

One who disagrees with everyone else on the boat.

> his doctor,

The one who appears on none of Kerry's medical records, but somehow remembers
treating a minor injury during a war.

> every commanding officer he ever had,

So when he recommended him for the bronze star he made it up?

>
> & large numbers of soldiers who fought by Kerry's side in other boats along
> with officers who served with JFK, all are participating in some sort of
> bizarre conspiracy to sink Kerry's run at the presidency? Come on, that's
> like something out of the "X-Files," it's just not possible.
>



> It not happening either. The conspiracy is shreading as it is exposed to the
> light of day.

>
> So, unless Kerry can actually respond to the Swiftees actual charges
> effectively, something he has not even STARTED to do at this point, I think
> the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, all by themselves, are going to finish
> him. If Kerry's telling the truth about his war record -- which I don't
> think he is -- he'd be smart to sign a 180 form so his records can be
> released and then he'd try to directly refute these charges. Make no mistake
> about it, this is a make or break issue for the Kerry campaign and it's
> looking increasingly likely that it's going to be break...

Kerry is a master of responding to these attacks. he waits until they are so out
in the open that everyone is talking about them. Than he presents proof that
they aren't true. Some time in mid sept. when everyone is talking about the
Swifties. Kerry will present proof that most f their stuff is lies. The rest is
exaggerations.


0
m.frisch (12)
8/21/2004 6:06:26 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:j6KVc.19$45.6646@news.uchicago.edu...
>
> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>
> That said, I want to make three points.
>
> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
> had told him that.
>

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971


0
roncachamp (153)
8/21/2004 7:01:46 PM
In article <h6nei0hbt1c3a4001r144k40oml3ma89ev@4ax.com>,
 Ed Rasimus <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> >The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it 
> >says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters 
> >seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort 
> >of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to 
> >Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race. 
> 
> Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
> Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
> gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
> Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
> campaign. 
> 
> Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
> underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
> contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
> that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
> ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
> by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org  and his investment of
> several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
> right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
> to be heard. 
> 
> And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
> most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
> country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
> accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
> by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
> his record in the Senate. 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort of 
smearing quite often. Why is that. Also, if you look at the reason for 
Cleland being against the DHS, it was because he thought the people who 
were put into it should be represented by their union. And, he was 
called unpatriotic for that, which is disgusting, IMHO. BTW, this was 
for something that Bush didn't support in the first place, then changed 
his mind on (Yes, another flip-flop by the shrub).

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/21/2004 9:20:05 PM
In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
> > > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
> > > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
> > > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
> > > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
> > > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> history.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > www.nytimes.com
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> morons
> > > that you called others.
> >
> > Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> 
> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> 
> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> 
> So you didn't think.

No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to 
admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming 
Bush opponents. We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary, 
and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to 
believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there. 

My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you 
are not thinking.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/21/2004 9:25:35 PM
In article <47CdnRQh-4qBFLrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> John wrote:
> 
> > Osprey wrote:
> > 
> >>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>Osprey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >>>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> >>>>>>>>>>or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> >>>>>>>>>where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> >>>>>>>>>veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> >>>>>>>>>accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> >>>>>>>>>in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>>>>>>history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>>>>>history.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> >>>>>>cheating morons that you called others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >>>>
> >>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >>>>
> >>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >>>>
> >>>>So you didn't think.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
> >>>latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
> >>
> >>Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> >>for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> >>unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> >>disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> >>up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> >>laugh..:o)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close 
> > friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know 
> > that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush. 
> > 
> 
> What makes you think that Carl Roves is in charge for Bush?

No matter what you might think of this whole incident, Karl Rove is 
Bush's chief political strategist.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/21/2004 9:27:07 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10ier2dn882g1f7@news.supernews.com...
> Osprey wrote:
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> >> Osprey wrote:
> >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>
news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
> >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> >>>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> >>>>>>>> in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>>>>> history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>>>> history.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >>>
> >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >>>
> >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >>>
> >>> So you didn't think.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
> >> latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
> >
> > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> > for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> > unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> > up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> > laugh..:o)
>
>
> Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close
> friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know
> that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush.

Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing more
than liberals who are
paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.

Nice try though.

Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of throwing
out name calling. Liberals are very well
known for that.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 9:32:12 PM
In message <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, Osprey 
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes
>He is, like many liberals, a liar.

"You keep on using that word. I am thinking it does not mean what you 
are thinking it is meaning."

What is your definition of "liberal" and would Jeremy Bentham recognise 
it?


-- 
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
                                             Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam         MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
0
news3216 (2)
8/21/2004 9:40:18 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
or
> > > > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
where
> > > > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > > > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
boat
> > > > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
in
> > > > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
for
> > > > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> > history.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > www.nytimes.com
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> > morons
> > > > that you called others.
> > >
> > > Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >
> > He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >
> > He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >
> > So you didn't think.
>
> No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> Bush opponents.

There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on Bill
Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
liberals
to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it is
o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not true?



 We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
>
> My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> are not thinking.

My mindless believing everything Bush says?
Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
moment, retract your
false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than you
have already appeared to be.

This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't get
their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out name
calling
and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
act like an adult.  What do you say?


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/21/2004 9:43:18 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-5FFFF3.11200921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>
> I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort of
> smearing quite often.
>

Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/21/2004 10:08:45 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>
> No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> Bush opponents.
>

Please cite some of that history.


>
> We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>

Did we?  Prove it.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/21/2004 10:11:02 PM
"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PovJOfeCF8JBFwUO@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
> "You keep on using that word. I am thinking it does not mean what you
> are thinking it is meaning."
>
> What is your definition of "liberal" and would Jeremy Bentham recognise
> it?
>

For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/21/2004 10:19:26 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:37:33 -0400, Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote:

>In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>> even more devastating than the first one.
>
>You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
>stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 
>
>Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be 
>HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home 
>enjoying them.
>
>Bush can't even stick to one excuse for sending American troops off to 
>kill and die at a time when we needed to focus our resources on the 
>terrorist threat.  It makes it worse he's a coward trying to denigrate a 
>decorated American war hero (John Kerry), while troops are bravely 
>fighting in a foreign land as we speak!  What a slap in the face 
>Republicans are to our troops.  Pathetic.
>
>Greg

vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, dipshit.  don't mix apples with
oranges unless you want baby shit all over you


0
Michael
8/21/2004 10:35:40 PM
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:17:02 -0700, "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Gactimus wrote:
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where Kerry 
>stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a meeting about a 
>month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>
just pretty much everyone including himself of war crimes.

0
Michael
8/21/2004 10:36:14 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:

>Gactimus wrote:
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>> even more devastating than the first one.
>
>   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>well get used to saying "President Kerry."

not likely.
0
Michael
8/21/2004 10:39:53 PM
On 21 Aug 2004 04:38:18 GMT, John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com>
wrote:

>Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Gactimus wrote:
>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>> 
>>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state.
>> If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>> well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>
>The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this 
>infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's 
>pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.
>
>It's sad to see a guy who has tried to derail the defense department 
>with a stream of "no" votes and who was a traitor to his fellow soldiers 
>wrapping himself in a battle flag.
>
>Kerry or Bush...sheesh. A true dilemma.
>

we won't win either way, but I can't stand Kerry.  His little beady
eyes... his monotone voice... his relentless whining like a fucking
girl.. and his plastic "I'm a working class man".  He's richer than
both Bushs combined and with his plastic botox wife, they're richer
than most bilionaires out there.  WHat have they done to help the
community with that money?  Offer any in a key state like Florida
where people are desparately seeking assistance?  nope.  Jews.

0
Michael
8/21/2004 10:42:26 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in 
news:OTPVc.31526$nx2.1993@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> 
> "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PovJOfeCF8JBFwUO@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "You keep on using that word. I am thinking it does not mean what you
>> are thinking it is meaning."
>>
>> What is your definition of "liberal" and would Jeremy Bentham recognise
>> it? 
>>
> 
> For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
> liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.
> 
You mean that's what you goose-stepping, neocon wingnut Bush bootlickers and 
lapdogs consider consider "liberal" to mean.  Not the real world.

> 

0
sd7414 (179)
8/21/2004 11:11:14 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:35:40 -0400, Michael Bauer <Crackerhead> wrote
in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<rgjfi0db308sup423bdhsmlfsbriq199h7@4ax.com>:

>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:37:33 -0400, Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
>> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>>> even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
>>stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 
>>
>>Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be 
>>HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home 
>>enjoying them.
>>
>>Bush can't even stick to one excuse for sending American troops off to 
>>kill and die at a time when we needed to focus our resources on the 
>>terrorist threat.  It makes it worse he's a coward trying to denigrate a 
>>decorated American war hero (John Kerry), while troops are bravely 
>>fighting in a foreign land as we speak!  What a slap in the face 
>>Republicans are to our troops.  Pathetic.
>>
>>Greg
>
>vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, dipshit.  don't mix apples with
>oranges unless you want baby shit all over you
>

Two words, Dude:  "Fruit salad"
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with.  But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system.  They're guilty as charged.  But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events."  Alexa connects some totally different dots.  8/6/04 (n3p8h0lvp0u3tj0j4vi7gjmo069gb96fhm@4ax.com)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
0
vgorilla (185)
8/21/2004 11:48:05 PM
Ed Rasimus <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<3jnei0tdpin49qk3d3vi4src0mjfr34od5@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
> 
> >Gactimus wrote:
> >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
> >> even more devastating than the first one.
> >
> >   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
> >If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
> >well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> 
> As a long time Colorado resident and a political scientist, let me
> suggest that Zogby is a long way from CO. The recent primary election
> which brought a lot of attention to both party's candidates for US
> Senate had both races with high participation, but the Republicans
> came out in much higher numbers than the Dems. 
> 
> Registration in the state is approximately 40% Republican, 30% Dem and
> 30% unaffiliated. Among the unaffiliated, the largest sectors are
> suburban and rural voters who are more likely to identify with
> conservative rather than liberal values. 
> 
> Prediction here is that Coors will beat Salazar by 55% to 45% and that
> Bush will carry the state easily. 

Bush got 50.8% of the CO vote in 2000.

He'll be lucky to get the same this time, for obvious reasons.
0
imouttahere (3635)
8/22/2004 12:10:46 AM
In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> > admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> > Bush opponents.
> >
> 
> Please cite some of that history.
> 
> 
> >
> > We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> > and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
> >
> 
> Did we?  Prove it.

What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the 
South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making 
accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in 
the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is 
a pattern here.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 1:10:27 AM
In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
> >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> or
> > > > > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> where
> > > > > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> > > > > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
> boat
> > > > > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> in
> > > > > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
> for
> > > > > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> > > history.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > www.nytimes.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> > > morons
> > > > > that you called others.
> > > >
> > > > Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > >
> > > He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > >
> > > So you didn't think.
> >
> > No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> > admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> > Bush opponents.
> 
> There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
> that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
> Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on Bill
> Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
> liberals
> to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it is
> o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not true?

Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a 
history here. 
> 
> 
> 
>  We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> > and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> > believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
> >
> > My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> > are not thinking.
> 
> My mindless believing everything Bush says?
> Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
> I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
> moment, retract your
> false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than you
> have already appeared to be.

You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey. 
> 
> This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't get
> their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out name
> calling
> and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
> act like an adult.  What do you say?

Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to 
start namecalling. How about the many Republican members of Congress who 
implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was 
unpatriotic? There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in 
your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in 
glass houses.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 1:14:49 AM
In article <NJPVc.31510$nx2.19090@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-5FFFF3.11200921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort of
> > smearing quite often.
> >
> 
> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?

See other posts I have made in this and other threads.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 1:15:31 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
> > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > > > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and
believe it
> > or
> > > > > > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> > where
> > > > > > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans
at a
> > > > > > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY
swift
> > boat
> > > > > > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to
congress
> > in
> > > > > > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
history
> > for
> > > > > > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
in
> > > > history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > www.nytimes.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
cheating
> > > > morons
> > > > > > that you called others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > > >
> > > > He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > > >
> > > > So you didn't think.
> > >
> > > No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> > > admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush
defaming
> > > Bush opponents.
> >
> > There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too,
but
> > that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
> > Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on
Bill
> > Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
> > liberals
> > to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it
is
> > o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not
true?
>
> Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a
> history here.

do I deny the incidents took place?  No, I do not deny that.
Do I blame Bush for them?  No, I don't.
Do I think that the vets are lying about Kerry?
That is a judgement call.


> >
> >
> >
> >  We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> > > and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> > > believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
> > >
> > > My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> > > are not thinking.
> >
> > My mindless believing everything Bush says?
> > Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
> > I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
> > moment, retract your
> > false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than
you
> > have already appeared to be.
>
> You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey.
> >
> > This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't
get
> > their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out
name
> > calling
> > and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold
and
> > act like an adult.  What do you say?
>
> Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to
> start namecalling.

Yes they are, and frankly I don't like it.

How about the many Republican members of Congress who
> implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was
> unpatriotic?

I recall many Democrats who agreed as well.  It was one of the few times
that this country was united, briefly.  Just like the attack on Pearl
Harbor, same thing. But oh how soon we lose that unity and go right back to
the same old bullshit.



There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in
> your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in
> glass houses.

Is that an apology for falsly accusing me of mindlessly believing everything
Bush says?


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/22/2004 1:39:14 AM
In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>> admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>> Bush opponents.
>>
>
>Please cite some of that history.
>
Here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.

David Derbes

>>
>> We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>> and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>>
>
>Did we?  Prove it.
>
>


0
loki6 (507)
8/22/2004 2:20:09 AM
In article <47CdnRUh-4r7FbrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>John wrote:
>
>> Osprey wrote:
>> 
>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>
>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> www.nytimes.com 
>> 
>
>Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
>news or facts anymore.

Nobody's perfect, but they're a damn sight better than most.

Besides, if they're wrong on their Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reporting,
won't one of their rivals or the Bushies call them on it? 

Don't hold your breath.

David Derbes


>
>-- 
>---------------------------------
>The Golden Years Sux.
>


0
loki6 (507)
8/22/2004 2:22:50 AM
In article <u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:j6KVc.19$45.6646@news.uchicago.edu...
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
>> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
>> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
>> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
>> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
>> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>>
>> That said, I want to make three points.
>>
>> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
>> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
>> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
>> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
>> had told him that.
>>
>
>Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>
>"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
>shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
>established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
>criminals."
>
>John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used. 

My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/22/2004 2:28:51 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

> In article <47CdnRQh-4qBFLrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
>  GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>>"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>>>>>>>>>>>or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>>>>>>>>>>>where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
>>>>>>>>>>>veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
>>>>>>>>>>>accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
>>>>>>>>>>>in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>>>>>>history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
>>>>>>>>cheating morons that you called others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you didn't think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
>>>>>latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
>>>>for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
>>>>unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
>>>>disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
>>>>up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
>>>>laugh..:o)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close 
>>>friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know 
>>>that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush. 
>>>
>>
>>What makes you think that Carl Roves is in charge for Bush?
> 
> 
> No matter what you might think of this whole incident, Karl Rove is 
> Bush's chief political strategist.
> 

Okay.  Then someone will have to ask him if he did this on his own or 
not.  Most likely for Bush.  At least he is loyal to whomever pays him.
I'd like to leave the VietNam era behind where it belongs.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/22/2004 2:57:38 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

> In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>
>>or
>>
>>>>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>>
>>where
>>
>>>>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
>>
>>boat
>>
>>>>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
>>
>>in
>>
>>>>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
>>
>>for
>>
>>>>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>
>>>>history.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
>>>>
>>>>morons
>>>>
>>>>>>that you called others.
>>>>>
>>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>>>>
>>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>>>>
>>>>So you didn't think.
>>>
>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>Bush opponents.
>>
>>There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
>>that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
>>Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on Bill
>>Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
>>liberals
>>to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it is
>>o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not true?
> 
> 
> Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a 
> history here. 
> 
>>
>>
>> We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>>
>>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
>>>believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
>>>
>>>My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
>>>are not thinking.
>>
>>My mindless believing everything Bush says?
>>Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
>>I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
>>moment, retract your
>>false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than you
>>have already appeared to be.
> 
> 
> You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey. 
> 
>>This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't get
>>their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out name
>>calling
>>and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
>>act like an adult.  What do you say?
> 
> 
> Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to 
> start namecalling. How about the many Republican members of Congress who 
> implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was 
> unpatriotic? There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in 
> your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in 
> glass houses.
> 

It's part of politics... it's called mudslinging. ;-)

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/22/2004 2:59:01 AM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>Bush opponents.
>>>
>>
>>Please cite some of that history.
>>
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> 

Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
So that leaves me out.

> Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
> Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.
> 
> David Derbes
> 
> 
>>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>>>
>>
>>Did we?  Prove it.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/22/2004 3:00:38 AM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <47CdnRUh-4r7FbrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>
>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>www.nytimes.com 
>>>
>>
>>Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
>>news or facts anymore.
> 
> 
> Nobody's perfect, but they're a damn sight better than most.
> 
> Besides, if they're wrong on their Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reporting,
> won't one of their rivals or the Bushies call them on it? 
> 

They might call them on it once they get a foothold on something.

It has happened to the NYTimes before.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/22/2004 3:02:04 AM
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:4126C50B.2050906@it.com:

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> 
>    Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
> If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
> well get used to saying "President Kerry."

Not likely. Even if Bush wins every state he won in 2000 he would still win 
the election without Colorado.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/22/2004 3:11:54 AM
In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
<mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> david raoul derbes wrote:
> 
> > In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> >>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> >>>Bush opponents.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Please cite some of that history.
> >>
> > 
> > Here you go:
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > 
> 
> Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
> So that leaves me out.
> 
Nope, free registration...

> > Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
> > Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.
> > 
> > David Derbes
> > 
> > 
> >>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> >>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Did we?  Prove it.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> >
0
lloydparsons (1421)
8/22/2004 4:51:26 AM
David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
>> >
>> > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort
>> > of smearing quite often.
>> >
>> 
>> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
> 
> See other posts I have made in this and other threads.

Half of the proverbial millions of readers will stop right there, and
take that as the "I don't have any evidence" that it looks like at first
glance. 

The other half will snicker about you citing your own opinions as
evidence, and they'll logically arrive at the same conclusion. 




0
8/22/2004 5:01:05 AM
In article <OTPVc.31526$nx2.1993@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
> liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.

In the US, maybe. But not in the big scary world outside the US 
borders.

(forum list trimmed some)

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
8/22/2004 8:46:32 AM
John Griffin wrote:
> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state.
>>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>>well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> 
> The interesting thing is that people would say that.  None of this 
> infantile "unelected president" and shit like traitor Michael Moore's 
> pathetically lame "Resident Bush" vapidity.

   Do you know how FAR to the RIGHT Colorado is?

   Colorado is the quintessential "Red State" -- its name literally 
MEANS  "red."

   If Colorado really *is* in play, Bush doesn't have a chance.

0
forget5 (16)
8/22/2004 9:49:46 AM
Gactimus wrote:
> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:4126C50B.2050906@it.com:
>>Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>>>it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>   Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>>well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> 
> Not likely. Even if Bush wins every state he won in 2000 he would still win 
> the election without Colorado.

   Uh, that's the point, Gac!  If Bush really is in trouble in Colorado, 
the national electorate has probably swung so far away from him that he 
won't win every state he won in 2000.  I find it almost inconceivable 
that Colorado is really in play.


0
forget5 (16)
8/22/2004 9:57:34 AM
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:47:45 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
>>Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>>>even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>>  Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>>well get used to saying "President Kerry."
> 
> As a long time Colorado resident and a political scientist, let me
> suggest that Zogby is a long way from CO. The recent primary election
> which brought a lot of attention to both party's candidates for US
> Senate had both races with high participation, but the Republicans
> came out in much higher numbers than the Dems. 
> 
> Registration in the state is approximately 40% Republican, 30% Dem and
> 30% unaffiliated. Among the unaffiliated, the largest sectors are
> suburban and rural voters who are more likely to identify with
> conservative rather than liberal values. 
> 
> Prediction here is that Coors will beat Salazar by 55% to 45% and that
> Bush will carry the state easily. 

   That's my point.  Even if Zogby was in Perth, Australia, he deals 
with the numbers, and presumably, has been persuaded by the numbers. 
And if those numbers are true, the Bush campaign is in a world of hurt.

   I may not be a political scientist, but I'm surprised at the 
anecdotal evidence I've seen here in *EXTREMELY* Republican Jeffco.  As 
the Weekly Standard admits, no one loves Bush (except for the True 
Believers among the Religious Right).

0
forget5 (16)
8/22/2004 9:57:49 AM
In article <rgjfi0db308sup423bdhsmlfsbriq199h7@4ax.com>,
 Michael Bauer <Crackerhead> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:37:33 -0400, Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, 
> >> it's 
> >> even more devastating than the first one.
> >
> >You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
> >stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 
> >
> >Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be 
> >HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home 
> >enjoying them.
> >
> >Bush can't even stick to one excuse for sending American troops off to 
> >kill and die at a time when we needed to focus our resources on the 
> >terrorist threat.  It makes it worse he's a coward trying to denigrate a 
> >decorated American war hero (John Kerry), while troops are bravely 
> >fighting in a foreign land as we speak!  What a slap in the face 
> >Republicans are to our troops.  Pathetic.
> >
> >Greg
> 
> vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, dipshit.  don't mix apples with
> oranges unless you want baby shit all over you

Vietnam has a lot to do with Iraq. The point is to avoid making the
same mistakes in Iraq that were made in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Bush
blew that opportunity.
0
srhi (290)
8/22/2004 1:31:08 PM
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<41286D45.1010806@it.com>...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>    I may not be a political scientist, but I'm surprised at the 
> anecdotal evidence I've seen here in *EXTREMELY* Republican Jeffco.  As 
> the Weekly Standard admits, no one loves Bush (except for the True 
> Believers among the Religious Right).

and those who prefer to see increased deficits so they can get their
marginal rate reductions, repeal of the inheritance tax, lowering of
the dividend and capital gains rates...
0
imouttahere (3635)
8/22/2004 2:16:18 PM
In article 
<dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <NJPVc.31510$nx2.19090@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-5FFFF3.11200921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort of
> > > smearing quite often.
> > >
> > 
> > Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
> 
> See other posts I have made in this and other threads.

Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.
0
srhi (290)
8/22/2004 2:23:11 PM
Shawn Hearn wrote:
> In article
> <dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <NJPVc.31510$nx2.19090@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dfritzinnospam-5FFFF3.11200921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>> I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this
>>>> sort of smearing quite often.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
>>
>> See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
>
> Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
> in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.



Of course Bushs commercials will be negative.   He has NOTHING to show after 
four miserable years of laziness and incompetence. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/22/2004 2:42:56 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
<dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the 
>South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making 
>accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in 
>the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is 
>a pattern here.

You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control. 

Since then, he's established positions that make him neither totally
liberal or totally conservative. He's a maverick who very clearly
thinks for himself. On the issues of First Amendment freedoms, he
seems pretty conservative, leaning toward censorship of movies,
libraries, Internet, etc. when it comes to questions of pornography,
hate, etc. Clearly a right-wing perspective. But, on the Second
Amendment, he leans toward gun control, pseudo-assault weapon bans,
gun registration, etc. Clearly a left-wing perspective. 

The disaster of McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions is a
very clear (but not Supreme Court defined) outrage against freedom of
political expression. 

Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology. 


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
0
8/22/2004 2:43:58 PM
Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>even more devastating than the first one.

These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by portraying
Bush as an immoral slanderer.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
8/22/2004 4:06:59 PM
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:41286D35.4030105@it.com:

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:4126C50B.2050906@it.com:
>
>>> Gactimus wrote:
>>>
>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>
>>> Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>>> If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>>> well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>> 
>> Not likely. Even if Bush wins every state he won in 2000 he would still
>> win the election without Colorado.
> 
> Uh, that's the point, Gac!  If Bush really is in trouble in Colorado,
> the national electorate has probably swung so far away from him that he 
> won't win every state he won in 2000.  I find it almost inconceivable 
> that Colorado is really in play.

Don't worry. It isn't.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/22/2004 5:39:27 PM
In article <AaidnfhTTbjVIrrcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10ier2dn882g1f7@news.supernews.com...
> > Osprey wrote:
> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> > >> Osprey wrote:
> > >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > >>>
> news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > >>>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> > >>>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> > >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> > >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> > >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> > >>>>>>>> in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> > >>>>>>>> history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> > >>>>>>> history.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> > >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > >>>
> > >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > >>>
> > >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > >>>
> > >>> So you didn't think.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
> > >> latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> > > for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> > > unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> > > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> > > up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> > > laugh..:o)
> >
> >
> > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close
> > friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know
> > that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush.
> 
> Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing more
> than liberals who are
> paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.
> 
> Nice try though.
> 
> Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of throwing
> out name calling. Liberals are very well
> known for that.
> 
> 
All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
sinking Republicans.  I now think we may see a Kerry landslide in
November.  People are tired of the lies.  Everyone who was there that
day says Kerry was a hero.
0
anto4318 (55)
8/22/2004 5:46:15 PM
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> In article <AaidnfhTTbjVIrrcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Osprey
> <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10ier2dn882g1f7@news.supernews.com...
> > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> > > >> Osprey wrote:
> > > >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>
> > news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > >>>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > > >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe
it
> > > >>>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> > > >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> > > >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> > > >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> > > >>>>>>>> in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> > > >>>>>>>> history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> > > >>>>>>> history.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> > > >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So you didn't think.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
> > > >> latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> > > > for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> > > > unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> > > > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> > > > up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> > > > laugh..:o)
> > >
> > >
> > > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves
close
> > > friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even
know
> > > that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush.
> >
> > Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing more
> > than liberals who are
> > paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.
> >
> > Nice try though.
> >
> > Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of
throwing
> > out name calling. Liberals are very well
> > known for that.
> >
> >
> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> sinking Republicans.  I now think we may see a Kerry landslide in
> November.  People are tired of the lies.  Everyone who was there that
> day says Kerry was a hero.

Are you still crying???



0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/22/2004 5:55:53 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-F8A3F6.15103221082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>
> What do you want as proof.
>

A quote of a statement defaming Bush opponents and a connection to the Bush
campaign.


>
> Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
> South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
> accusations about McCain's patriotism.
>

What accusations?


>
>Same thing happened in 2002 in the Georgia Senate race.
>

Bush was president in 2002.  I assure you, he did not run in the 2002
Georgia senate race.


>
> Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is a pattern here.
>

If there is it should be fairly easy to demonstrate.  Please do so.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 7:56:36 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>
> Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a
> history here.
>

But you didn't mention any incidents!


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 7:58:06 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>
> See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
>

I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for that is
you have no evidence.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 7:59:26 PM
"Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-0935A8.10231122082004@news-40.giganews.com...
>
> Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
> in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.
>

"Negative" does not mean "smear".


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 8:01:00 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:DxTVc.25$45.7221@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> >news:j6KVc.19$45.6646@news.uchicago.edu...
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
> >> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
> >> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
> >> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
> >> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
> >> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
> >>
> >> That said, I want to make three points.
> >>
> >> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
> >> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
> >> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
> >> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
> >> had told him that.
> >>
> >
> >Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
> >
> >"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
I
> >shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> >search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
> >established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
war
> >criminals."
> >
> >John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>
> What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
> of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
> you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
> and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
> a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
> as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
> that he used.
>

You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said."  He said he committed atrocities himself.


>
> My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
> into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
> different thing from rape.
>

Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 8:04:43 PM
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>
> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by portraying
> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>

Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 8:06:48 PM
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
 >
> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> sinking Republicans.
>

How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 8:09:09 PM
In message <OTPVc.31526$nx2.1993@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, 
Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PovJOfeCF8JBFwUO@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "You keep on using that word. I am thinking it does not mean what you
>> are thinking it is meaning."
>>
>> What is your definition of "liberal" and would Jeremy Bentham recognise
>> it?
>
>For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
>liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.

Then why not say "socialist", since that's what you mean? Why 
misappropriate a proud tradition and distort it to fit something that's 
got a perfectly good word describing it already?



-- 
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
                                             Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam         MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
0
news3216 (2)
8/22/2004 8:51:50 PM
"Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XJlfmdqmdQKBFwNt@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
> Then why not say "socialist", since that's what you mean? Why
> misappropriate a proud tradition and distort it to fit something that's
> got a perfectly good word describing it already?
>

Because you can get more votes calling yourself a liberal than a socialist.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 9:02:41 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> 
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote

>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by 
>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
 
> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Actually, you might have missed some of the better humor there, not that 
the drone's misunderstanding isn't amusing.

What he's apparently referring to is the way the manipulable Bush-hating 
drones are going to react. He thinks some of them had intended to vote 
for Bush, once again reminding us that cretins are very entertaining 
people.

The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away 
completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the 
"Kerry as War Hero" story.  

Try to imagine how the Democrats would be squealing and bouncing off the 
walls if a Republican candidate tried to use Vietnam combat experience 
to get votes.  They'd be rallying millions of ignorant kids, having them 
skip classes to march in the streets with all the Political Science 
professors in the van.
0
8/22/2004 10:11:24 PM
"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
>
> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> "Kerry as War Hero" story.
>

Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
Kerry's record.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 10:19:04 PM
Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote:

>  Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> > Osprey wrote:
>> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> > >> Osprey wrote:
>> > >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
>> > >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> > >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>> > >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:

>> > >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and
>> > >>>>>>>>> believe it or not, it's even more devastating than the
>> > >>>>>>>>> first one. 
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>> > >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
>> > >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
>> > >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to
>> > >>>>>>>> congress in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating
>> > >>>>>>>> morons in history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
>> > >>>>>>> in history.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
>> > >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> So you didn't think.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that
>> > >> the latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think
>> > >> so. 
>> > >
>> > > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply
>> > > asked for the person to prove it, and that person, including you,
>> > > was unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
>> > > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back
>> > > it up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
>> > > laugh..:o)
>> >
>> >
>> > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves
>> > close friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you
>> > don't even know that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for
>> > Bush. 
>> 
>> Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing
>> more than liberals who are
>> paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.
>> 
>> Nice try though.

That was a mighty fucking charitable comment.

>> Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of
>> throwing out name calling. Liberals are very well
>> known for that.
>> 
>> 
> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> sinking Republicans.  I now think we may see a Kerry landslide in
> November.  People are tired of the lies.  Everyone who was there that
> day says Kerry was a hero.

I just wanted to let you know how amusing it is to see one of your kind 
thinking he can say what "most of us already know."

The "Kerry as war hero" plank of the Democrats' platform is now sawdust. 
They need to try to pretend they never tried it, and hope for it to fade 
out of the public consciousness and order you drones to drop it. It was 
funny as hell seeing the Democrats try to use Vietnam to promote their 
guy, but now they need to move on.

Your "Kerry landslide" comment is just too fucking idiotic to even laugh 
at, but I bet that whoever tells you what to believe is laughing.

0
8/22/2004 10:20:08 PM
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>>it's even more devastating than the first one.
> 
> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.

Note: The ads do not portray Bush.  Look it up, and then do your best to 
correct the manipulators who told you to say that. They obviously need all 
the help they can get.



0
8/22/2004 10:26:57 PM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> >
>
> Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> Kerry's record.
>

It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring it
on!


0
AndyG1 (10)
8/22/2004 10:32:53 PM
"David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pa9Wc.32925$cT6.26677@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring
it
> on!
>

Bush does not have an abysmal record.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 10:46:25 PM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5n9Wc.817$Y%3.495@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pa9Wc.32925$cT6.26677@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring
> it
> > on!
> >
>
> Bush does not have an abysmal record.
>

Did you remember to blow a raspberry after you said that?


0
AndyG1 (10)
8/22/2004 10:47:07 PM
"David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ln9Wc.32931$cT6.12342@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> Did you remember to blow a raspberry after you said that?
>

Why would I do that?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/22/2004 11:03:05 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pa9Wc.32925$cT6.26677@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> 
>>It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring
> 
> it
> 
>>on!
>>
> 
> 
> Bush does not have an abysmal record.
> 
> 

failed economic leadership -- failed military leadership -- abdication 
in the war on terror - left Osama to rebuild his international terror 
organization, failed to unite allies in a war against terrorist because 
Irag was an idee fixee, -- and of course he lied repeatedly to the 
American people

and we didn't even mention  his failure to make any effort whatsoever to 
prevent terrorism in the US making it a low priority, ignoring 
Hart/Ruddman recommendations and vacationing and ignoring the 'gathering 
threat'
0
jenn449 (8)
8/22/2004 11:17:43 PM
In article <Er6dnfS_bZN4QLXcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> > In article <AaidnfhTTbjVIrrcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Osprey
> > <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10ier2dn882g1f7@news.supernews.com...
> > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:10ienuep2stric1@news.supernews.com...
> > > > >> Osprey wrote:
> > > > >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > >>>> In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > > > >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>> news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>>>> news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe
> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>> or not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> > > > >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> > > > >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> > > > >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> > > > >>>>>>>> in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> > > > >>>>>>>> history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> > > > >>>>>>> history.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> > > > >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So you didn't think.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that the
> > > > >> latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply asked
> > > > > for the person to prove it, and that person, including you, was
> > > > > unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> > > > > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back it
> > > > > up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> > > > > laugh..:o)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves
> close
> > > > friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even
> know
> > > > that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush.
> > >
> > > Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing more
> > > than liberals who are
> > > paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.
> > >
> > > Nice try though.
> > >
> > > Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of
> throwing
> > > out name calling. Liberals are very well
> > > known for that.
> > >
> > >
> > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > sinking Republicans.  I now think we may see a Kerry landslide in
> > November.  People are tired of the lies.  Everyone who was there that
> > day says Kerry was a hero.
> 
> Are you still crying???

Are you still beating your wife?
0
anto4318 (55)
8/22/2004 11:36:36 PM
In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven 
P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>  >
> > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > sinking Republicans.
> >
> 
> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.
> 

LOL!  Sure thing.  The Republicans actually think people are buying
that crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html
0
anto4318 (55)
8/22/2004 11:38:32 PM
In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> >
> 
> I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for that is
> you have no evidence.

Bush and McCain:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html

GOP and Cleland: 

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp

You're welcome.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:39:06 PM
In article <iV6Wc.669$Y%3.260@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a
> > history here.
> >
> 
> But you didn't mention any incidents!

See my previous posts. These incidents (McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina 
primary and Cleland in the 2002 Gerogia senate race) are well 
documented.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:40:05 PM
In article <UT6Wc.666$Y%3.324@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-F8A3F6.15103221082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > What do you want as proof.
> >
> 
> A quote of a statement defaming Bush opponents and a connection to the Bush
> campaign.
> 
> 
> >
> > Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
> > South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
> > accusations about McCain's patriotism.
> >
> 
> What accusations?
> 
> 
> >
> >Same thing happened in 2002 in the Georgia Senate race.
> >
> 
> Bush was president in 2002.  I assure you, he did not run in the 2002
> Georgia senate race.
> 
> 
> >
> > Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is a pattern here.
> >
> 
> If there is it should be fairly easy to demonstrate.  Please do so.

I have done so in another post in this thread. You really aren't worth 
the trouble of doing it twice.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:41:00 PM
In article <Xns954D9C0038ED1thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4>, John
Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:

> Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > Osprey wrote:
> >> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > >> Osprey wrote:
> >> > >>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
> >> > >>>>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > >>>>>> Osprey wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > >>>>>>>> Gactimus wrote:
> 
> >> > >>>>>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and
> >> > >>>>>>>>> believe it or not, it's even more devastating than the
> >> > >>>>>>>>> first one. 
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> >> > >>>>>>>> where Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER
> >> > >>>>>>>> veterans at a meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER
> >> > >>>>>>>> accused ANY swift boat crewman of war crimes.
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to
> >> > >>>>>>>> congress in 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating
> >> > >>>>>>>> morons in history for what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
> >> > >>>>>>> in history.
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> www.nytimes.com
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> >> > >>>>> cheating morons that you called others.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> So you didn't think.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You're certainly an ignorant jackass.   Care to disprove that
> >> > >> the latest swift boat bums ad is accurate.   No I didn't think
> >> > >> so. 
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry bud, but I am not the one who made the claim.  I simply
> >> > > asked for the person to prove it, and that person, including you,
> >> > > was unable to do so. So I don't have to disprove anything.  The
> >> > > disproving began when the originator of the claim failed to back
> >> > > it up with proof.  Call me an ignorant jackass...I got the last
> >> > > laugh..:o)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves
> >> > close friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you
> >> > don't even know that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for
> >> > Bush. 
> >> 
> >> Sorry but I read the articles and I have seen the rhetoric. Nothing
> >> more than liberals who are
> >> paranoid and throwing out wild accusations.
> >> 
> >> Nice try though.
> 
> That was a mighty fucking charitable comment.
> 
> >> Oh, and nice to see you are keeping that liberal tradition up of
> >> throwing out name calling. Liberals are very well
> >> known for that.
> >> 
> >> 
> > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > sinking Republicans.  I now think we may see a Kerry landslide in
> > November.  People are tired of the lies.  Everyone who was there that
> > day says Kerry was a hero.
> 
> I just wanted to let you know how amusing it is to see one of your kind 
> thinking he can say what "most of us already know."
> 
> The "Kerry as war hero" plank of the Democrats' platform is now sawdust. 

Everyone who was there say he is a hero.  To claim otherwise is to spit
on all those who were decorated.  I don't believe the military awards
medals of valor just because you ask.  I understand Bush was a dastard
during Vietnam, but dimishing the image of those who actually fought,
bravely, only demonstrates the disdain Republicans have for this
country.

> They need to try to pretend they never tried it, and hope for it to fade 
> out of the public consciousness and order you drones to drop it. It was 
> funny as hell seeing the Democrats try to use Vietnam to promote their 
> guy, but now they need to move on.

What they need to do is point out that Bush is a convicted criminal who
ran from war when needed.

> 
> Your "Kerry landslide" comment is just too fucking idiotic to even laugh 
> at, but I bet that whoever tells you what to believe is laughing.

I'm a Democrat - I think for myself.
0
anto4318 (55)
8/22/2004 11:42:51 PM
In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>  >
> > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > sinking Republicans.
> >
> 
> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.

And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one 
of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a 
long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for 
Bush. Do try to keep up.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:43:24 PM
In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> >
> > These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by portraying
> > Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >
> 
> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Sure he doesn't. All these accusations just happened to show up after 35 
years at a most convenient time for Bush. You are very naive...

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:45:13 PM
In article <Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4>,
 John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:

> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote
> 
> >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by 
> >> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>  
> > Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> 
> Actually, you might have missed some of the better humor there, not that 
> the drone's misunderstanding isn't amusing.
> 
> What he's apparently referring to is the way the manipulable Bush-hating 
> drones are going to react. He thinks some of them had intended to vote 
> for Bush, once again reminding us that cretins are very entertaining 
> people.
> 
> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away 
> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the 
> "Kerry as War Hero" story. 

The people on the boat with Kerry, and at least one other commander 
disagree with you. Sorry, but your dissembling for Bush is quite 
obvious.  
> 
> Try to imagine how the Democrats would be squealing and bouncing off the 
> walls if a Republican candidate tried to use Vietnam combat experience 
> to get votes.  They'd be rallying millions of ignorant kids, having them 
> skip classes to march in the streets with all the Political Science 
> professors in the van.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:46:36 PM
In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> >
> 
> Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> Kerry's record.

Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win, since 
Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember 
presidents back to Eisenhower.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:47:49 PM
In article <5n9Wc.817$Y%3.495@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pa9Wc.32925$cT6.26677@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring
> it
> > on!
> >
> 
> Bush does not have an abysmal record.

Huge national debt, because of tax cuts for the rich. The idiocy of the 
Iraqi war. No strategy to win the "peace" after we beat Saddam. Going 
after Saddam instead of finishing off OBL and al Qaeda. An economic 
"recovery" that isn't really helping many people, since most of the new 
jobs being created are at lower wages than the jobs lost. And, that is 
just a starter. 

Yeah, I would say Bush has a pretty abysmal record.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:50:25 PM
In article <srhi-0935A8.10231122082004@news-40.giganews.com>,
 Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com>,
>  David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <NJPVc.31510$nx2.19090@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-5FFFF3.11200921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort of
> > > > smearing quite often.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
> > 
> > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> 
> Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
> in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.

Perhaps, he realizes he has nothing else to run on...

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:51:15 PM
In article <0Y6Wc.674$Y%3.60@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:srhi-0935A8.10231122082004@news-40.giganews.com...
> >
> > Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
> > in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.
> >
> 
> "Negative" does not mean "smear".

Swiftboats ads are definitely a smear. You will argue that Bush had 
nothing to do with it, but I will argue you are wrong.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:52:08 PM
In article <Xns954CDFFA2E4D1thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4>,
 John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:

> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort
> >> > of smearing quite often.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
> > 
> > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> 
> Half of the proverbial millions of readers will stop right there, and
> take that as the "I don't have any evidence" that it looks like at first
> glance. 
> 
> The other half will snicker about you citing your own opinions as
> evidence, and they'll logically arrive at the same conclusion. 

I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit. Do a google search on 
McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary, or on Cleland in the 2002 
Georgia senate race. Or see the post where I posted some references. Or, 
do as I suspect you will do, live in denial.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:54:29 PM
In article <XKCdnXqcmNcdlrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> > In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
> >>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >>>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> >>
> >>or
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> >>
> >>where
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> >>>>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
> >>
> >>boat
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> >>
> >>in
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
> >>
> >>for
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>
> >>>>history.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> >>>>
> >>>>morons
> >>>>
> >>>>>>that you called others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >>>>
> >>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >>>>
> >>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >>>>
> >>>>So you didn't think.
> >>>
> >>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> >>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> >>>Bush opponents.
> >>
> >>There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
> >>that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
> >>Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on Bill
> >>Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
> >>liberals
> >>to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it is
> >>o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not true?
> > 
> > 
> > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a 
> > history here. 
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> >>
> >>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> >>>believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
> >>>
> >>>My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> >>>are not thinking.
> >>
> >>My mindless believing everything Bush says?
> >>Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
> >>I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
> >>moment, retract your
> >>false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than you
> >>have already appeared to be.
> > 
> > 
> > You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey. 
> > 
> >>This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't get
> >>their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out name
> >>calling
> >>and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
> >>act like an adult.  What do you say?
> > 
> > 
> > Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to 
> > start namecalling. How about the many Republican members of Congress who 
> > implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was 
> > unpatriotic? There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in 
> > your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in 
> > glass houses.
> > 
> 
> It's part of politics... it's called mudslinging. ;-)

My point is that at least as much of the mudslinging comes from the 
right as from the left.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/22/2004 11:56:21 PM
In article <tpTVc.23$45.7069@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>
> >> No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> >> admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> >> Bush opponents.
> >>
> >
> >Please cite some of that history.
> >
> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> 
> Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
> Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.
> 
> David Derbes

Nice reference, Dave. Thanks.


> 
> >>
> >> We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> >> and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
> >>
> >
> >Did we?  Prove it.
> >
> >

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/23/2004 12:03:14 AM
In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> david raoul derbes wrote:
> 
> > In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> >>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> >>>Bush opponents.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Please cite some of that history.
> >>
> > 
> > Here you go:
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > 
> 
> Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
> So that leaves me out.

That's funny. I registered, and they haven't asked me for money once. 


> 
> > Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
> > Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.
> > 
> > David Derbes
> > 
> > 
> >>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> >>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Did we?  Prove it.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> >

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/23/2004 12:03:54 AM
In article <Nq-dnW4urum0ZLrcRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
> > > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > > In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> > > > > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > Osprey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > >> Gactimus wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and
> believe it
> > > or
> > > > > > > > >>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> > > where
> > > > > > > > >> Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans
> at a
> > > > > > > > >> meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY
> swift
> > > boat
> > > > > > > > >> crewman of war crimes.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to
> congress
> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> 1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in
> history
> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> what they are: Bush paid scum.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons
> in
> > > > > history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > www.nytimes.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying
> cheating
> > > > > morons
> > > > > > > that you called others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> > > > >
> > > > > He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you didn't think.
> > > >
> > > > No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> > > > admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush
> defaming
> > > > Bush opponents.
> > >
> > > There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too,
> but
> > > that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
> > > Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on
> Bill
> > > Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
> > > liberals
> > > to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it
> is
> > > o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not
> true?
> >
> > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a
> > history here.
> 
> do I deny the incidents took place?  No, I do not deny that.
> Do I blame Bush for them?  No, I don't.
> Do I think that the vets are lying about Kerry?
> That is a judgement call.
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> > > > and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> > > > believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> > > > are not thinking.
> > >
> > > My mindless believing everything Bush says?
> > > Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
> > > I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
> > > moment, retract your
> > > false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than
> you
> > > have already appeared to be.
> >
> > You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey.
> > >
> > > This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't
> get
> > > their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out
> name
> > > calling
> > > and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold
> and
> > > act like an adult.  What do you say?
> >
> > Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to
> > start namecalling.
> 
> Yes they are, and frankly I don't like it.
> 
> How about the many Republican members of Congress who
> > implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was
> > unpatriotic?
> 
> I recall many Democrats who agreed as well.  It was one of the few times
> that this country was united, briefly.  Just like the attack on Pearl
> Harbor, same thing. But oh how soon we lose that unity and go right back to
> the same old bullshit.

Is it BS because many don't think Bush is doing a particularly good job? 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in
> > your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in
> > glass houses.
> 
> Is that an apology for falsly accusing me of mindlessly believing everything
> Bush says?

I'll apologize when you demonstrate you don't.

8^)

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/23/2004 12:05:49 AM
In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> >
>> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>> sinking Republicans.
>>
>
>How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.

Surely you jest. 

Have a look at the connections in the graphic in the New York Times on
Thursday, and say that with a straight face.

One man, Cordier, has resigned his volunteer position in the Bush campaign
because it is illegal for 527 groups to be directly connected with a
campaign. Cordier appears in the Swift Boat ad.

There may be independents among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and
there may be libertarians, but I'll bet there are no Democrats.

David Derbes
>


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 12:18:20 AM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
gJaWc.27$45.8392@news.uchicago.edu on 8/22/04 5:18 PM:

> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>> 
>>> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>> sinking Republicans.
>>> 
>> 
>> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.
> 
> Surely you jest. 
> 
> Have a look at the connections in the graphic in the New York Times on
> Thursday, and say that with a straight face.
> 
> One man, Cordier, has resigned his volunteer position in the Bush campaign
> because it is illegal for 527 groups to be directly connected with a
> campaign. Cordier appears in the Swift Boat ad.

Five hundred and twenty seven groups!  Wow... can you list them all?

:)
> 
> There may be independents among the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and
> there may be libertarians, but I'll bet there are no Democrats.
> 
> David Derbes
>> 
> 
> 


-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
8/23/2004 12:24:39 AM
In article <dfritzinnospam-4A330A.13401322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com>,
David Fritzinger  <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <iV6Wc.669$Y%3.260@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>> >
>> > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a
>> > history here.
>> >
>> 
>> But you didn't mention any incidents!
>
>See my previous posts. These incidents (McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina 
>primary and Cleland in the 2002 Gerogia senate race) are well 
>documented.
>
>-- 
>Dave Fritzinger

Goodness, Dave, if your correspondent hasn't heard of these incidents
(Cleland's face superimposed with Bin Laden's, flyers claiming McCain had
fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock in S. Carolina), he's really
not very well informed.

This Bush administration is easily the vilest I can recall, and I'm old
enough to remember Richard Nixon very well.

David Derbes




0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 12:25:07 AM
In article <0ubhi01cdgma9m4b423n96q4m16a0fr18h@4ax.com>,
Ed Rasimus  <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
><dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the 
>>South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making 
>>accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in 
>>the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is 
>>a pattern here.
>
>You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
>patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
>McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
>fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
>the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
>He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control. 
>

Those would have been fair questions.

What was decidedly not fair was the assertion (in pamphlets) that John
McCain had had a child out of wedlock, of mixed race. In fact he and
his wife had adopted one (and since, two) children from Pakistan. 

These assertions were racist, false, and designed to make McCain 
unpalatable to many citizens of South Carolina. They succeeded admirably
in that aim.

As a confirmed liberal, I think John McCain is a fine man. I don't often
agree with his politics, but were he running for president, I can easily
imagine voting for him.

What the Bush people did to him was outrageous. 

David Derbes

>Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
>really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
>is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology. 
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 12:29:48 AM
In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>
>> In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>>Bush opponents.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please cite some of that history.
>>>
>> 
>> Here you go:
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>> 
>
>Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
>So that leaves me out.

You are mistaken. You may look at the past week for free. As of this
writing, Thursday is only three days in the past.

If you email me off list, I'll be glad to send you the graphic and the
article.

David Derbes

>
>> Be sure to look at the nifty graphic showing the interconnections between
>> Rove and Bob Perry, and past campaigns.
>> 
>> David Derbes
>> 
>> 
>>>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>>>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Did we?  Prove it.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>---------------------------------
>The Golden Years Sux.
>


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 12:31:22 AM
In article <XKCdnXScmNerkbXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>
>> In article <47CdnRUh-4r7FbrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
>> GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>
>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>www.nytimes.com 
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
>>>news or facts anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> Nobody's perfect, but they're a damn sight better than most.
>> 
>> Besides, if they're wrong on their Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reporting,
>> won't one of their rivals or the Bushies call them on it? 
>> 
>
>They might call them on it once they get a foothold on something.
>
>It has happened to the NYTimes before.

Certainly. The inside first page of the NY Times has about a third of
a page devoted to corrections, and it's full every day. Only God is
incapable of mistakes... 

My brilliant father used to say that even Jesus made a mistake, out of a dozen
apostles even He picked Judas.

David Derbes


>
>-- 
>---------------------------------
>The Golden Years Sux.
>


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 12:35:39 AM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgb9hm$rge$1@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> failed economic leadership --
>

What failure?  Bush entered office with a slowing economy, today it is
growing.


>
> failed military leadership -- 
>

What failuure?  The regimes in two countries have been ousted in swift
fashion with extraordinarily low casualties.


>
> abdication in the war on terror - left Osama to rebuild his international
terror
> organization, failed to unite allies in a war against terrorist because
> Irag was an idee fixee, -- 
>

Osama's organization is reeling.


>
> and of course he lied repeatedly to the
> American people
>

What lies?


>
> and we didn't even mention  his failure to make any effort whatsoever to
> prevent terrorism in the US making it a low priority, ignoring
> Hart/Ruddman recommendations and vacationing and ignoring the 'gathering
> threat'
>

Because he wasn't omniscient?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 12:41:40 AM
C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in
news:clund-3BFD49.10463222082004@amstwist00.chello.com: 

> In article <OTPVc.31526$nx2.1993@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
>> liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.
> 
> In the US, maybe. But not in the big scary world outside the US 
> borders.

Outside the US as well.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/23/2004 12:56:13 AM
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net: 

> Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> 
> These ads that do little but lie

How do you know they are lies?

> are going to destroy Bush by portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.

The ads have nothing to do with Bush.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/23/2004 12:57:19 AM
In article <v%6Wc.680$Y%3.308@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:DxTVc.25$45.7221@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:j6KVc.19$45.6646@news.uchicago.edu...
>> >>
>> >> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
>> >> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
>> >> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
>> >> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
>> >> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
>> >> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I want to make three points.
>> >>
>> >> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
>> >> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
>> >> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
>> >> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
>> >> had told him that.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>> >
>> >"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
>> >I
>> >shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>> >search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
>> >established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
>> >war
>> >criminals."
>> >
>> >John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>>
>> What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
>sorts
>> of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
>things
>> you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
>misdemeanors
>> and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
>> a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
>> as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
>> that he used.
>>
>
>You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
>a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
>people said."  He said he committed atrocities himself.
>
>

And I answered that. But here it is a second time.

I believe that Kerry regarded himself then, and regards himself today,
as a spokesperson for all those who served in Viet Nam.

He was testifying in Congress angry not so much at himself, or his
fellow veterans, but at the politicians and probably to a lesser 
extent at his superior officers. 

He was reporting on the "Winter Soldier" conference, in which people
claimed to have committed actual atrocities (e.g., mutilation of 
corpses.) I do not know if rape was among these atrocities; I have not
read any of the "Winter Soldier" testimony.

Now, if he was going to say that terrible things had taken place, rather
than put himself up on some pedestal, he was going to say that he had
himself "committed atrocities". I'm sure that in his mind, nearly any
action in this God-forsaken war was an atrocity, because the war itself
was an atrocity. Firing into a group of people, only some of whom were
actually combatants, is probably an atrocity. I'm sure that quite a few
Viet Nam veterans did just that; and had I been there, I've no doubt I
would have done the same, given enough fear or anger or frustration.
Do I think that Kerry mutilated corpses? I doubt it. Did he take part in
a My Lai-style massacre? I doubt it, but as many readers may recall,
Bob Kerrey, a Senator, did, and confessed to it about a year ago. (Kerrey's
actions were not nearly so culpable as William Calley's in my opinion,
but Kerrey feels very, very guilty about it.)

I do not believe that Kerry in any testimony accused any soldier by name
of any atrocity; I do not believe that Kerry implied that all soldiers
had committed atrocities (though many, many Viet vets think that this is
precisely what he did). This is the source of their anger. I believe it 
is misplaced, but as I told another poster, I did not serve in Viet Nam,
and it is not my place to comment on how those brave men feel.

>>
>> My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
>> into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
>> different thing from rape.
>>
>
>Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

I don't know; I meant only to suggest that the actions that Kerry may have
taken might well be in his mind atrocities, but in my mind they are different
from cold-blooded murder of noncombatants, mutilation of corpses, and so on.

The truly terrible thing about all this is that Kerry wanted nothing else but
to get all the men home from a war he was certain was a mistake, and badly
prosecuted in the bargain. Of course many good men and women did not want that;
they wanted to win a war against Communism. But I believe that most of the 
soldiers just wanted to go home, and did not think that this was a war worth
fighting. In my opinion, those who thought Viet Nam a blunder were correct.
We failed to keep the North from overrunning the South. No doubt many innocent
people were executed. But civil wars are as old as human history. Has the
security of the United States suffered as a result of the North Vietnamese
conquest? 

I happen to think that Iraq was a mistake, but not as grievous as Viet Nam 
(as bad as Ho Chi Minh was--and he was a monster--he was Little Mary Sunshine 
next to Saddam). The terrible thing is that it is being prosecuted in an even 
more heinously stupid fashion than Viet Nam. I would have thought that almost 
impossible, but George and his gang have managed it.

David Derbes


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 1:32:12 AM
In article <Xns954CDFFA2E4D1thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4>,
John Griffin  <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
>David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
>>> >
>>> > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort
>>> > of smearing quite often.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
>> 
>> See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
>
>Half of the proverbial millions of readers will stop right there, and
>take that as the "I don't have any evidence" that it looks like at first
>glance. 
>
>The other half will snicker about you citing your own opinions as
>evidence, and they'll logically arrive at the same conclusion. 

Actually, Dave F. cited all this stuff. But, just to save you actually
using Google, here you go with respect to the Swift Boat veterans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

The previous incidents were as follows: in 2000, John McCain was doing
very well in seeking the Republican nomination for President. On the
eve of the South Carolina primary, pamphlets claiming that McCain had
sired a bastard of mixed race were handed out all over the state.
In fact, this claim was entirely false. He and his wife had recently
adopted a child from Bangladesh (IIRC), and in that sense did indeed
have a child with dark skin, but that was the extent of the truth.
Of course this smear was cunningly crafted to appeal to the bigotry
of some voters: race is an issue, and extramarital sex is an issue,
in much of the South. (I speak as a child of Louisiana.)

Next, in 2002, Saxby Chambliss, a Republican, was running against Max
Cleland, a triple amputee from his service in Viet Nam. (And to be
really blunt, it seems that Cleland's injuries were due to someone's
carelessness, not the NVA or the Viet Cong: a grenade went off near
him. It might have been his own carelessness; nonetheless, he was
actually _in_ Viet Nam, unlike a certain Commander-in-Chief I could
mention.) Chambliss used an ad in which Osama Bin Laden's face was
superimposed on Cleland's. Now, was Bush involved in this? I doubt
it, but Rove may have been. (He is rumored to have been; but I am
not aware of direct evidence.) 

These are the slimy incidents that Dave F. refers to. I won't even
mention Willie Horton.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 1:44:48 AM
In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>>
>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by portraying
>> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>
>
>Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
do with them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

David Derbes


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 1:50:36 AM
In article <5n9Wc.817$Y%3.495@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:pa9Wc.32925$cT6.26677@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>> It'll just clear the way to talk more about Bush's abysmal record. Bring
>it
>> on!
>>
>
>Bush does not have an abysmal record.

That depends.

If you earn more than, say, a million a year, why, Bush has been the best
thing since moveable type. 

If, on the other hand, you have to work for a living, if you have to worry
about health care, the mortgage, paying for your children's education, 
your pension, the environment, the safety of draft-age sons, the cost
of gasoline, the deficit or some puny, "little people" concern like that,
well, I'd say Bush's record hasn't been all that hot.

And, in fact, I am pretty confident that many, many millions of people
are going to prove this to you on 2 November.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 1:54:29 AM
In article <BD4E8757.5DE95%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
Snit  <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
>gJaWc.27$45.8392@news.uchicago.edu on 8/22/04 5:18 PM:
>
>> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>>> 
>>>> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>> sinking Republicans.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.
>> 
>> Surely you jest. 
>> 
>> Have a look at the connections in the graphic in the New York Times on
>> Thursday, and say that with a straight face.
>> 
>> One man, Cordier, has resigned his volunteer position in the Bush campaign
>> because it is illegal for 527 groups to be directly connected with a
>> campaign. Cordier appears in the Swift Boat ad.
>
>Five hundred and twenty seven groups!  Wow... can you list them all?
>
>:)

Hi, Snit. I know it's a joke, but for the benefit of those (especially
non-Americans who might be following all this insanity) who don't get it,

527 Group 

A tax-exempt group organized under section 527 of the  Internal Revenue Code
to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization  efforts,
issue advocacy and the like.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.asp

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 2:03:30 AM
"Nate Frisch" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:

>  Bush took over a very sound economy and trashed it.

Please try to get your facts straight.  That is important on usenet.  Thank
you.


0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 2:03:57 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgb9hm$rge$1@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> > failed economic leadership --
> >
>
> What failure?  Bush entered office with a slowing economy, today it is
> growing.

The last two years of the Clinton presidency they were trying to slow the
economy to prevent inflation. This was because even with some slowing it was
still growing at incredible rates. Bush took over a very sound economy and
trashed it.

>
>
> >
> > failed military leadership --
> >
>
> What failuure?  The regimes in two countries have been ousted in swift
> fashion with extraordinarily low casualties.

Ok. If you say so.

>
>
> >
> > abdication in the war on terror - left Osama to rebuild his international
> terror
> > organization, failed to unite allies in a war against terrorist because
> > Irag was an idee fixee, --
> >
>
> Osama's organization is reeling.
>
> >
> > and of course he lied repeatedly to the
> > American people
> >
>
> What lies?
>
> >
> > and we didn't even mention  his failure to make any effort whatsoever to
> > prevent terrorism in the US making it a low priority, ignoring
> > Hart/Ruddman recommendations and vacationing and ignoring the 'gathering
> > threat'
> >
>
> Because he wasn't omniscient?

No because he ignored all the experts on terrorism. Instead he actually
believed the rhetoric that got him elected.  Osmama was just a smoke screen
Clinton used to deflect the news papers away from Monica. Than on September 11
2001 he found out (along with the rest of the right wingers) that the threat
was real.

0
m.frisch (12)
8/23/2004 2:06:14 AM
NCS wrote:
> "Nate Frisch" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>  Bush took over a very sound economy and trashed it.
>
> Please try to get your facts straight.  That is important on usenet.
> Thank you.


His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 2:11:07 AM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
> 
> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
> criminals."
> 
> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct? 

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf 

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either. 

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel
0
cmanteuf (2)
8/23/2004 2:12:17 AM

Gactimus wrote:

> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net:
>
> > Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
> >> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >
> > These ads that do little but lie
>
> How do you know they are lies?

We will never be able to prove that everything they say is lies. However;
There is far too much credible evidence disproving most of what they say.
Little things like the doctor who said he treated Kerry, but doesn't show up
on any of hs medical records. Or the commanders who say they served with him
but their military records put them hundreds of miles away. Or how about the
swift boat commander who was there the day Kerry earned his cross. He came
out today and gave a public statement saying everything Kerry said was true.
He was there in a boat a few hundred feet away. That is feet not miles. Of
coarse there will always be fools who will actually believe; The navy made up
a story and gave John Kerry some medals, just so they could send him home.
But you really have to shut down most of your brain to buy into that.

>
>
> > are going to destroy Bush by portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>
> The ads have nothing to do with Bush.

0
m.frisch (12)
8/23/2004 2:14:45 AM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote

> His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.

Plese refrain from negative comments about our elected officials.  Gentlemen
don't complain.  Thank you.


0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 2:15:51 AM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
SfcWc.36$45.8398@news.uchicago.edu on 8/22/04 7:03 PM:

> In article <BD4E8757.5DE95%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit  <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
>> gJaWc.27$45.8392@news.uchicago.edu on 8/22/04 5:18 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>>>> 
>>>>> All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>>> know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>>> sinking Republicans.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.
>>> 
>>> Surely you jest.
>>> 
>>> Have a look at the connections in the graphic in the New York Times on
>>> Thursday, and say that with a straight face.
>>> 
>>> One man, Cordier, has resigned his volunteer position in the Bush campaign
>>> because it is illegal for 527 groups to be directly connected with a
>>> campaign. Cordier appears in the Swift Boat ad.
>> 
>> Five hundred and twenty seven groups!  Wow... can you list them all?
>> 
>> :)
> 
> Hi, Snit. I know it's a joke, but for the benefit of those (especially
> non-Americans who might be following all this insanity) who don't get it,
> 
> 527 Group 
> 
> A tax-exempt group organized under section 527 of the  Internal Revenue Code
> to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization  efforts,
> issue advocacy and the like.
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.asp

Thanks... your post makes sense to me.

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
8/23/2004 2:16:33 AM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.

Yes, the Bush policies were detrimental to the Iraqi economy.  We fail to
see your point.  Please refrain from off-topic, negative comments about our
elected officials.  Gentlemen don't complain.  Thank you.


0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 2:18:35 AM
"Nate Frisch" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:

> The navy made up
> a story and gave John Kerry some medals, just so they could send him home.
> But you really have to shut down most of your brain to buy into that.

That "war is hell" is common knowledge.  No one can shut down their brains.
Please refrain from irrelevant asides.  That is relatively important on
usenet.  Thank you.


0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 2:21:10 AM
NCS wrote:
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.
>
> Plese refrain from negative comments about our elected officials.
> Gentlemen don't complain.  Thank you.


Patriotic Americans complain when the President is a lazy incompetent jerk 
who has trashed America. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 2:28:30 AM
NCS wrote:
> "Nate Frisch" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> The navy made up
>> a story and gave John Kerry some medals, just so they could send him
>> home. But you really have to shut down most of your brain to buy
>> into that.
>
> That "war is hell" is common knowledge.  No one can shut down their
> brains. Please refrain from irrelevant asides.  That is relatively
> important on usenet.  Thank you.


NCS is one screwed up TROLL! 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 2:29:12 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>> >
>>
>>>All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>sinking Republicans.
>>>
>>
>>How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.
> 
> 
> And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one 
> of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a 
> long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for 
> Bush. Do try to keep up.
> 

Actually, Kerry is running out of valuable time.  He can't keep 
revisiting the past to run a campaign on.  He needs to tell the people 
what he wants to do as president and take a stand on some issues.
So far, TV hasn't shown anything to help his cause.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:44:56 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

> In article <XKCdnXqcmNcdlrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
>  GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>David Fritzinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
>>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
>>>>>"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>>"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
>>>>
>>>>where
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
>>>>
>>>>boat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
>>>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
>>>>
>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>morons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>that you called others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you didn't think.
>>>>>
>>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>>>Bush opponents.
>>>>
>>>>There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
>>>>that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
>>>>Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on Bill
>>>>Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
>>>>liberals
>>>>to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it is
>>>>o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not true?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a 
>>>history here. 
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
>>>>>believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
>>>>>
>>>>>My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
>>>>>are not thinking.
>>>>
>>>>My mindless believing everything Bush says?
>>>>Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
>>>>I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
>>>>moment, retract your
>>>>false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than you
>>>>have already appeared to be.
>>>
>>>
>>>You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey. 
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't get
>>>>their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out name
>>>>calling
>>>>and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
>>>>act like an adult.  What do you say?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to 
>>>start namecalling. How about the many Republican members of Congress who 
>>>implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was 
>>>unpatriotic? There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in 
>>>your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in 
>>>glass houses.
>>>
>>
>>It's part of politics... it's called mudslinging. ;-)
> 
> 
> My point is that at least as much of the mudslinging comes from the 
> right as from the left.
> 

Of course.  I remember every election from Eisenhower to current, and 
each had its fair share of mudslinging.  A real problem with politics is 
that there are a lot of very good leaders that won't go into politics, 
as they view the campaign process akin to a shredder.


-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:48:34 AM

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>>>Bush opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please cite some of that history.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here you go:
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>>
>>
>>Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
>>So that leaves me out.
>>
> 
> Nope, free registration...
> 

Good.  I'll give it a try.  I see all too often web sites that want you 
to register also want your credit card number and how much it costs per 
year.  The AP website, if I recall, was about $295/year.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:51:48 AM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>>>Bush opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please cite some of that history.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here you go:
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>>
>>
>>Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
>>So that leaves me out.
> 
> 
> You are mistaken. You may look at the past week for free. As of this
> writing, Thursday is only three days in the past.
> 
> If you email me off list, I'll be glad to send you the graphic and the
> article.


As Lloyd indicated, the registration is free... so I'll give it another try.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:52:47 AM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <XKCdnXScmNerkbXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <47CdnRUh-4r7FbrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
>>>GreyCloud  <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Osprey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part where
>>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
>>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift boat
>>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress in
>>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history for
>>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in history.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>www.nytimes.com 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
>>>>news or facts anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody's perfect, but they're a damn sight better than most.
>>>
>>>Besides, if they're wrong on their Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reporting,
>>>won't one of their rivals or the Bushies call them on it? 
>>>
>>
>>They might call them on it once they get a foothold on something.
>>
>>It has happened to the NYTimes before.
> 
> 
> Certainly. The inside first page of the NY Times has about a third of
> a page devoted to corrections, and it's full every day. Only God is
> incapable of mistakes... 
> 
> My brilliant father used to say that even Jesus made a mistake, out of a dozen
> apostles even He picked Judas.
> 

Hehehe... that one is a keeper. :-)

I'll keep my skepticism to the same level as Will Rogers did.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:55:03 AM

John wrote:

> NCS wrote:
> 
>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.
>>
>>Plese refrain from negative comments about our elected officials.
>>Gentlemen don't complain.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotic Americans complain when the President is a lazy incompetent jerk 
> who has trashed America. 
> 
> 

More to that than just Bush.  Let's just say that the majority of the 
corporate CEOs have trashed the american economy.  Remember junk bonds?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 3:56:46 AM
David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>  John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
> 
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > I notice you did not address my point that the Bushies do this sort
>> >> > of smearing quite often.
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?
>> > 
>> > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
>> 
>> Half of the proverbial millions of readers will stop right there, and
>> take that as the "I don't have any evidence" that it looks like at first
>> glance. 
>> 
>> The other half will snicker about you citing your own opinions as
>> evidence, and they'll logically arrive at the same conclusion. 
> 
> I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit. Do a google search on 
> McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary, or on Cleland in the 2002 
> Georgia senate race. Or see the post where I posted some references. Or, 
> do as I suspect you will do, live in denial.

There is nothing you could do "for my benefit." I really don't care what 
opinions you've expressed on newsgroups or anywhere else, and a more 
careful reading will reveal to you that I didn't ask.  However, thanks for 
amusing me by believing that my lack of interest in your opinions is 
"denial."
0
8/23/2004 4:18:16 AM
In article <vOidnZR007UG9bTcRVn-tg@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> > In article <XKCdnXqcmNcdlrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
> >  GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>David Fritzinger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <IvmdnXQ3H-hCXLrcRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
> >>> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <-8ydnWJ3AOYcwLrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
> >>>>>"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-B76AB2.19514620082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article <--GdnfGKPsDtSLvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
> >>>>>>>"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:10idkgagrba4uea@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Osprey wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:10idj5sr9qm5n09@news.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it
> >>>>
> >>>>or
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>The new ad is a BIG LIE.     The lowlifes CUT OUT the part
> >>>>
> >>>>where
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Kerry stated he had heard the charges from OTHER veterans at a
> >>>>>>>>>>>meeting about a month before.  Kerry NEVER accused ANY swift
> >>>>
> >>>>boat
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>crewman of war crimes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Watch the ENTIRE testimony Kerry gave on that day to congress
> >>>>
> >>>>in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>1971 and then recognize the lying cheating morons in history
> >>>>
> >>>>for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>what they are: Bush paid scum.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Can you prove that Bush paid these people?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>If not, consider yourself one of the lying cheating morons in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>history.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>www.nytimes.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sorry, but you failed.  Consider yourself one of the lying cheating
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>morons
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>that you called others.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Care to explain why he failed? OK, I didn't think so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He failed to prove that Bush paid these people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He is, like many liberals, a liar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So you didn't think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
> >>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
> >>>>>Bush opponents.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is a LOT of history of people dying that knew Bill Clinton too, but
> >>>>that doesn't prove that Bill Clinton was behind their deaths.
> >>>>Amazing though, when people did link the deaths to knowing too much on 
> >>>>Bill
> >>>>Clinton liberals had a FIT over those accusations, but it is o.k. for
> >>>>liberals
> >>>>to throw out accusations themself.  Isn't that correct?  Do you think it 
> >>>>is
> >>>>o.k. to throw out accusations that you don't know are true or are not 
> >>>>true?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is a 
> >>>history here. 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race. So, it is not hard to
> >>>>>believe that Karl Rove's hand is somewhere in there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>My point is that, by your mindless believing everything Bush says, you
> >>>>>are not thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>>My mindless believing everything Bush says?
> >>>>Oh my, do you really think you want to try and go down this road?
> >>>>I suggest you rethink your position, decided to act like an adult for a
> >>>>moment, retract your
> >>>>false statement.  I would hate to make you look like a bigger fool than 
> >>>>you
> >>>>have already appeared to be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You might want to think about what you are saying as well, Osprey. 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This is one thing many liberals are very well known for. When they don't 
> >>>>get
> >>>>their way, or when they can't "win" an argument they like to throw out 
> >>>>name
> >>>>calling
> >>>>and make up stupid things about others.  Why don't you break the mold and
> >>>>act like an adult.  What do you say?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do you call Rush Limbaugh, etc., liberals. They are certainly quick to 
> >>>start namecalling. How about the many Republican members of Congress who 
> >>>implied that anyone who didn't support the Bush agenda after 9/11 was 
> >>>unpatriotic? There is more than just a little "pot, kettle, black..." in 
> >>>your statement above. You should remember what they say about people in 
> >>>glass houses.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's part of politics... it's called mudslinging. ;-)
> > 
> > 
> > My point is that at least as much of the mudslinging comes from the 
> > right as from the left.
> > 
> 
> Of course.  I remember every election from Eisenhower to current, and 
> each had its fair share of mudslinging.  A real problem with politics is 
> that there are a lot of very good leaders that won't go into politics, 
> as they view the campaign process akin to a shredder.

Alas, that is too true.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/23/2004 5:06:43 AM
In article <10iikqn9i8k2ga9@corp.supernews.com>, "NCS" <bf@yahoo.com> 
wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> 
> > His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.
> 
> Plese refrain from negative comments about our elected officials.  Gentlemen
> don't complain.  Thank you.

So, you never said anything negative about Bill Clinton while he was 
president? To quote Edwin, I ask for information only.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/23/2004 5:10:06 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote

> So, you never said anything negative about Bill Clinton while he was
> president? To quote Edwin, I ask for information only.

Any man who can get oral sex on the job deserves our admiration and respect.
Please peddle your sex talk in appropriate newsgroups.  Thank you.


0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 5:22:26 AM
Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by portraying
>> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>
>
>Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

1) Sucker.
2) Nobody will believe you, that's why.  Anti-Kerry is Bush.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
8/23/2004 5:26:50 AM
Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message

>> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
>> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
>> "Kerry as War Hero" story.
>>
>
>Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
>Kerry's record.

Anything to avoid dealing with Bush's record.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
8/23/2004 5:27:38 AM
John Griffin  <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
>rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>>>it's even more devastating than the first one.
>> 
>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>
>Note: The ads do not portray Bush.

Doesn't matter.  Bush hasn't distanced himself from them so people
will assume that they represent Bush.

Correctly, IMO.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
8/23/2004 5:28:50 AM
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> 
>>> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
>>> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
>>> "Kerry as War Hero" story.
>>>
>>
>>Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
>>Kerry's record.
> 
> Anything to avoid dealing with Bush's record.

I hope you're capable spotting the joke here, but let me explain. He 
implies that you don't want to talk about Kerry's record, and your reply 
is "Bush's record."  Trust me, that's funny.


0
8/23/2004 6:09:29 AM
David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

>  John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote
>> 
>> >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by 
>> >> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>  
>> > Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>> 
>> Actually, you might have missed some of the better humor there, not
>> that the drone's misunderstanding isn't amusing.
>> 
>> What he's apparently referring to is the way the manipulable
>> Bush-hating drones are going to react. He thinks some of them had
>> intended to vote for Bush, once again reminding us that cretins are
>> very entertaining people.
>> 
>> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away 
>> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the 
>> "Kerry as War Hero" story. 
> 
> The people on the boat with Kerry, and at least one other commander 
> disagree with you. Sorry, but your dissembling for Bush is quite 
> obvious.  

You don't have to apologize for such a stupid remark. It was fun.

I don't like Bush. I didn't vote for him.  I said his decision to 
eliminate Hussein was premature.  What's quite obvious is the 100% 
reflexive nature of your comments.  It's pretty easy to lack respect for 
both Bush and Kerry, if you haven't been manipulated by one of the 
parties.  Don't even think of trying it for yourself.  

Seriously, the war hero nonsense can hurt Kerry. Sometime in October, 
the Republicans will run an advertisement reminding the Democrats' 
drones that they're opposed to war, and they don't want some guy who 
sees killing Vietnamese as his defining moment. Lots of you will slap 
yourselves on the forehead and say "Oh, shit, that's right! I forgot!"  
Millions of independent voters will say "Who cares...all he would 
represent as president is a change, not a move."

>> Try to imagine how the Democrats would be squealing and bouncing off
>> the walls if a Republican candidate tried to use Vietnam combat
>> experience to get votes.  They'd be rallying millions of ignorant
>> kids, having them skip classes to march in the streets with all the
>> Political Science professors in the van.

I suppose you think it would be even worse than that.  Now that you 
mention it, you're probably right.

0
8/23/2004 6:28:18 AM
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> John Griffin  <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
>>rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>> 
>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>
>>Note: The ads do not portray Bush.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Bush hasn't distanced himself from them so people
> will assume that they represent Bush.

There are a few people who will assume just about anything you can
imagine, on no basis except that it sounds good to them, just like that. 

> Correctly, IMO.

Well, good...your opinions, in your opinion, are correct. No shit.
0
8/23/2004 6:31:17 AM
"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in
Xns954DEF451D75Athathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4 on 8/22/04 11:31 PM:

> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> 
>> John Griffin  <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>> not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>> 
>>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>> 
>>> Note: The ads do not portray Bush.
>> 
>> Doesn't matter.  Bush hasn't distanced himself from them so people
>> will assume that they represent Bush.
> 
> There are a few people who will assume just about anything you can
> imagine, on no basis except that it sounds good to them, just like that.

I would assume you are correct.  Sounds good to me.
> 
>> Correctly, IMO.
> 
> Well, good...your opinions, in your opinion, are correct. No shit.


-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
8/23/2004 6:35:09 AM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> 
> "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote
>>
>> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
>> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
>> "Kerry as War Hero" story.
>>
> 
> Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> Kerry's record.

Whatever they do, all they can accomplish with the war hero stuff is 
create the laughable situation in which liberals are suddenly spitting 
and shitting adulation for Viet Nam veterans.  Independents are thinking 
"What's the big deal? He lied about some medals, but he has lots of sea 
stories. So what?"

I noticed a couple of replies to your implication that the Democrats 
don't want to talk about Kerry's record. They were just some warmed over 
comments about George Bush's record.  That was so funny that I thought 
they were spoofing. When your argument against something is just an 
example of it, you have to be kidding. That's what I thought at first, 
but then I noticed they were some of the pure-reflex posters.


0
8/23/2004 6:36:27 AM
In article <Xns954DD59025752G@alaska.local>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in
> news:clund-3BFD49.10463222082004@amstwist00.chello.com: 
> > In article <OTPVc.31526$nx2.1993@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >> For all practical purposes, "liberal" today means "socialist".  Modern
> >> liberals and classic liberals are polar opposites.
> > In the US, maybe. But not in the big scary world outside the US 
> > borders.
> Outside the US as well.

You should try visiting the world outside the US some time.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
8/23/2004 8:07:02 AM
In article <1cbcee05.0408221812.c3af4f6@posting.google.com>,
Chris Manteuffel <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote:
>"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
>> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>> 
>> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
>> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>> search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts were
>> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
>> criminals."
>> 
>> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>
>Are you sure that that quote is correct? 
>
>http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf 
>
>is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
>of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
>format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
>been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
>Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
>group; their analysis of the testimony is at
>
>http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
>It never mentions any quote like that you provided either. 
>
>I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
>testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
>sourced document) is somewhat different.
>
>"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
>not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
>everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
>in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
>military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
>hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
>that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
>guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
>[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
>Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
>in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
>and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
>killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
>That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
>everything."
>
>From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
>provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.
>
>Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

David Derbes

0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 10:22:43 AM
In article <10iikqn9i8k2ga9@corp.supernews.com>, NCS <bf@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> His facts are correct.     Bush trashed the economy.  End of story.
>
>Plese refrain from negative comments about our elected officials.  Gentlemen
>don't complain.  Thank you.

You have got to be kidding. This is America, the last time I looked.

The right to complain is woven into the DNA of the citizens.

David Derbes


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 10:24:10 AM
Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<srhi-EB473D.09310822082004@news-40.giganews.com>...
> In article <rgjfi0db308sup423bdhsmlfsbriq199h7@4ax.com>,
>  Michael Bauer <Crackerhead> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:37:33 -0400, Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote:
> > 
> > >In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> > > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, 
> > >> it's 
> > >> even more devastating than the first one.
> > >
> > >You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
> > >stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 
> > >
> > >Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be 
> > >HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home 
> > >enjoying them.
Oh yes, Kerry the medal hunter, did nothing significant to help the
war effort, and he got out as fast as possible so he could support the
North Vietnamese and the VC by attacking the morale of troops fighting
there. I don't know how we can ever thank him enough.
> > >
> > >Bush can't even stick to one excuse for sending American troops off to 
> > >kill and die at a time when we needed to focus our resources on the 
> > >terrorist threat.  It makes it worse he's a coward trying to denigrate a 
> > >decorated American war hero (John Kerry), while troops are bravely 
> > >fighting in a foreign land as we speak!

Damn! you mean that he is copying Kerry's stuff from 1970. I DON'T
THINK SO.

  What a slap in the face 
> > >Republicans are to our troops.  Pathetic.
> > >
> > >Greg
> > 
> > vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, dipshit.  don't mix apples with
> > oranges unless you want baby shit all over you
> 
> Vietnam has a lot to do with Iraq. The point is to avoid making the
> same mistakes in Iraq that were made in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Bush
> blew that opportunity.

Iraq is no Vietnam. What has Bush done since elected?

Afghanistan: Three years ago the home of al-Qa'ida and the Taliban;
now with the terrorists neutralized or on the run, and scheduled for
historic free elections in the fall.

Pakistan: Three years ago one of only a few countries to recognize the
Taliban regime, active in the proliferation of WMD technology and on
course for possible nuclear conflict with neighboring India; now a key
ally against terrorism and in the fight against nuclear weapons
proliferators and aspirants like North Korea and Iran.

Saudi Arabia: Three years ago, the President's analysis continues,
terrorists were well established, financially supported and
logistically facilitated within Saudi Arabia; now, given the impetus
of the War on Terror -- and coupled with the self-preservation
instincts of the House of Saud -- this is no longer the case.

Iraq: Three years ago a safe haven for terrorists, ruled by a tyrant
in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and a regional threat to our
national security interests; now a sovereign, democratic state amid
Middle Eastern autocracies, allied with the U.S. in the fight against
terrorism.

Libya: Three years ago, the hub of a WMD proliferation network and a
known backer of terrorism; now disarmed, with "nuclear processing
equipment that could ultimately have threatened the lives of hundreds
of thousands...stored in Oak Ridge, Tennessee."

What will Kerry do if elected? Based on his record in the Senate,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
0
saguaro (3)
8/23/2004 12:04:33 PM
Gactimus wrote:
> Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:41286D35.4030105@it.com:
>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in news:4126C50B.2050906@it.com:
>>>>Gactimus wrote:


>>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
>>>>>not, it's even more devastating than the first one.
>>>>
>>>>Zogby has just indicated that Colorado is now a battleground state. 
>>>>If that is even CLOSE to true, the election is over, and you might as 
>>>>well get used to saying "President Kerry."
>>>
>>>Not likely. Even if Bush wins every state he won in 2000 he would still
>>>win the election without Colorado.
>>
>>Uh, that's the point, Gac!  If Bush really is in trouble in Colorado,
>>the national electorate has probably swung so far away from him that he 
>>won't win every state he won in 2000.  I find it almost inconceivable 
>>that Colorado is really in play.
> 
> Don't worry. It isn't.

   I know a lot of fellow Republicans who, like myself, will be pushing 
the buttons for our local candidates, but will not be voting for Bush. 
He's been reckless, not only in foreign policy matters but with regard 
to our economy.  If a CEO screwed up this badly, he'd be shown the door 
-- and let's face it, Bush has never succeeded at anything.

0
forget5 (16)
8/23/2004 12:31:22 PM

John Griffin wrote:

> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
>>>>completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
>>>>"Kerry as War Hero" story.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
>>>Kerry's record.
>>
>>Anything to avoid dealing with Bush's record.
> 
> 
> I hope you're capable spotting the joke here, but let me explain. He 
> implies that you don't want to talk about Kerry's record, and your reply 
> is "Bush's record."  Trust me, that's funny.
> 
> 

Ray has already been analy probed by aliens.


-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 4:17:04 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:TzjWc.37$45.8927@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <1cbcee05.0408221812.c3af4f6@posting.google.com>,
> Chris Manteuffel <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote:
> >"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:<u_MVc.31345$nx2.1336@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
> >>
> >> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in
that I
> >> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined
in
> >> search and destroy missions, and burned villages.  All of these acts
were
> >> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this
are war
> >> criminals."
> >>
> >> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
> >
> >Are you sure that that quote is correct?
> >
> >http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
> >
> >is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
> >of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
> >format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
> >been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
> >Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
> >group; their analysis of the testimony is at
> >
> >http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
> >
> >It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.
> >
> >I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
> >testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
> >sourced document) is somewhat different.
> >
> >"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
> >not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
> >everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
> >in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
> >military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
> >hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
> >that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
> >guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
> >[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
> >Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
> >in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
> >and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
> >killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
> >That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
> >everything."
> >
> >From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
> >provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
statement instead on national television: "There are all kinds of atrocities
and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part
in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction
fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to
use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in
search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is
contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva
Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established
policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I
believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike
areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the
law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." 18 April 1971, "Meet
the Press", NBC

So there is absolutely NO question that he did indeed make that statement
(though the poster did apparently paraphrase it). When questioned about that
statement last April, again on "Meet the Press", he did not back down too
much from the war criminal accusation, instead saying only, "I wish I had
found a way to say it in a less abrasive way." Whew! How thoughtful of him
(sarcasm switch temporarily engaged). Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

> >
> >Chris Manteuffel
>
> There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
> Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
> for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
> Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
> Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
> hosts.)
>
> I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
> It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

His "testimony", which you say was so "powerful", was based upon "voodoo",
which is about the best way to characterize the "Winter Soldier
Investigation" nonsense. That Jane Fonda sponsored circus has been pretty
thoroughly discredited as a "factual source" (the DoD investigators who
looked into the claims made in that "trial" threw their hands up after
finding that the "witnesses" were either not even who they claimed they
were, but often had never even been in Vietnam, or those who had were not
assigned to frontline combat units, etc.--see the excellent book by Burkett
and Whitley, "Stolen Valor", for a more complete indictment of WSI).

Of course, he *did* make personal claims as well during that testimony, such
as the following regarding an alleged incident where the ARVN supposedly
refused to come to his aid: "...I was in the Navy and this was pretty
unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or
something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused."
Odd, but I don't recall any of the myriad stories supposedly describing his
Vietnam heroics on a Swift boat including any cases where he became "pinned
down in a ditch" while recovering bodies", do you? Maybe this was "seared"
into his memory along with his recollection of where he spent Christmas Eve
1968 (which was either deep inside Cambodia or some fifty plus miles away at
a village in the RVN, depending upon *which* specific recollection of his
you care to believe).

As to his indictment of the bulk of US officers who served in Vietnam, he
offered the following when asked about the prosecution of William Calley:
"But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from
responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened
there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire
zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts... I think if
you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if
this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same
time try all those other people who have responsibility..."

Pretty broad brush he wields there, and in keeping with his "Meet the Press"
quotation above, and a view that he apparently still holds, though he would
apparently now express it less "abrasively"....

Brooks

>
> David Derbes
>


0
brooksvmi (11)
8/23/2004 4:30:57 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> The right to complain is woven into the DNA of the citizens.

Please refrain from distorting the Constitution.  Thank you.



0
bf6833 (6)
8/23/2004 4:32:11 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-4A330A.13401322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <iV6Wc.669$Y%3.260@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is
a
> > > history here.
> > >
> >
> > But you didn't mention any incidents!
>
> See my previous posts.
>

I saw them.  If I hadn't seen them I wouldn't have been able to point out
that you didn't mention any incidents.


>
> These incidents (McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina
> primary and Cleland in the 2002 Gerogia senate race) are well
> documented.
>

Well, then, it should be a simple matter for you to provide some support for
your assertions.  Please do so.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:41:27 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-940955.13410822082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <UT6Wc.666$Y%3.324@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-F8A3F6.15103221082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > What do you want as proof.
> > >
> >
> > A quote of a statement defaming Bush opponents and a connection to the
Bush
> > campaign.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
> > > South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
> > > accusations about McCain's patriotism.
> > >
> >
> > What accusations?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Same thing happened in 2002 in the Georgia Senate race.
> > >
> >
> > Bush was president in 2002.  I assure you, he did not run in the 2002
> > Georgia senate race.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is a pattern here.
> > >
> >
> > If there is it should be fairly easy to demonstrate.  Please do so.
>
> I have done so in another post in this thread. You really aren't worth
> the trouble of doing it twice.
>

But you didn't do it at all!  There is a significant difference between
claiming something happened and showing something happened.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:42:48 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-202160.13433122082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> > news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> >  >
> > > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > > sinking Republicans.
> > >
> >
> > How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
group.
>
> And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one
> of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
> long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
> Bush. Do try to keep up.
>

O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's personal.
Kerry said things about them that were not true.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:44:44 PM
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:220820041638325492%anto@sales.com...
> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
> P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> > news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> >  >
> > > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > > sinking Republicans.
> > >
> >
> > How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
group.
> >
>
> LOL!  Sure thing.  The Republicans actually think people are buying
> that crap.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html

Did you know the author mentioned in that article, John O'Neill, is a
Democrat?  The Swift Boat Veterans group is not a Republican group, it's not
a political group at all.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:47:16 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > >
> > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > >
> >
> > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> > Kerry's record.
>
> Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win, since
> Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> presidents back to Eisenhower.
>

Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a landslide for
Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal point of
the campaign.

By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:51:59 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-3F5394.13503322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > Bush does not have an abysmal record.
>
> Huge national debt, because of tax cuts for the rich. The idiocy of the
> Iraqi war. No strategy to win the "peace" after we beat Saddam. Going
> after Saddam instead of finishing off OBL and al Qaeda. An economic
> "recovery" that isn't really helping many people, since most of the new
> jobs being created are at lower wages than the jobs lost. And, that is
> just a starter.
>
> Yeah, I would say Bush has a pretty abysmal record.
>

That's because you don't understand economics, government, foreign policy,
etc.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:54:17 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-638AB5.13521622082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <0Y6Wc.674$Y%3.60@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:srhi-0935A8.10231122082004@news-40.giganews.com...
> > >
> > > Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
> > > in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.
> > >
> >
> > "Negative" does not mean "smear".
>
> Swiftboats ads are definitely a smear. You will argue that Bush had
> nothing to do with it, but I will argue you are wrong.
>

Actually, I will point out that Bush had nothing to do with those ads, you
will insist that he did.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 5:56:26 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> news:220820041638325492%anto@sales.com...
> 
>>In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
>>P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>>news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>> >
>>>
>>>>All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>>know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>>sinking Republicans.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
> 
> group.
> 
>>LOL!  Sure thing.  The Republicans actually think people are buying
>>that crap.
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html
> 
> 
> Did you know the author mentioned in that article, John O'Neill, is a
> Democrat?  The Swift Boat Veterans group is not a Republican group, it's not
> a political group at all.
> 
> 

O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at 
it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- and of course he 
wasn't in vietnam when Kerry was and has only met Kerry in passing since
0
jenn449 (8)
8/23/2004 5:59:09 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgdb8c$5v1$4@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
> it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
>

What hard evidence do you have of that?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 6:17:05 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-3F5394.13503322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> 
>>>Bush does not have an abysmal record.
>>
>>Huge national debt, because of tax cuts for the rich. The idiocy of the
>>Iraqi war. No strategy to win the "peace" after we beat Saddam. Going
>>after Saddam instead of finishing off OBL and al Qaeda. An economic
>>"recovery" that isn't really helping many people, since most of the new
>>jobs being created are at lower wages than the jobs lost. And, that is
>>just a starter.
>>
>>Yeah, I would say Bush has a pretty abysmal record.
>>
> 
> 
> That's because you don't understand economics, government, foreign policy,
> etc.
> 
> 


we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a 
vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- that gonna smoke em out - 
gonna gittem etc is not the same as actually doing the job -- Osama had 
3 years to regroup and organize all over the world while we alienated 
our allies and abandoned the war on al Qaida
0
jenn449 (8)
8/23/2004 6:42:36 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
>

But what you don't understand is that did not happen.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 7:01:35 PM
In article <g2qWc.1494$Y%3.623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:dfritzinnospam-202160.13433122082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
>> In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>> > news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>> >  >
>> > > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>> > > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>> > > sinking Republicans.
>> > >
>> >
>> > How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
>group.
>>
>> And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one
>> of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
>> long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
>> Bush. Do try to keep up.
>>
>
>O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's personal.
>Kerry said things about them that were not true.

This is the nub. 

Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
They were not false. Atrocities were committed, as they are in every war.
For reasons not entirely clear to me, the soldiers of Viet Nam were 
regarded as baby killers and monsters, which they were not. Were babies
killed and monstrous acts committed? Sure, just like every other war,
including both World Wars and every other war in human history, by all
sides. 

Kerry somehow, like the sacrificial goat, is regarded by some Viet vets
as the main reason why Viet vets were treated so shabbily when they 
returned. In my opinion, what he was trying to do was get his fellow
soldiers home as soon as possible. It was evident to him that this war
was not winnable, no matter how many lives were used up. 

So, the SBVT, notably John O'Neill, are spewing stuff that is provably
false, because they are bitter and angry and they hate him. I get that,
honest. I have no problem with them saying (as in the second ad) that
he did them a lot of harm, based on his testimony. I happen not to agree
with that sentiment, but they're entitled to their feelings. No one
doubts that Kerry gave testimony to Congress and spoke on TV. The second
ad is basically honest, though I think they've unfairly not included the
preamble that Kerry was repeating stuff that he was told.

It's the willingness of some of these guys to say stuff which they
_know_ is false that really disturbs me. 

"He who contends with monsters, must take care lest he become a monster.
And when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
F. Nietzsche.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 7:10:27 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> 
>>we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>>vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
>>
> 
> 
> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> 
> 

where's Osama?  Why do our ports continue unguarded?  Why did we lie our 
way into war with Iraq?
0
jenn449 (8)
8/23/2004 7:13:13 PM
In article <10ik70atb8gkve8@corp.supernews.com>, NCS <bf@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> The right to complain is woven into the DNA of the citizens.
>
>Please refrain from distorting the Constitution.  Thank you.

You are a fake American. 

I'm done.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 7:13:26 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:DirWc.49$45.9676@news.uchicago.edu...
> >
> >O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
personal.
> >Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>
> This is the nub.
>
> Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
> They were not false.
>

Kerry said things that he cannot prove, that are unreasonable, and that
these men claim are not true.  The most reasonable explanation is that Kerry
lied.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 7:18:35 PM
In article <fqrWc.1560$Y%3.135@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:DirWc.49$45.9676@news.uchicago.edu...
>> >
>> >O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
>personal.
>> >Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>>
>> This is the nub.
>>
>> Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
>> They were not false.
>>
>
>Kerry said things that he cannot prove, that are unreasonable, and that
>these men claim are not true.  The most reasonable explanation is that Kerry
>lied.

Waitasec. You are saying that Viet Nam, unlike every other war in human
history, had _no_ atrocities committed by one side, namely us?

Does the name William J. Calley ring a bell?

I don't want to be gross here, but I've _seen_ necklaces of ears, OK?

David Derbes


0
loki6 (507)
8/23/2004 7:21:21 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:RsrWc.52$45.9751@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <fqrWc.1560$Y%3.135@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> >news:DirWc.49$45.9676@news.uchicago.edu...
> >> >
> >> >O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
> >personal.
> >> >Kerry said things about them that were not true.
> >>
> >> This is the nub.
> >>
> >> Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years
ago.
> >> They were not false.
> >>
> >
> >Kerry said things that he cannot prove, that are unreasonable, and that
> >these men claim are not true.  The most reasonable explanation is that
Kerry
> >lied.
>
> Waitasec. You are saying that Viet Nam, unlike every other war in human
> history, had _no_ atrocities committed by one side, namely us?
>

No, I'm not saying that, and you're probably intelligent enough to
understand that I'm not saying that.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 7:23:36 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:DirWc.49$45.9676@news.uchicago.edu...
> 
>>>O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
> 
> personal.
> 
>>>Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>>
>>This is the nub.
>>
>>Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
>>They were not false.
>>
> 
> 
> Kerry said things that he cannot prove, that are unreasonable, and that
> these men claim are not true.  The most reasonable explanation is that Kerry
> lied.
> 
> 

ALL of the official Navy records related to the battles where Kerry's 
awards were given support his position -- ALL

Kerry's testimony was not only not unreasonable -- he was summarizing 
what dozens of people had testified to in congressional hearings
0
jenn449 (8)
8/23/2004 7:30:32 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgdfj9$6jr$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> > news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> >>we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> >>vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> >>
> >
> >
> > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >
> >
>
> where's Osama?
>

Unknown.


>
> Why do our ports continue unguarded?
>

They're not.


>
> Why did we lie our way into war with Iraq?
>

We didn't.

Why are you misinformed?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 7:32:49 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgdgjn$6ne$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> ALL of the official Navy records related to the battles where Kerry's
> awards were given support his position -- ALL
>

But are contradicted by witnesses.


>
> Kerry's testimony was not only not unreasonable -- he was summarizing
> what dozens of people had testified to in congressional hearings
>

Kerry's testimony was unreasonable.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 7:44:41 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgdfj9$6jr$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> > news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> >>we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> >>vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> >>
> >
> >
> > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >
> >
>
> where's Osama?  Why do our ports continue unguarded?  Why did we lie our
> way into war with Iraq?


Why are we foiling plans by Al Queda?
Why hasn't there been any successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?
Why did it take 3 presidents administrations to finally realize we got to
fight terrorism?
Do you think getting Osama is going to end this?
Why are you so fixed on Osama when the problem is much larger?
I don't know about the "we" lying part, maybe you are lying.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/23/2004 7:45:46 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-C3F7BB.13391322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> > >
> >
> > I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for that
is
> > you have no evidence.
>
> Bush and McCain:
>
> http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
>
> http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
>
> GOP and Cleland:
>
> http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
>
> You're welcome.
>

For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've provided
none.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 8:32:52 PM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
portraying
> >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >>
> >
> >Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>
> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> do with them:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>

There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
anything to do with those ads.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 8:38:06 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdfj9$6jr$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> 
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>>>>vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>where's Osama?
>>
> 
> 
> Unknown.
> 
> 
> 
>>Why do our ports continue unguarded?
>>
> 
> 
> They're not.
> 
> 
> 
>>Why did we lie our way into war with Iraq?
>>
> 
> 
> We didn't.
> 
> Why are you misinformed?
> 
> 

cuz I don't watch Fox much -- where your valuable knowledge seems to be 
sourced LOL
0
jenn449 (8)
8/23/2004 8:53:36 PM
"Chris Manteuffel" <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:1cbcee05.0408221812.c3af4f6@posting.google.com...
>
> Are you sure that that quote is correct?
>

It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site.  Here's the full
paragraph:

His personal ambitions notwithstanding, Kerry gave clear public voice to the
same position taken by the veterans group. In his appearance before William
Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry
volunteered this straightforward testimony: "I committed the same kinds of
atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used
harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and
burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top
down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."


Here's a link to it:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/01/19/a_skillful_chronicle_of_kerrys_conflicts/


>
> http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
> is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
> of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
> format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
> been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
> Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
> group; their analysis of the testimony is at
>
> http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
> It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.
>

Gee.  Do ya think The Boston Globe is an anti-Kerry group as well?


>
> I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
> testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
> sourced document) is somewhat different.
>
> "We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
> not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
> everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
> in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
> military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
> hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
> that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
> guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
> [CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
> Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
> in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
> and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
> killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
> That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
> everything."
>
> From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
> provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.
>

You're welcome.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 8:55:44 PM
(forum list trimmed)

In article <4bydnXZSbYW41LfcRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdfj9$6jr$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> > >>we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> > >>vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> > > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> > where's Osama?  Why do our ports continue unguarded?  Why did we lie our
> > way into war with Iraq?
> Why are we foiling plans by Al Queda?

You're not.

> Why hasn't there been any successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?

Because he's waiting until after bush gets re-elected. Unless he tries 
to "campaign" for bush during the election.

> Why did it take 3 presidents administrations to finally realize we got to
> fight terrorism?

Clinton seemed to be aware of it. Too bad bush didn't listen until 
9/11.

> Do you think getting Osama is going to end this?

Nope.

> Why are you so fixed on Osama when the problem is much larger?

Cuz he was involved in the biggest attack on US soil since Pearl 
Harbour.

> I don't know about the "we" lying part, maybe you are lying.

"You" as in "you US Americans". bush, representing the US population, 
told lies WRT WMDs and terrorist ties to SH.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
8/23/2004 8:56:10 PM
test


-- 
	Where was AWOL George W. Bush?

	<http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm>
0
8/23/2004 9:13:36 PM
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:30:32 -0500, jenn <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> news:DirWc.49$45.9676@news.uchicago.edu...
>> 
>>>>O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
>> 
>> personal.
>> 
>>>>Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>>>
>>>This is the nub.
>>>
>>>Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
>>>They were not false.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Kerry said things that he cannot prove, that are unreasonable, and that
>> these men claim are not true.  The most reasonable explanation is that Kerry
>> lied.
>> 
>> 
>
>ALL of the official Navy records related to the battles where Kerry's 
>awards were given support his position -- ALL
>
>Kerry's testimony was not only not unreasonable -- he was summarizing 
>what dozens of people had testified to in congressional hearings


Ummm you anti-Bush people should be the first to point out that
"official" records can be false.. doctored.. a lie.  Why is it that if
it's against Kerry... the "official" documents must be true?


0
Crapesis
8/23/2004 9:14:53 PM
"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:cgdlff$76k$3@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> cuz I don't watch Fox much -- where your valuable knowledge seems to be
> sourced LOL
>

Well, if you're already aware that Fox is a better news source than those
you've been relying on, why haven't you switched to Fox?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 9:16:05 PM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p8tWc.1656$Y%3.424@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdlff$76k$3@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> > cuz I don't watch Fox much -- where your valuable knowledge seems to be
> > sourced LOL
> >
>
> Well, if you're already aware that Fox is a better news source than those
> you've been relying on, why haven't you switched to Fox?

They are afraid and can't handle opposition.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/23/2004 9:17:25 PM
analyst41@hotmail.com (analyst41) wrote in message news:<60758fd6.0408210734.42207c74@posting.google.com>...
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
> 
> 
> You either have shit for brains or are a diehard Republican (I don't
> know if there is a difference).
> 
> How do you "answer" a group that
> 
>

While youre pondering this question, can we ask those 60 vets
who allegedly contributed to the book to say something about
Kerry, the authors, or the book?

First, we'd have to know who there are.


-- 

FF
0
8/23/2004 9:37:33 PM
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
> even more devastating than the first one.

Too late!  Everyone already knows these guys are liars.  Kerry found
corroborative evidence, the swiftboatvetsforBush found out what
happens when you lie in public (well, after four years of lies
anyway).

The swiftboatvetsforBush are now in the same category as Bill
Clinton's 57 murders.  I know you and your fellow morons will have
endless fun discussing it, but for the rest of us, it's just another
litmus test for imbecility.

And you are an imbicile.  No mistake about that.
0
8/23/2004 10:00:51 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> news:220820041638325492%anto@sales.com...
> 
>>In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steven
>>P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>>news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>> >
>>>
>>>>All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>>know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>>sinking Republicans.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
> 
> group.
> 
>>LOL!  Sure thing.  The Republicans actually think people are buying
>>that crap.
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html
> 
> 
> Did you know the author mentioned in that article, John O'Neill, is a
> Democrat?  The Swift Boat Veterans group is not a Republican group, it's not
> a political group at all.
> 

 From what I've been able to gather, this group has been going since 1982.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:06:38 PM
"Harry" <realpoetik@scn.org> wrote in message
news:ee68a82.0408231400.153b5364@posting.google.com...
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
> > The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
it's
> > even more devastating than the first one.
>
> Too late!  Everyone already knows these guys are liars.  Kerry found
> corroborative evidence, the swiftboatvetsforBush found out what
> happens when you lie in public (well, after four years of lies
> anyway).
>

What evidence?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 10:09:29 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdb8c$5v1$4@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> 
>>O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
>>it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
>>
> 
> 
> What hard evidence do you have of that?
> 
> 

You might try this one: 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/index_np.html

Notice tho that it is still an opinion.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:10:08 PM
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6dnXqayZFU97fcRVn-iQ@bresnan.com...
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> > news:cgdb8c$5v1$4@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> >>O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
> >>it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
> >>
> >
> >
> > What hard evidence do you have of that?
> >
>
> You might try this one:
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/index_np.html
>
> Notice tho that it is still an opinion.
>

Thus not evidence.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 10:11:17 PM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <g2qWc.1494$Y%3.623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>news:dfritzinnospam-202160.13433122082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>>All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
>>>>>know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
>>>>>sinking Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
>>
>>group.
>>
>>>And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one
>>>of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
>>>long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
>>>Bush. Do try to keep up.
>>>
>>
>>O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's personal.
>>Kerry said things about them that were not true.
> 
> 
> This is the nub. 
> 
> Kerry said things in Congress, and on various TV shows, thirty years ago.
> They were not false. Atrocities were committed, as they are in every war.
> For reasons not entirely clear to me, the soldiers of Viet Nam were 
> regarded as baby killers and monsters, which they were not. Were babies
> killed and monstrous acts committed? Sure, just like every other war,
> including both World Wars and every other war in human history, by all
> sides. 
> 

Most likely a fact called collateral damage, the kids, and then turned 
into rhetoric as 'baby killers'.

> Kerry somehow, like the sacrificial goat, is regarded by some Viet vets
> as the main reason why Viet vets were treated so shabbily when they 
> returned. In my opinion, what he was trying to do was get his fellow
> soldiers home as soon as possible. It was evident to him that this war
> was not winnable, no matter how many lives were used up. 
> 

The last sentence was becoming quite obvious to a lot of people back 
then.  I know that Kerry didn't have much to do with vets getting called 
names and spit on tho.  Most of this crap took place in California when 
the vets came home.  A lot of campus brats had to go to the airports to 
spew their hatred and venom on the returning vets.  But knowing how 
university professors push their own agendas on campus, it did spark an 
FBI investigation of these professors back then.  I think it was 
Berkeley that the unrest had started.

> So, the SBVT, notably John O'Neill, are spewing stuff that is provably
> false, because they are bitter and angry and they hate him. I get that,
> honest. I have no problem with them saying (as in the second ad) that
> he did them a lot of harm, based on his testimony. I happen not to agree
> with that sentiment, but they're entitled to their feelings. No one
> doubts that Kerry gave testimony to Congress and spoke on TV. The second
> ad is basically honest, though I think they've unfairly not included the
> preamble that Kerry was repeating stuff that he was told.
> 
> It's the willingness of some of these guys to say stuff which they
> _know_ is false that really disturbs me. 
> 
> "He who contends with monsters, must take care lest he become a monster.
> And when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
> F. Nietzsche.
> 
> David Derbes
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:18:10 PM

Tom Betz wrote:

> test
> 

When are Kerrys complete military record going to be released?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:21:16 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Chris Manteuffel" <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:1cbcee05.0408221812.c3af4f6@posting.google.com...
> 
>>Are you sure that that quote is correct?
>>
> 
> 
> It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site.  Here's the full
> paragraph:
> 
> His personal ambitions notwithstanding, Kerry gave clear public voice to the
> same position taken by the veterans group. In his appearance before William
> Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry
> volunteered this straightforward testimony: "I committed the same kinds of
> atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used
> harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and
> burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top
> down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."
> 

Does this mean that LBJ was a war criminal?


-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:25:14 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-C3F7BB.13391322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> 
>>In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>
>>>>See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for that
> 
> is
> 
>>>you have no evidence.
>>
>>Bush and McCain:
>>
>>http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
>>
>>http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
>>
>>GOP and Cleland:
>>
>>http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
>>
>>You're welcome.
>>
> 
> 
> For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've provided
> none.
> 

A bigger question is when is Kerry going to start campaigning for what 
he can do, not what he has done?  His service record is so far in the 
past that it is a moot point.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:26:52 PM

jenn wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> 
>> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>> news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>
>>> we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>>> vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
>>
>>
>>
>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
>>
>>
> 
> where's Osama?  Why do our ports continue unguarded?  Why did we lie our 
> way into war with Iraq?

Our southern border has been neglected far too long.  How come no one 
makes a stink about North Korean military in Mexico shooting at our 
ranchers?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:29:48 PM

jenn wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> 
>> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>> news:cgdfj9$6jr$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>>>>> vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> where's Osama?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Unknown.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why do our ports continue unguarded?
>>>
>>
>>
>> They're not.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why did we lie our way into war with Iraq?
>>>
>>
>>
>> We didn't.
>>
>> Why are you misinformed?
>>
>>
> 
> cuz I don't watch Fox much -- where your valuable knowledge seems to be 
> sourced LOL

Ah, like a kid in a candy store where he can pick and choose what he 
likes.  I don't put much stock in any news organization.  It doesn't 
take much to slant a story to anybodies agendas.  Basically, what is 
going on in the world is too overwhelming to completely grasp and then 
claim to understand it.


-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/23/2004 10:32:02 PM
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:0I6dnfRhVq0o87fcRVn-jQ@bresnan.com...
>
> A bigger question is when is Kerry going to start campaigning for what
> he can do, not what he has done?
>

Not ever, if he can help it.


>
> His service record is so far in the past that it is a moot point.
>

Yup, he's altered his position on that considerably in the past twelve
years.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 10:32:46 PM
GreyCloud wrote:
> Tom Betz wrote:
>
>> test
>>
>
> When are Kerrys complete military record going to be released?


ALL records have been released.  Pull your head out of your ass. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 10:43:11 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>>
>> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>> do with them:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>
>
> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
> had anything to do with those ads.


Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of your 
ass and wake up. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 10:44:31 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10iiljpg870st3d@news.supernews.com>...
> NCS wrote:
> > "Nate Frisch" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The navy made up
> >> a story and gave John Kerry some medals, just so they could send him
> >> home. But you really have to shut down most of your brain to buy
> >> into that.
> >
> > That "war is hell" is common knowledge.  No one can shut down their
> > brains. Please refrain from irrelevant asides.  That is relatively
> > important on usenet.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> NCS is one screwed up TROLL!

This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift 
Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush 
supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend 
any time with Google:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
 
-BC
0
bconneely (44)
8/23/2004 10:47:21 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10iksqgffrfe249@news.supernews.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> >> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> >>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> >>
> >> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> >> do with them:
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> >>
> >
> > There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
> > had anything to do with those ads.
>
>
> Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of your
> ass and wake up.
>

Are you saying Rove is behind those ads?  What evidence do you have of that?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 10:47:45 PM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:luuWc.1791$Y%3.1609@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10iksqgffrfe249@news.supernews.com...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> > >> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > >> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > >>> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> > >>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> > >>
> > >> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> > >> do with them:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > >>
> > >
> > > There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
> > > had anything to do with those ads.
> >
> >
> > Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of
your
> > ass and wake up.
> >
>
> Are you saying Rove is behind those ads?  What evidence do you have of
that?


Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
them.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/23/2004 10:57:17 PM
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:0rOdneAsDZyM67fcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>
> Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> them.
>

Did he ask that those specific ads be pulled?  I had heard he condemned all
such ads.

One wonders if Kerry will respond in kind.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 10:58:56 PM
"BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
>
> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
> any time with Google:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
>

None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat Veterans
to be a lie.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 11:14:23 PM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QEuWc.1809$Y%3.445@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:0rOdneAsDZyM67fcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to
pull
> > them.
> >
>
> Did he ask that those specific ads be pulled?  I had heard he condemned
all
> such ads.

That is basically the same thing I heard, he condemned all of them.

>
> One wonders if Kerry will respond in kind.

I doubt it, and you can bet the Kerry ass kissers will be making up more
excuses



0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/23/2004 11:17:20 PM
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in
news:0I6dnfphVq348LfcRVn-jQ@bresnan.com: 

> When are Kerrys complete military record going to be released?

Kerry is too afraid to release them.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/23/2004 11:17:24 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<jarWc.1557$Y%3.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> >
> 
> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

You seem to be very good at making statements like the above, but not
so good at backing them up. Why?
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/23/2004 11:23:11 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:10iksqgffrfe249@news.supernews.com...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>>>>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>>>>
>>>> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>>>> do with them:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
>>> had anything to do with those ads.
>>
>>
>> Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of
>> your ass and wake up.
>>
>
> Are you saying Rove is behind those ads?  What evidence do you have
> of that?


He is close friends with the main contributor and it fits his MO. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 11:25:17 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<g2qWc.1494$Y%3.623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-202160.13433122082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
> > > news:220820041046152614%anto@sales.com...
> > >  >
> > > > All this Swift Boat bullshit has done is prove what most of us already
> > > > know.  Republicans are liars, theives, and cowards.  This lie is
> > > > sinking Republicans.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican
>  group.
> >
> > And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one
> > of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
> > long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
> > Bush. Do try to keep up.
> >
> 
> O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's personal.
> Kerry said things about them that were not true.

OK, your turn. How about backing up that statement.
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/23/2004 11:25:53 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0408231523.23c1fd2b@posting.google.com...
> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<jarWc.1557$Y%3.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> > news:cgddps$681$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> > >
> > > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> > > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> > >
> >
> > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
>
> You seem to be very good at making statements like the above, but not
> so good at backing them up. Why?
>

I can back up every statement I make.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 11:26:06 PM
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:14:23 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
>>
>> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
>> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
>> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
>> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
>> any time with Google:
>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
>> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
>> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
>> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
>>
>
>None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat Veterans
>to be a lie.
>
O'Neil said he served with Kerry, he wasn't there when Kerry was.
Sounds like a lie to me.
0
vithant011 (33)
8/23/2004 11:26:19 PM
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
>>
>> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
>> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
>> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
>> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
>> any time with Google:
>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
>> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
>> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
>> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
>>
>
> None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat
> Veterans to be a lie.


Read Roods article in the Chicago Tribune.   Unlike the Swift Boat Liars he 
was actually THERE. 


0
nospam21 (19047)
8/23/2004 11:26:33 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10ikv6tpmp80k2a@news.supernews.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:10iksqgffrfe249@news.supernews.com...
> >> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> >>> news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> >>>> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >>>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> >>>>>> portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> >>>> do with them:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
> >>> had anything to do with those ads.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of
> >> your ass and wake up.
> >>
> >
> > Are you saying Rove is behind those ads?  What evidence do you have
> > of that?
>
>
> He is close friends with the main contributor and it fits his MO.
>

In other words, you have no evidence.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 11:28:02 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > >
> > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> > > Kerry's record.
> >
> > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win, since
> > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> >
> 
> Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a landslide for
> Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal point of
> the campaign.

And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> 
> By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.

Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy, lowering
deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world (Clinton)
vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush wins in
a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.

And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/23/2004 11:29:40 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<dbqWc.1504$Y%3.551@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-3F5394.13503322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > Bush does not have an abysmal record.
> >
> > Huge national debt, because of tax cuts for the rich. The idiocy of the
> > Iraqi war. No strategy to win the "peace" after we beat Saddam. Going
> > after Saddam instead of finishing off OBL and al Qaeda. An economic
> > "recovery" that isn't really helping many people, since most of the new
> > jobs being created are at lower wages than the jobs lost. And, that is
> > just a starter.
> >
> > Yeah, I would say Bush has a pretty abysmal record.
> >
> 
> That's because you don't understand economics, government, foreign policy,
> etc.

You were looking in a mirror when you said that, right? You had to have been.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/23/2004 11:30:31 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking
the
> > > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift
to
> > > > Kerry's record.
> > >
> > > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win,
since
> > > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a landslide
for
> > Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal point
of
> > the campaign.
>
> And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> >
> > By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.
>
> Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy, lowering
> deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world (Clinton)
> vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
> respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush wins in
> a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.
>
> And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
>
> --
> Dave Fritzinger

But yet, every time we ask a Clinton worshiper how he created a good economy
with out a Republican controlled congress...there is silence.

Clinton was under as much pressure to fight terrorism as Bush is, and
Clinton allowed terrorist to go unchecked.  Even allowed an opportunity to
get Bin Laden slip right out of his hands.

Deficits rise and fall throught out history.
Imagine this though, Kerry says he can have it all fixed in four years...

Yea, right...:o)


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/23/2004 11:34:31 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0408231525.55344473@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell,
one
> > > of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
> > > long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
> > > Bush. Do try to keep up.
> > >
> >
> > O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
personal.
> > Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>
> OK, your turn. How about backing up that statement.
>

My turn to what?  Back up a statement?  It hardly seems like it should be my
turn, as I've asked you to back up several of yours and you've yet to do so.

But no matter, I'll comply with your request.  Unlike you, I CAN back up my
statements.

The following is from National Review Online:

"By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met
the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little
frostier when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68:
'The people all around me were shocked' when he told Nixon he was a
Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and
senators who didn't like Kerry's slanderous grandstanding."

You can read the entire article at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp



The following is from the Swift Boat Veteran's site, IBD is Investors
Business Daily:


IBD: What about the Kerry camp's charge that your effort was steered and
paid for by Republicans?
O'Neill: It's ironic because they've paid for all the veterans supporting
them. The people are literally on salary... They're typically flown around
on a plane. None of us have been paid by the Republicans; none of our bills
or expenses. And in fact none of us has any serious tie of any kind with any
party.

I debated Kerry back in 1971 on "The Dick Cavett Show" and I met with Nixon
before that debate. I told Nixon I was a Democrat.



You can read the entire article at:

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040706112952161


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 11:57:12 PM
"Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:57vki011g8d4pf5v5l7o87ihmngh2tcivh@4ax.com...
 >
> O'Neil said he served with Kerry, he wasn't there when Kerry was.
> Sounds like a lie to me.
>

Kerry and O'Neill never crossed paths while they were in the Navy?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/23/2004 11:59:32 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10ikv99ifmb8763@news.supernews.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
> >> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
> >> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
> >> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
> >> any time with Google:
> >>
> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
> >>
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
> >> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
> >>
http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
> >>
> >
> > None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat
> > Veterans to be a lie.
>
>
> Read Roods article in the Chicago Tribune.
>

What's your point?


>
> Unlike the Swift Boat Liars he was actually THERE.
>

The Swift Boat Vets were not there?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 12:01:05 AM
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:01:05 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:10ikv99ifmb8763@news.supernews.com...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> > "BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
>> >>
>> >> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
>> >> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
>> >> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
>> >> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
>> >> any time with Google:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
>> >>
>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
>> >> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
>> >>
>http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
>> >>
>> >
>> > None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat
>> > Veterans to be a lie.
>>
>>
>> Read Roods article in the Chicago Tribune.
>>
>
>What's your point?
>
>
>>
>> Unlike the Swift Boat Liars he was actually THERE.
>>
>
>The Swift Boat Vets were not there?
>
With the Swift Boat Vets there is no there, there
0
vithant011 (33)
8/24/2004 12:02:49 AM
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:09:29 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Harry" <realpoetik@scn.org> wrote in message
>news:ee68a82.0408231400.153b5364@posting.google.com...
>> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
>> > The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>it's
>> > even more devastating than the first one.
>>
>> Too late!  Everyone already knows these guys are liars.  Kerry found
>> corroborative evidence, the swiftboatvetsforBush found out what
>> happens when you lie in public (well, after four years of lies
>> anyway).
>>
>
>What evidence?
>
People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.

You religious right types, just get lower and lower.
0
vithant011 (33)
8/24/2004 12:04:31 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
>
> And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
>

Nonsense.  Putting their respective records head to head means a landslide
for Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he's made Vietnam the central issue
in his campaign.


>
> Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush.
>

In your opinion, but not in fact.


>
> And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
>

I do back up my statements, why don't you back up yours?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 12:05:59 AM
"Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vd1li055k4l4no9qhn8jsuvetphrld2lfj@4ax.com...
> >
> >What evidence?
> >
>
> People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
> place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.
>

Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
reconcile that?


>
> You religious right types, just get lower and lower.
>

I'm a libertarian and an atheist.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 12:11:05 AM
Ed Rasimus <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<0ubhi01cdgma9m4b423n96q4m16a0fr18h@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> >What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the 
> >South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making 
> >accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in 
> >the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is 
> >a pattern here.
> 
> You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
> patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
> McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
> fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
> the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
> He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control. 
> 
> Since then, he's established positions that make him neither totally
> liberal or totally conservative. He's a maverick who very clearly
> thinks for himself. On the issues of First Amendment freedoms, he
> seems pretty conservative, leaning toward censorship of movies,
> libraries, Internet, etc. when it comes to questions of pornography,
> hate, etc. Clearly a right-wing perspective. But, on the Second
> Amendment, he leans toward gun control, pseudo-assault weapon bans,
> gun registration, etc. Clearly a left-wing perspective. 

 I am not sure where this statement came from, but it is incorrect.
(Or at least, it is not what he says, and I tend to believe him.

8/1/04
VoteMatch Responses to VoteMatch Question & Answer
www.isues2000.org

Here are the answers from George W. Bush, and they show him to be a
Moderate Conservative.
===============================================
It is a little hard to follow but the same things were written to be
addressed by all candidates. Regarding the things in your post,

Bush Favors:
Absolute right to gun ownership  (7 points on Social scale)

Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions: Opposes topic 10
Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting: Favors topic 10
Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns: Opposes topic 10
Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK: Strongly Favors topic 10

//// Here is the whole enchilada for Bush////
Strongly Opposes:
Abortion is a woman's right  (0 points on Social scale)

No funds to international groups that offer abortion: Opposes topic 1
Every child born and unborn ought to be protected: Strongly Opposes
topic 1
Ban partial-birth; ban taxpayer funding: Opposes topic 1
Encourage fewer abortions via adoption & abstinence: Opposes topic 1
Supreme Court is wrong: leave abortion to the states: Opposes topic 1

Favors:
Require companies to hire more women & minorities (2 points on
Economic
scale)

Affirmative access: end soft bigotry of low expectations: Opposes
topic 2
For affirmative action, but not quotas or preferences: Favors topic 2
Reach out to minorities, but without quotas: Favors topic 2

Opposes:
Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws (2 points on Social
scale)

Defend the institution of marriage against activist judges: Strongly
Opposes
topic 3
Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights: Favors
topic 3
No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group: Favors topic 3
Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states: Opposes topic 3
Hate-crime rules don't apply to gays: Strongly Opposes topic 3
No gay anti-discrimination laws; no same-sex marriages: Strongly
Opposes
topic 3

Strongly Favors:
Permit prayer in public schools  (0 points on Social scale)

Character education grants & American Youth Character Awards: Favors
topic 4
Fund & honor character education: Favors topic 4
V-chip OK, but cultural changes are better: Favors topic 4
Teach values and moral responsibility in schools: Strongly Favors
topic 4
Only faith and God can overcome social ills.: Strongly Favors topic 4

Favors:
More federal funding for health coverage  (2 points on Economic scale)

Health savings accounts with choice of coverage: Opposes topic 5
Government-run health care is the wrong prescription: Strongly Opposes
topic
5
Endorses billions more in health care funding: Favors topic 5
Senior Rx: "Immediate Helping Hand" now; more later: Strongly Favors
topic 5
Family Health Credit: pay for 90% of basic low-income policy: Favors
topic 5
New Prosperity Initiative: $2,000 health ins. tax credit: Favors topic
5
Medicare Rx drug coverage for low-income seniors: Favors topic 5
Health care access via empowerment, not nationalizing: Opposes topic 5
Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure.: Neutral
on
topic 5

Strongly Favors:
Privatize Social Security (10 points on Economic scale)

Privatize SS while maintaining govt system: Strongly Favors topic 6
Create Individual Development Accounts with low-income match: Favors
topic 6
Private accounts for youth rather than high payroll taxes: Strongly
Favors
topic 6
Support retirement via government-plus-private system: Favors topic 6
Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market: Strongly
Favors
topic 6
Use political capital to implement private savings accounts: Strongly
Favors
topic 6

Strongly Favors:
Parents choose schools via vouchers (10 points on Social scale)

Public schools are America's great hope: Opposes topic 7
Favors rigorous testing over school choice: Opposes topic 7
Increased funding to $200M for charter schools: Favors topic 7
Pushes OPTIONS for private schools; without saying VOUCHERS: Strongly
Favors
topic 7
Vouchers ensure school accountability: Strongly Favors topic 7
Fund 2,000 charter schools; defund failing schools: Strongly Favors
topic 7
Let's try vouchers in failing schools.: Strongly Favors topic 7
Vouchers a priority; encourage their spread: Strongly Favors topic 7
For charter schools; public school choice; vouchers: Strongly Favors
topic 7

Strongly Favors:
Death Penalty  (0 points on Social scale)

Uphold law on death penalty; and think of the victims: Favors topic 8
Death penalty saves lives, when swift & just: Favors topic 8
Bush is confident that none of 112 executed were innocent: Strongly
Favors
topic 8
Supports death penalty as deterrent: Favors topic 8

Strongly Favors:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws  (0 points on Social scale)

Increased penalties to rehabilitate juveniles: Strongly Favors topic 9
Proud of eliminating parole for violent criminals: Strongly Favors
topic 9
Supports "two strikes" & registration for sexual criminals.: Strongly
Favors
topic 9
Mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders: Strongly Favors topic 9

Favors:
Absolute right to gun ownership  (7 points on Social scale)

Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions: Opposes topic 10
Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting: Favors topic 10
Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns: Opposes topic 10
Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK: Strongly Favors topic 10

Strongly Favors:
Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy  (10 points on Economic
scale)

Tax relief is working: Favors topic 11
Deliver substantial tax relief to 91 million Americans: Favors topic
11
On behalf of the American people, I'm asking for a refund: Strongly
Favors
topic 11
Retroactive tax cuts may bolster faltering economy: Strongly Favors
topic 11
Cut taxes on income, children, & inheritance: Strongly Favors topic 11
Read my lips: I will cut taxes: Strongly Favors topic 11
The surplus is the people's money-return it: Strongly Favors topic 11
Cut top tax rate to 33% while cutting lower income taxes too: Strongly
Favors topic 11
No national sales tax or VAT.: Neutral on topic 11

Favors:
Immigration helps our economy-encourage it  (7 points on Economic
scale)

Support temporary worker program but oppose amnesty: Favors topic 12
New temporary worker program includes illegal aliens: Strongly Favors
topic
12
Mexico: immigration reform in exchange for oil development: Favors
topic 12
Respect other languages, but teach all children English: Opposes topic
12
$500M to cut INS application time to 6 months: Favors topic 12
Welcome Latinos; immigration is not a problem to be solved: Favors
topic 12
Make INS more "immigrant friendly": Favors topic 12
More border guards to compassionately turn away Mexicans: Strongly
Opposes
topic 12
Guest workers, maybe; citizenship waiting period, yes: Opposes topic
12


Strongly Favors:
Support & expand free trade  (10 points on Economic scale)

Repeals steel tariffs he imposed in 2002: Favors topic 13
The fearful build walls; the confident demolish them.: Favors topic 13
No trade barriers from Alaska to the tip of Cape Horn: Strongly Favors
topic
13
Fast Track in west; WTO in east: Strongly Favors topic 13
Supports Fast Track; WTO; NAFTA; anti-dumping: Strongly Favors topic
13


Opposes:
Link human rights to trade with China  (7 points on Social scale)

Vietnam: Trade better for human rights than sanctions: Strongly
Opposes
topic 14
Do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, including military: Strongly
Favors
topic 14
China NTR promotes freedom, security and economics: Opposes topic 14
Free trade with China creates expectations for democracy: Opposes
topic 14
Maintain relations with both Taiwan & China: Neutral on topic 14
China is an American competitor, not a friend: Favors topic 14


Strongly Favors:
More spending on armed forces  (0 points on Economic scale)

Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high: Strongly
Favors topic 15
Better equipment, better training, and better pay: Strongly Favors
topic 15
$1B more for salary; $20B more for R&D for new weapons: Strongly
Favors
topic 15
$1B more in personnel raises; more for housing too: Favors topic 15
Increase military salaries & weapons spending: Favors topic 15


Opposes:
Reduce spending on missile defense   (7 points on Economic scale)

Withdrew from ABM Treaty; now $9B for missile defense: Strongly Favors
topic
16
Listens to Europeans on SDI, but "intent on the right thing": Opposes
topic
16
SDI: think beyond Cold War, but convince Europe & Russia: Opposes
topic 16
Russia: jointly reduce missiles; but no joint SDI: Opposes topic 16
SDI needed for defense against rogue states & terrorists: Strongly
Opposes
topic 16
Develop SDI, even if we must breach ABM treaty: Strongly Opposes topic
16

No opinion:
Seek UN approval for military action (5 points on Economic scale)

America will never seek a permission slip for self-defense: Strongly
Opposes
topic 17
Africa: Rally world to help AIDS, but not with US funds: Opposes topic
17
Help poor countries around the world: Strongly Favors topic 17
Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO: Opposes topic 17
Russia funding: replace IMF loans with $ to people: Neutral on topic
17
Focus on Big Three: Russia, China, & India: Strongly Favors topic 17

Opposes:
Reduce use of coal, oil, & nuclear energy  (7 points on Economic
scale)

Incentives for private land stewardship & conservation: Favors topic
18
Explore ANWR; explore for gas; reduce foreign dependence: Strongly
Opposes
topic 18
Provided $1.2B to develop hydrogen fuel: Favors topic 18
Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over next decade: Strongly
Favors
topic 18
Opposes Kyoto treaty, ESA, & other intrusive regulations: Strongly
Opposes
topic 18
Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.: Neutral
on
topic 18
Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries.: Opposes topic
18

Favors:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it  (2 points on Social
scale)

$23 million more for drug-testing in schools: Strongly Favors topic 19
$600M plan help 300,000 addicts via vouchers: Opposes topic 19
Stronger penalties for first time cocaine possession: Strongly Favors
topic
19
Full background checks on drug use for all appointees: Favors topic 19
Supports tough drug laws as well as drug education programs.: Favors
topic
19
Encourages abstinence from tobacco, drugs or alcohol. : Favors topic
19
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War.: Favors topic 19

Strongly Favors:
Allow churches to provide welfare services  (0 points on Social scale)

Unleash the passion of religious charity: Strongly Favors topic 20
Calls for 4,000 hours of national service for every citizen: Favors
topic 20
One of first acts was establishing faith-based initiatives: Strongly
Favors
topic 20
Establish federal & state "offices of faith-based action": Strongly
Favors
topic 20
Fund faith-based private programs that promote independence: Strongly
Favors
topic 20
Church-based solutions for drugs, daycare, & crime: Strongly Favors
topic 20
"No-strings" vouchers for religious groups to do charity: Strongly
Favors
topic 20
Church-based charity assures nobody is left behind: Strongly Favors
topic 20

Based on these Positions/Answers:

George W. Bush is a Moderate Conservative.



> 
> The disaster of McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions is a
> very clear (but not Supreme Court defined) outrage against freedom of
> political expression. 
> 
> Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
> really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
> is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology. 
> 
> 
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org
0
saguaro (3)
8/24/2004 12:21:42 AM
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:11:05 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vd1li055k4l4no9qhn8jsuvetphrld2lfj@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >What evidence?
>> >
>>
>> People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
>> place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.
>>
>
>Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
>reconcile that?
>
>
>>
>> You religious right types, just get lower and lower.
>>
>
>I'm a libertarian and an atheist.

I am an atheist also. What is a libertarian? Sounds like fun.
>

0
vithant011 (33)
8/24/2004 12:23:15 AM
"Dave Cook" <saguaro@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:c687e307.0408231621.7c24bf5c@posting.google.com...
> Ed Rasimus <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:<0ubhi01cdgma9m4b423n96q4m16a0fr18h@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
> > <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
> > >South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
> > >accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in
> > >the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
> > >a pattern here.
> >
> > You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
> > patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
> > McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
> > fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
> > the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
> > He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control.
> >
> > Since then, he's established positions that make him neither totally
> > liberal or totally conservative. He's a maverick who very clearly
> > thinks for himself. On the issues of First Amendment freedoms, he
> > seems pretty conservative, leaning toward censorship of movies,
> > libraries, Internet, etc. when it comes to questions of pornography,
> > hate, etc. Clearly a right-wing perspective. But, on the Second
> > Amendment, he leans toward gun control, pseudo-assault weapon bans,
> > gun registration, etc. Clearly a left-wing perspective.
>
>  I am not sure where this statement came from, but it is incorrect.
> (Or at least, it is not what he says, and I tend to believe him.
>
> 8/1/04
> VoteMatch Responses to VoteMatch Question & Answer
> www.isues2000.org
>
> Here are the answers from George W. Bush, and they show him to be a
> Moderate Conservative.
> ===============================================
> It is a little hard to follow but the same things were written to be
> addressed by all candidates. Regarding the things in your post,
>
> Bush Favors:
> Absolute right to gun ownership  (7 points on Social scale)
>
> Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions: Opposes topic 10
> Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting: Favors topic 10
> Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns: Opposes topic 10
> Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK: Strongly Favors topic 10
>
> //// Here is the whole enchilada for Bush////
> Strongly Opposes:
> Abortion is a woman's right  (0 points on Social scale)
>
> No funds to international groups that offer abortion: Opposes topic 1
> Every child born and unborn ought to be protected: Strongly Opposes
> topic 1
> Ban partial-birth; ban taxpayer funding: Opposes topic 1
> Encourage fewer abortions via adoption & abstinence: Opposes topic 1
> Supreme Court is wrong: leave abortion to the states: Opposes topic 1
>
> Favors:
> Require companies to hire more women & minorities (2 points on
> Economic
> scale)
>
> Affirmative access: end soft bigotry of low expectations: Opposes
> topic 2
> For affirmative action, but not quotas or preferences: Favors topic 2
> Reach out to minorities, but without quotas: Favors topic 2
>
> Opposes:
> Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws (2 points on Social
> scale)
>
> Defend the institution of marriage against activist judges: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 3
> Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights: Favors
> topic 3
> No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group: Favors topic 3
> Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states: Opposes topic 3
> Hate-crime rules don't apply to gays: Strongly Opposes topic 3
> No gay anti-discrimination laws; no same-sex marriages: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 3
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Permit prayer in public schools  (0 points on Social scale)
>
> Character education grants & American Youth Character Awards: Favors
> topic 4
> Fund & honor character education: Favors topic 4
> V-chip OK, but cultural changes are better: Favors topic 4
> Teach values and moral responsibility in schools: Strongly Favors
> topic 4
> Only faith and God can overcome social ills.: Strongly Favors topic 4
>
> Favors:
> More federal funding for health coverage  (2 points on Economic scale)
>
> Health savings accounts with choice of coverage: Opposes topic 5
> Government-run health care is the wrong prescription: Strongly Opposes
> topic
> 5
> Endorses billions more in health care funding: Favors topic 5
> Senior Rx: "Immediate Helping Hand" now; more later: Strongly Favors
> topic 5
> Family Health Credit: pay for 90% of basic low-income policy: Favors
> topic 5
> New Prosperity Initiative: $2,000 health ins. tax credit: Favors topic
> 5
> Medicare Rx drug coverage for low-income seniors: Favors topic 5
> Health care access via empowerment, not nationalizing: Opposes topic 5
> Protect state tobacco settlement funds from federal seizure.: Neutral
> on
> topic 5
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Privatize Social Security (10 points on Economic scale)
>
> Privatize SS while maintaining govt system: Strongly Favors topic 6
> Create Individual Development Accounts with low-income match: Favors
> topic 6
> Private accounts for youth rather than high payroll taxes: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 6
> Support retirement via government-plus-private system: Favors topic 6
> Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 6
> Use political capital to implement private savings accounts: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 6
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Parents choose schools via vouchers (10 points on Social scale)
>
> Public schools are America's great hope: Opposes topic 7
> Favors rigorous testing over school choice: Opposes topic 7
> Increased funding to $200M for charter schools: Favors topic 7
> Pushes OPTIONS for private schools; without saying VOUCHERS: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 7
> Vouchers ensure school accountability: Strongly Favors topic 7
> Fund 2,000 charter schools; defund failing schools: Strongly Favors
> topic 7
> Let's try vouchers in failing schools.: Strongly Favors topic 7
> Vouchers a priority; encourage their spread: Strongly Favors topic 7
> For charter schools; public school choice; vouchers: Strongly Favors
> topic 7
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Death Penalty  (0 points on Social scale)
>
> Uphold law on death penalty; and think of the victims: Favors topic 8
> Death penalty saves lives, when swift & just: Favors topic 8
> Bush is confident that none of 112 executed were innocent: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 8
> Supports death penalty as deterrent: Favors topic 8
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws  (0 points on Social scale)
>
> Increased penalties to rehabilitate juveniles: Strongly Favors topic 9
> Proud of eliminating parole for violent criminals: Strongly Favors
> topic 9
> Supports "two strikes" & registration for sexual criminals.: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 9
> Mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders: Strongly Favors topic 9
>
> Favors:
> Absolute right to gun ownership  (7 points on Social scale)
>
> Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions: Opposes topic 10
> Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting: Favors topic 10
> Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns: Opposes topic 10
> Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK: Strongly Favors topic 10
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy  (10 points on Economic
> scale)
>
> Tax relief is working: Favors topic 11
> Deliver substantial tax relief to 91 million Americans: Favors topic
> 11
> On behalf of the American people, I'm asking for a refund: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 11
> Retroactive tax cuts may bolster faltering economy: Strongly Favors
> topic 11
> Cut taxes on income, children, & inheritance: Strongly Favors topic 11
> Read my lips: I will cut taxes: Strongly Favors topic 11
> The surplus is the people's money-return it: Strongly Favors topic 11
> Cut top tax rate to 33% while cutting lower income taxes too: Strongly
> Favors topic 11
> No national sales tax or VAT.: Neutral on topic 11
>
> Favors:
> Immigration helps our economy-encourage it  (7 points on Economic
> scale)
>
> Support temporary worker program but oppose amnesty: Favors topic 12
> New temporary worker program includes illegal aliens: Strongly Favors
> topic
> 12
> Mexico: immigration reform in exchange for oil development: Favors
> topic 12
> Respect other languages, but teach all children English: Opposes topic
> 12
> $500M to cut INS application time to 6 months: Favors topic 12
> Welcome Latinos; immigration is not a problem to be solved: Favors
> topic 12
> Make INS more "immigrant friendly": Favors topic 12
> More border guards to compassionately turn away Mexicans: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 12
> Guest workers, maybe; citizenship waiting period, yes: Opposes topic
> 12
>
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Support & expand free trade  (10 points on Economic scale)
>
> Repeals steel tariffs he imposed in 2002: Favors topic 13
> The fearful build walls; the confident demolish them.: Favors topic 13
> No trade barriers from Alaska to the tip of Cape Horn: Strongly Favors
> topic
> 13
> Fast Track in west; WTO in east: Strongly Favors topic 13
> Supports Fast Track; WTO; NAFTA; anti-dumping: Strongly Favors topic
> 13
>
>
> Opposes:
> Link human rights to trade with China  (7 points on Social scale)
>
> Vietnam: Trade better for human rights than sanctions: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 14
> Do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, including military: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 14
> China NTR promotes freedom, security and economics: Opposes topic 14
> Free trade with China creates expectations for democracy: Opposes
> topic 14
> Maintain relations with both Taiwan & China: Neutral on topic 14
> China is an American competitor, not a friend: Favors topic 14
>
>
> Strongly Favors:
> More spending on armed forces  (0 points on Economic scale)
>
> Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high: Strongly
> Favors topic 15
> Better equipment, better training, and better pay: Strongly Favors
> topic 15
> $1B more for salary; $20B more for R&D for new weapons: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 15
> $1B more in personnel raises; more for housing too: Favors topic 15
> Increase military salaries & weapons spending: Favors topic 15
>
>
> Opposes:
> Reduce spending on missile defense   (7 points on Economic scale)
>
> Withdrew from ABM Treaty; now $9B for missile defense: Strongly Favors
> topic
> 16
> Listens to Europeans on SDI, but "intent on the right thing": Opposes
> topic
> 16
> SDI: think beyond Cold War, but convince Europe & Russia: Opposes
> topic 16
> Russia: jointly reduce missiles; but no joint SDI: Opposes topic 16
> SDI needed for defense against rogue states & terrorists: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 16
> Develop SDI, even if we must breach ABM treaty: Strongly Opposes topic
> 16
>
> No opinion:
> Seek UN approval for military action (5 points on Economic scale)
>
> America will never seek a permission slip for self-defense: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 17
> Africa: Rally world to help AIDS, but not with US funds: Opposes topic
> 17
> Help poor countries around the world: Strongly Favors topic 17
> Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO: Opposes topic 17
> Russia funding: replace IMF loans with $ to people: Neutral on topic
> 17
> Focus on Big Three: Russia, China, & India: Strongly Favors topic 17
>
> Opposes:
> Reduce use of coal, oil, & nuclear energy  (7 points on Economic
> scale)
>
> Incentives for private land stewardship & conservation: Favors topic
> 18
> Explore ANWR; explore for gas; reduce foreign dependence: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 18
> Provided $1.2B to develop hydrogen fuel: Favors topic 18
> Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over next decade: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 18
> Opposes Kyoto treaty, ESA, & other intrusive regulations: Strongly
> Opposes
> topic 18
> Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.: Neutral
> on
> topic 18
> Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries.: Opposes topic
> 18
>
> Favors:
> Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it  (2 points on Social
> scale)
>
> $23 million more for drug-testing in schools: Strongly Favors topic 19
> $600M plan help 300,000 addicts via vouchers: Opposes topic 19
> Stronger penalties for first time cocaine possession: Strongly Favors
> topic
> 19
> Full background checks on drug use for all appointees: Favors topic 19
> Supports tough drug laws as well as drug education programs.: Favors
> topic
> 19
> Encourages abstinence from tobacco, drugs or alcohol. : Favors topic
> 19
> More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War.: Favors topic 19
>
> Strongly Favors:
> Allow churches to provide welfare services  (0 points on Social scale)
>
> Unleash the passion of religious charity: Strongly Favors topic 20
> Calls for 4,000 hours of national service for every citizen: Favors
> topic 20
> One of first acts was establishing faith-based initiatives: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 20
> Establish federal & state "offices of faith-based action": Strongly
> Favors
> topic 20
> Fund faith-based private programs that promote independence: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 20
> Church-based solutions for drugs, daycare, & crime: Strongly Favors
> topic 20
> "No-strings" vouchers for religious groups to do charity: Strongly
> Favors
> topic 20
> Church-based charity assures nobody is left behind: Strongly Favors
> topic 20
>
> Based on these Positions/Answers:
>
> George W. Bush is a Moderate Conservative.
>
>
>
> >
> > The disaster of McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions is a
> > very clear (but not Supreme Court defined) outrage against freedom of
> > political expression.
> >
> > Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
> > really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
> > is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> > Both from Smithsonian Books
> > ***www.thunderchief.org


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/24/2004 12:26:31 AM
"Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<YeCdnWmp7_BdhrfcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>...

<snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
wrong attribution>


> Are you thinking it only is valid if
> he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
> the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
before you posted this message
(message-id:1cbcee05.0408221850.30444af3@posting.google.com).

Chris Manteuffel
0
cmanteuf (2)
8/24/2004 12:48:12 AM
"Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ci2li0l4kqpdmff7otitfrndg4blugdh97@4ax.com...
>
> What is a libertarian? Sounds like fun.
>

Essentially, libertarians advocate free markets, voluntary solutions to
social problems, and freedom from government interference in personal
affairs.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 1:14:57 AM
"Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YeCdnWmp7_BdhrfcRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
> statement instead on national television:
>

How do you know that?  According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 1:19:20 AM
"Chris Manteuffel" <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:1cbcee05.0408231648.21745643@posting.google.com...
> "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<YeCdnWmp7_BdhrfcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>...
>
> <snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
> wrong attribution>
>

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 1:20:30 AM
In article <OAsWc.1628$Y%3.1253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>> >>
>> >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>portraying
>> >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>>
>> Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>> do with them:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>
>
>There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
>anything to do with those ads.

Perhaps you did not read it as carefully as you might have. 

For one thing, Karl Rove is closely linked to Bob Perry. For another,
a member (volunteer, but nonetheless a member) of the Bush campaign was
in the first SBVT ad, a man named Cordier. He has since resigned. Bob
Perry gave the SBVT a cool 200K. Pocket change for him. He also gave
5 million smackeroos to the Bush campaign. I'd call that a pretty good
friend, myself.

The Bush administration has been reasonably careful to hide the connections,
but the Times found a boatload, and no doubt others will be found.

There was a nifty graphic on the page I referenced (a sidebar.) Have a look.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/24/2004 2:16:48 AM
In article <jTuWc.1836$Y%3.1521@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"BC" <bconneely@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dba7d68e.0408231447.6c009e52@posting.google.com...
>>
>> This is all just one big idiot test. If you are buying
>> into any of the retarded accusations by those Swift
>> Boat liars, you're an idiot and therefore a Bush
>> supporter. You're basically too lazy or dumb to spend
>> any time with Google:
>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113049305.html
>> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6038258
>> http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
>> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Swift-Boat-Veterans-for-Truth.html
>>
>
>None of those articles demonstrate any statement by the Swift Boat Veterans
>to be a lie.

Well, if a guy a thousand yards away signs an affadavit to say there was no
gunfire, and the battle damage assessment says there were bullet holes in
the boat, I guess you could charitably say he was misinformed.

Or, you could call a spade a spade.

Actually, I'm very much hoping to see a few of these guys do a few years
for perjury, and to pay substantial damages for libel. If Kerry wins, he'll
probably be magnanimous and just forget the whole thing. But if he loses,
they're all going to need excellent, highly paid attorneys.

David Derbes


0
loki6 (507)
8/24/2004 2:20:43 AM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:%BxWc.56$45.10620@news.uchicago.edu...
>
> Well, if a guy a thousand yards away signs an affadavit to say there was
no
> gunfire, and the battle damage assessment says there were bullet holes in
> the boat, I guess you could charitably say he was misinformed.
>
> Or, you could call a spade a spade.
>

Or the bullet holes were from a previous encounter.


>
> Actually, I'm very much hoping to see a few of these guys do a few years
> for perjury, and to pay substantial damages for libel. If Kerry wins,
he'll
> probably be magnanimous and just forget the whole thing. But if he loses,
> they're all going to need excellent, highly paid attorneys.
>

That scenario is unlikely.  If Kerry could win in court after the election
he could easily refute their charges now and end the damage they're doing to
his campaign.  But he's not trying to do that.  Instead, he's trying to
force them off the air.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 2:33:38 AM
In article <6OxWc.2053$Y%3.1451@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:%BxWc.56$45.10620@news.uchicago.edu...
>>
>> Well, if a guy a thousand yards away signs an affadavit to say there was
>no
>> gunfire, and the battle damage assessment says there were bullet holes in
>> the boat, I guess you could charitably say he was misinformed.
>>
>> Or, you could call a spade a spade.
>>
>
>Or the bullet holes were from a previous encounter.
>
>
>>
>> Actually, I'm very much hoping to see a few of these guys do a few years
>> for perjury, and to pay substantial damages for libel. If Kerry wins,
>he'll
>> probably be magnanimous and just forget the whole thing. But if he loses,
>> they're all going to need excellent, highly paid attorneys.
>>
>
>That scenario is unlikely.  If Kerry could win in court after the election
>he could easily refute their charges now and end the damage they're doing to
>his campaign.  But he's not trying to do that.  Instead, he's trying to
>force them off the air.

In my opinion, he _has_ refuted the charges that the medals were awarded
fraudulently. Well, not so much Kerry as his shipmates, the Washington 
Post, the Chicago Tribune, and many another newspaper. 

If he were to proceed against O'Neill and company in court, he'd be likely
to lose a great deal of sympathy that he now has. So he won't do that
until after the election, and if he wins, he'll forget all about it.
He and the Democratic National Committee are doing their best to help the
SBVT implode, which seems to be happening as I type.

David Derbes



0
loki6 (507)
8/24/2004 2:41:47 AM
"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:LVxWc.59$45.10609@news.uchicago.edu...
>
> In my opinion, he _has_ refuted the charges that the medals were awarded
> fraudulently. Well, not so much Kerry as his shipmates, the Washington
> Post, the Chicago Tribune, and many another newspaper.
>
> If he were to proceed against O'Neill and company in court, he'd be likely
> to lose a great deal of sympathy that he now has. So he won't do that
> until after the election, and if he wins, he'll forget all about it.
> He and the Democratic National Committee are doing their best to help the
> SBVT implode, which seems to be happening as I type.
>

Well, you've an odd definition of "implode" then.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 2:45:08 AM
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:41:40 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<83bWc.886$Y%3.59@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:

>
>"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>news:cgb9hm$rge$1@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>
>> failed economic leadership --
>>
>
>What failure?  Bush entered office with a slowing economy, today it is
>growing.

It's working like a motherfucker, for me.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with.  But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system.  They're guilty as charged.  But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events."  Alexa connects some totally different dots.  8/6/04 (n3p8h0lvp0u3tj0j4vi7gjmo069gb96fhm@4ax.com)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
0
vgorilla (185)
8/24/2004 2:57:39 AM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<QEuWc.1809$Y%3.445@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:0rOdneAsDZyM67fcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> > them.
> >
> 
> Did he ask that those specific ads be pulled?  I had heard he condemned all
> such ads.
> 
> One wonders if Kerry will respond in kind.

I think he said Bush didn't condemn them enough.

Some people are just too damn picky.

-- 

FF
0
8/24/2004 4:22:21 AM
"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sIwWc.1974$Y%3.1274@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YeCdnWmp7_BdhrfcRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
> >
> > His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made
that
> > statement instead on national television:
> >
>
> How do you know that?


Because I read the entire transcript of his testimony and did not find the
bit about him acknowledging that he had himself supposedly committed "war
crimes", which was the subject in question?

According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
> Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Then the Globe is wrong. He DID say it, but he said it during an interview
on "Meet the Press", not during his Senate testimony. During his testimony
he was more wishy-washy, though he still managed to indict virtually the
entire leadership chain from company level on up--but his allegations were
all based upon his having bought into the WSI crap, hook, line, and sinker.
If you really want to question his testimony itself, then ask for the
details of that alleged case where he claimed to have been "pinned down in a
ditch while retrieving bodies" bit...sounds like another tall tale from
Kerry, IMO.

Brooks
>
>


0
brooksvmi (11)
8/24/2004 4:22:33 AM
"Chris Manteuffel" <cmanteuf@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:1cbcee05.0408231648.21745643@posting.google.com...
> "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<YeCdnWmp7_BdhrfcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>...
>
> <snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
> wrong attribution>
>
>
> > Are you thinking it only is valid if
> > he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then
by
> > the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?
>
> No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
> in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

Oddly enough, I just did a quick Google and got the answer in about three
minutes--and BTW, I have yet to see the post where you responded (maybe my
newsserver did not catch it, or it got deleted by me along with a slew of
other posts by accident).

>
> As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
> his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
> before you posted this message
> (message-id:1cbcee05.0408221850.30444af3@posting.google.com).

Great, then you agree Kerry has indeed made these claims.

Brooks

>
> Chris Manteuffel


0
brooksvmi (11)
8/24/2004 4:25:31 AM
In article <tIvWc.1905$Y%3.1716@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vd1li055k4l4no9qhn8jsuvetphrld2lfj@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >What evidence?
> > >
> >
> > People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
> > place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.
> >
> 
> Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
> reconcile that?
> 

Someone lied. Considering everything, it appears obvious that the Swift 
Boat Vets lied.
> 
> >
> > You religious right types, just get lower and lower.
> >
> 
> I'm a libertarian and an atheist.

Good for you.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 4:50:46 AM
In article <OAsWc.1628$Y%3.1253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> > In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > >news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> > >>
> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> portraying
> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> >
> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> > do with them:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> >
> 
> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
> anything to do with those ads.

No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 4:51:52 AM
In article <UvsWc.1625$Y%3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-C3F7BB.13391322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for that
> is
> > > you have no evidence.
> >
> > Bush and McCain:
> >
> > http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
> >
> > http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
> >
> > GOP and Cleland:
> >
> > http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> 
> For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've provided
> none.

You can lead a horse to water, but...

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 4:53:10 AM
In article <p8tWc.1656$Y%3.424@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdlff$76k$3@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> > cuz I don't watch Fox much -- where your valuable knowledge seems to be
> > sourced LOL
> >
> 
> Well, if you're already aware that Fox is a better news source than those
> you've been relying on, why haven't you switched to Fox?

Because it isn't a better source, unless you like your news badly 
slanted to the right. And, judging from your responses in this thread, 
it is clear you do.

BTW, you do realize that people who regularly watched Fox news were 
misinformed on two of the major reasons for going to war. They thought 
there were connections between SH and OBl and that SH had WMD (and some 
even believed the WMD had been found). Now, the question is, why do you 
trust a news source that has demonstrably been wrong in the past on a 
very important issue?

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:08:35 AM
In article <HDvWc.1898$Y%3.1818@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> >
> > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> >
> 
> Nonsense.  Putting their respective records head to head means a landslide
> for Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he's made Vietnam the central issue
> in his campaign.
> 
> 
> >
> > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush.
> >
> 
> In your opinion, but not in fact.
> 
> 
> >
> > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> >
> 
> I do back up my statements, why don't you back up yours?

Perhaps you believe your assertions are backing up your assertions. 
Hint, they aren't.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:09:56 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
> news:Nu6dnXqayZFU97fcRVn-iQ@bresnan.com...
> 
>>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cgdb8c$5v1$4@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
>>>>it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What hard evidence do you have of that?
>>>
>>
>>You might try this one:
>>http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/index_np.html
>>
>>Notice tho that it is still an opinion.
>>
> 
> 
> Thus not evidence.
> 
> 

:-)

Thank you!  This has been my main point in a lot of threads... just 
because I can find a link, doesn't mean it is fact, evidence, or 
whatever they wanted it to be.  It could also be a hoax.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 5:13:20 AM
In article <vIKdnbxVp-Vf47fcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> > "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > > In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking
> the
> > > > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift
> to
> > > > > Kerry's record.
> > > >
> > > > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win,
> since
> > > > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > > > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a landslide
> for
> > > Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal point
> of
> > > the campaign.
> >
> > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> > >
> > > By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.
> >
> > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy, lowering
> > deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world (Clinton)
> > vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
> > respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush wins in
> > a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.
> >
> > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Fritzinger
> 
> But yet, every time we ask a Clinton worshiper how he created a good economy
> with out a Republican controlled congress...there is silence.

You haven't asked me. For one, the tax increase showed Clinton was 
serious about reducing the deficit, which gave lending institutions more 
confidence. 

BTW, that tax increase was passed without a single Republican vote. 
> 
> Clinton was under as much pressure to fight terrorism as Bush is, and
> Clinton allowed terrorist to go unchecked.  Even allowed an opportunity to
> get Bin Laden slip right out of his hands.
> 

People have demonstrated you are lying. Try reading Richard Clarke's 
book. Clinton went after bin Laden, but couldn't go after him as much as 
he would have liked because of the Republican Congress. Second, Clinton 
stopped the Millenium terrorist plot. So, you are wrong.
> Deficits rise and fall throught out history.
> Imagine this though, Kerry says he can have it all fixed in four years...

Actually, IIRC, Kerry made the exact claim as Bush, that the deficit 
would be halved in 4 years. Do learn to read. 
> 
> Yea, right...:o)

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:14:22 AM
In article <Xns954DD5C01F23DG@alaska.local>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> The ads have nothing to do with Bush.

Guffaw. Pull the other one Gacky, it plays Jingle Bells.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:16:15 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0408231525.55344473@posting.google.com...
> 
>>>>And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell,
> 
> one
> 
>>>>of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
>>>>long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
>>>>Bush. Do try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>
>>>O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
> 
> personal.
> 
>>>Kerry said things about them that were not true.
>>
>>OK, your turn. How about backing up that statement.
>>
> 
> 
> My turn to what?  Back up a statement?  It hardly seems like it should be my
> turn, as I've asked you to back up several of yours and you've yet to do so.
> 
> But no matter, I'll comply with your request.  Unlike you, I CAN back up my
> statements.
> 
> The following is from National Review Online:
> 
> "By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met
> the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little
> frostier when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68:
> 'The people all around me were shocked' when he told Nixon he was a
> Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and
> senators who didn't like Kerry's slanderous grandstanding."
> 
> You can read the entire article at:
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp
> 
> 
> 
> The following is from the Swift Boat Veteran's site, IBD is Investors
> Business Daily:
> 
> 
> IBD: What about the Kerry camp's charge that your effort was steered and
> paid for by Republicans?
> O'Neill: It's ironic because they've paid for all the veterans supporting
> them. The people are literally on salary... They're typically flown around
> on a plane. None of us have been paid by the Republicans; none of our bills
> or expenses. And in fact none of us has any serious tie of any kind with any
> party.
> 
> I debated Kerry back in 1971 on "The Dick Cavett Show" and I met with Nixon
> before that debate. I told Nixon I was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> You can read the entire article at:
> 
> http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040706112952161
> 
> 

Very interesting.  This means that the NYTimes was wrong again. 
Remember that earlier url I provided?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 5:17:47 AM
In article <6OxWc.2053$Y%3.1451@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> Or the bullet holes were from a previous encounter.

Yeah, I always go out on new missions with a boat that has holes in it.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:17:51 AM
In article <svvWc.1874$Y%3.1498@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0408231525.55344473@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell,
> one
> > > > of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
> > > > long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
> > > > Bush. Do try to keep up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's
> personal.
> > > Kerry said things about them that were not true.
> >
> > OK, your turn. How about backing up that statement.
> >
> 
> My turn to what?  Back up a statement?  It hardly seems like it should be my
> turn, as I've asked you to back up several of yours and you've yet to do so.
> 
> But no matter, I'll comply with your request.  Unlike you, I CAN back up my
> statements.
> 
> The following is from National Review Online:
> 
> "By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met
> the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little
> frostier when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68:
> 'The people all around me were shocked' when he told Nixon he was a
> Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and
> senators who didn't like Kerry's slanderous grandstanding."
> 
> You can read the entire article at:
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp
> 
> 
> 
> The following is from the Swift Boat Veteran's site, IBD is Investors
> Business Daily:
> 
> 
> IBD: What about the Kerry camp's charge that your effort was steered and
> paid for by Republicans?
> O'Neill: It's ironic because they've paid for all the veterans supporting
> them. The people are literally on salary... They're typically flown around
> on a plane. None of us have been paid by the Republicans; none of our bills
> or expenses. And in fact none of us has any serious tie of any kind with any
> party.
> 
> I debated Kerry back in 1971 on "The Dick Cavett Show" and I met with Nixon
> before that debate. I told Nixon I was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> You can read the entire article at:
> 
> http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040706112952161

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

It gives a good review of the whole Swift Boat controversy.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:19:31 AM
In article <cgbvah$9r1$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> >Note: The ads do not portray Bush.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Bush hasn't distanced himself from them so people
> will assume that they represent Bush.

Oh but wait! Bush has said "we need to stop all these 527 groups" or 
something like that. 

Not that y'know, he's actually going to fucking DO anything. He just 
keeps saying "we need to stop these 527 groups."
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:19:42 AM
In article <0rOdneAsDZyM67fcRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> them.

No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of 
all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift 
Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or 
something, and can't know they exist.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:22:07 AM
In article <5n9Wc.817$Y%3.495@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> Bush does not have an abysmal record.

These aren't the droids you want.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:24:43 AM

John wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
>>Tom Betz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>test
>>>
>>
>>When are Kerrys complete military record going to be released?
> 
> 
> 
> ALL records have been released.  Pull your head out of your ass. 
> 

Guffaw!  Pull YOURS out of yours first.  So far, I haven't seen anything 
yet on his full record being released.  Even Bob Dole is trying to get 
Kerry to apologize and just get on with campaigning.

Do YOU have a url that specifically states that Kerrys records were 
completely released?

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 5:25:18 AM
In article <JOrWc.1586$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "jenn" <jenn@hmplce.com> wrote in message
> news:cgdgjn$6ne$2@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> >
> > ALL of the official Navy records related to the battles where Kerry's
> > awards were given support his position -- ALL
> >
> 
> But are contradicted by witnesses.

And supported by witnesses, who were on the same boat. Not to mention, 
by the man Kerry rescued. 
> 
> 
> >
> > Kerry's testimony was not only not unreasonable -- he was summarizing
> > what dozens of people had testified to in congressional hearings
> >
> 
> Kerry's testimony was unreasonable.

Kerry's testimony was a compilation of things he was told. He said that, 
but, from what I've heard, that part was cut out of the SWVT ad. BTW, I 
live in Hawaii, which is not exactly a swing state, so I don't get to 
see these ads very often.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:26:21 AM
In article <dbqWc.1504$Y%3.551@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > Huge national debt, because of tax cuts for the rich. The idiocy of the
> > Iraqi war. No strategy to win the "peace" after we beat Saddam. Going
> > after Saddam instead of finishing off OBL and al Qaeda. An economic
> > "recovery" that isn't really helping many people, since most of the new
> > jobs being created are at lower wages than the jobs lost. And, that is
> > just a starter.
> >
> > Yeah, I would say Bush has a pretty abysmal record.
> >
> 
> That's because you don't understand economics, government, foreign policy,
> etc.

PFAH!!! What utter bullcrap bluster. Tell us Steven, since obviously you 
DO understand economics, government, and foreign policy, how is (for 
example) making a halfassed attempt at bin Laden in Afghanistan, then 
pulling out of there and heading into Iraq, which it is clear was never 
any threat to us and it is clear never had jack to do with 9/11, good 
foreign policy?
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:27:42 AM
In article <s0qWc.1493$Y%3.1179@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-940955.13410822082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <UT6Wc.666$Y%3.324@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-F8A3F6.15103221082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > What do you want as proof.
> > > >
> > >
> > > A quote of a statement defaming Bush opponents and a connection to the
> Bush
> > > campaign.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
> > > > South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
> > > > accusations about McCain's patriotism.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What accusations?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Same thing happened in 2002 in the Georgia Senate race.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bush was president in 2002.  I assure you, he did not run in the 2002
> > > Georgia senate race.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is a pattern here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If there is it should be fairly easy to demonstrate.  Please do so.
> >
> > I have done so in another post in this thread. You really aren't worth
> > the trouble of doing it twice.
> >
> 
> But you didn't do it at all!  There is a significant difference between
> claiming something happened and showing something happened.

If you believe that, it is up to you to show where the sources I gave 
were wrong, rather than just dismissing them. And, all you did was 
dismiss them, without giving a reason.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:27:54 AM
In article <jarWc.1557$Y%3.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> >
> 
> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

Uh.

Huh?
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:28:17 AM
In article <i2vWc.1847$Y%3.274@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
> > > > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe -- 
> > > >
> > >
> > > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >
> > You seem to be very good at making statements like the above, but not
> > so good at backing them up. Why?
> >
> 
> I can back up every statement I make.

PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS, BE OUR FUCKING GUEST THEN!!!!
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:28:50 AM
In article <b%pWc.1491$Y%3.1169@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-4A330A.13401322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <iV6Wc.669$Y%3.260@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-8EF7E9.15145321082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > Do you deny the incidents I mentioned took place? As I said, there is
> a
> > > > history here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But you didn't mention any incidents!
> >
> > See my previous posts.
> >
> 
> I saw them.  If I hadn't seen them I wouldn't have been able to point out
> that you didn't mention any incidents.
> 
> 
> >
> > These incidents (McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina
> > primary and Cleland in the 2002 Gerogia senate race) are well
> > documented.
> >
> 
> Well, then, it should be a simple matter for you to provide some support for
> your assertions.  Please do so.

I did, and I was supported by Dave Derbes. It isn't my problem if you 
avoid anything that seems to go against what you want to believe.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:28:56 AM
In article <0I6dnfphVq348LfcRVn-jQ@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> Tom Betz wrote:
> 
> > test
> > 
> 
> When are Kerrys complete military record going to be released?

When is Bush's?

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
8/24/2004 5:29:28 AM
In article <UvsWc.1625$Y%3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > Bush and McCain:
> >
> > http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
> >
> > http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
> >
> > GOP and Cleland:
> >
> > http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> 
> For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've provided
> none.

Because... you... didn't look at the fucking links?
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:43:58 AM
> There is nothing you could do "for my benefit." I really don't care what 
> opinions you've expressed on newsgroups or anywhere else, and a more 
> careful reading will reveal to you that I didn't ask.  

Quoting John Griffin:
> >> >> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?

> However, thanks for 
> amusing me by believing that my lack of interest in your opinions is 
> "denial."

Translation: "I don't care what kind of evidence you have to support 
what you're saying, I'm going to attempt loquacious bluster in order to 
blow over the fact that my argument is like a stack of loosely 
associated toothpicks in a gale-force wind."
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:48:34 AM
In article <kRsWc.1636$Y%3.922@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site. 

'Cuz the Boston Globe is a MUCH more reliable source than the actual 
transcripts of the actual meeting where he supposedly actually said this.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:49:55 AM
In article <47CdnRUh-4r7FbrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> Nothing against you, but the NYtimes isn't exactly a reliable source of 
> news or facts anymore.

Actually as we have already stated multiple times, events that led to 
people's questioning the veracity of that publication have further led 
to its being all the more diligent in the fact-checking process, in 
order to gain back that lost credibility.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:53:36 AM

John wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> 
>>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
>>
>>>In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>>>These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>>>>>portraying Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>>>
>>>Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>>>do with them:
>>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>>
>>
>>There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
>>had anything to do with those ads.
> 
> 
> 
> Just his crony friends and Karl Rove is all.   Pull your head out of your 
> ass and wake up. 
> 

Well, first he had to put his head up there to see your point of view. 
He couldn't get it up there far enough tho.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 5:54:19 AM
In article <vZaWc.31$45.8203@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> Certainly. The inside first page of the NY Times has about a third of
> a page devoted to corrections, and it's full every day. Only God is
> incapable of mistakes... 

Dunno, looked at an avocado lately? That pit is just too damn big.

> My brilliant father used to say that even Jesus made a mistake, out of a dozen
> apostles even He picked Judas.

Part of the plan, actually; without a betrayer he couldn't have been 
martyred, and what good's a martyr that doesn't get martyred?
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:55:24 AM

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <6OxWc.2053$Y%3.1451@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>"david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:%BxWc.56$45.10620@news.uchicago.edu...
>>
>>>Well, if a guy a thousand yards away signs an affadavit to say there was
>>
>>no
>>
>>>gunfire, and the battle damage assessment says there were bullet holes in
>>>the boat, I guess you could charitably say he was misinformed.
>>>
>>>Or, you could call a spade a spade.
>>>
>>
>>Or the bullet holes were from a previous encounter.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I'm very much hoping to see a few of these guys do a few years
>>>for perjury, and to pay substantial damages for libel. If Kerry wins,
>>
>>he'll
>>
>>>probably be magnanimous and just forget the whole thing. But if he loses,
>>>they're all going to need excellent, highly paid attorneys.
>>>
>>
>>That scenario is unlikely.  If Kerry could win in court after the election
>>he could easily refute their charges now and end the damage they're doing to
>>his campaign.  But he's not trying to do that.  Instead, he's trying to
>>force them off the air.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, he _has_ refuted the charges that the medals were awarded
> fraudulently. Well, not so much Kerry as his shipmates, the Washington 
> Post, the Chicago Tribune, and many another newspaper. 
> 
> If he were to proceed against O'Neill and company in court, he'd be likely
> to lose a great deal of sympathy that he now has. So he won't do that
> until after the election, and if he wins, he'll forget all about it.
> He and the Democratic National Committee are doing their best to help the
> SBVT implode, which seems to be happening as I type.
> 

I find it rather odd that Kerry is making such an ado about his medals. 
  Remember that he did claim to have thrown out his medals in protest.
Strange campaign tactics.  If Kerry doesn't get busy and soon, he'll 
lose it if he doesn't start addressing the real issues.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 5:58:49 AM
In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > 
> 
> Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
> So that leaves me out.

They don't want money you nitwit; they want your name, and it says right 
on the form they're not going to do anything with it anyway. Quit being 
a dumbfuck.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 5:58:52 AM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:51:48 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>
>
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
>> In article <XKCdnXWcmNd8lrXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
>> <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <WLPVc.31513$nx2.22470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:dfritzinnospam-08284E.11253921082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>>>>>>admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>>>>>>Bush opponents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please cite some of that history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here you go:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>Another one of those sites that wants money before you can read.
>>>So that leaves me out.
>>>
>> 
>> Nope, free registration...
>> 
>
>Good.  I'll give it a try.  I see all too often web sites that want you 
>to register also want your credit card number and how much it costs per 
>year.  The AP website, if I recall, was about $295/year.

It sounds like you need to visit 
www.bugmenot.com



-- 
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
0
ev515o (4926)
8/24/2004 5:59:00 AM

Harry wrote:

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
> 
>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not, it's 
>>even more devastating than the first one.
> 
> 
> Too late!  Everyone already knows these guys are liars.  Kerry found
> corroborative evidence, the swiftboatvetsforBush found out what
> happens when you lie in public (well, after four years of lies
> anyway).
> 
> The swiftboatvetsforBush are now in the same category as Bill
> Clinton's 57 murders.  I know you and your fellow morons will have
> endless fun discussing it, but for the rest of us, it's just another
> litmus test for imbecility.
> 
> And you are an imbicile.  No mistake about that.

I knew we could find those liars!

Oops... what's this... I found a turd in my pocket!

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 6:00:15 AM
In article 
<dfritzinnospam-940955.13410822082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

> I have done so in another post in this thread. You really aren't worth 
> the trouble of doing it twice.

He's not worth the trouble of typing the word "the."
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:00:39 AM

Eris wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:09:29 GMT, "Steven  P. McNicoll"
> <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Harry" <realpoetik@scn.org> wrote in message
>>news:ee68a82.0408231400.153b5364@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:<17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>...
>>
>>>>The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>>
>>it's
>>
>>>>even more devastating than the first one.
>>>
>>>Too late!  Everyone already knows these guys are liars.  Kerry found
>>>corroborative evidence, the swiftboatvetsforBush found out what
>>>happens when you lie in public (well, after four years of lies
>>>anyway).
>>>
>>
>>What evidence?
>>
> 
> People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
> place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.
> 
> You religious right types, just get lower and lower.

Where did you find out his affiliation?  I never saw it so I suppose 
that your assumptions about him are erroneous.

-- 
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

0
mist (19747)
8/24/2004 6:01:20 AM
In article <0UaWc.29$45.8032@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> As a confirmed liberal, I think John McCain is a fine man. I don't often
> agree with his politics, but were he running for president, I can easily
> imagine voting for him.

I think the Republicans REALLY dropped the ball on this; if they'd let 
McCain run unfettered, I (a lifelong Democrat) would definitely have 
voted for him, and they'd have had me feeling all positive about a 
Republican for the first time in my life. Heaven forfend that actually 
happen.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:03:11 AM
In article <F37Wc.686$Y%3.485@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> How does it prove that?  The swift boat veterans aren't a Republican group.

BWAAAAHH HA HA HA boy, you just severely damaged YOUR credibility. 

"These aren't the droids you want."
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:11:21 AM
In article <g2qWc.1494$Y%3.623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > And, if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Hell, one
> > of them was in the Bush campaign, and just quit today. O'Neill has a
> > long record of trying to trash John Kerry, first for Nixon, now for
> > Bush. Do try to keep up.
> >
> 
> O'Neill is a Democrat.  It's not political with these people, it's personal.
> Kerry said things about them that were not true.

Oh my fucking God, do you really believe the crap you're shoveling? 
O'Neill is the protege of Chuck Colson. Chuck Colson was one of the men 
who went to jail because he was one of the actual men who broke into the 
Democratic offices at the Watergate hotel.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O'Neill

"In 1971, O'Neill squared off against Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in a 
90-minute, televised forum in which the two Vietnam War veterans sparred 
over the U.S. role in Southeast Asia.

 "President Nixon and top aide Charles W. Colson had taken a keen 
interest in O'Neill as part of their effort to discredit Kerry and the 
anti-war movement, according to memos and tapes in the National 
Archives. A clean-cut Naval Academy graduate, O'Neill was viewed by 
Nixon's team as an effective messenger against Kerry, who was causing 
the administration headaches as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans 
Against the War.

 "O'Neill, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist later in the 1970s, has largely steered clear of national 
politics since the Vietnam War era. He has focused on his law practice 
at the firm of Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson.

 "But now, O'Neill's past role as a Kerry adversary is in the public 
spotlight as the news media and others look to the Massachusetts 
senator's past to gain insight into how he might perform as president. 
And O'Neill, recovering from an operation in which he donated a kidney 
to his wife, is preparing for an onslaught of interviews with newspapers 
and TV networks eager for his impressions of Kerry."

 From the same article, the Kos highlights the following:

 "In a series of memos, Nixon aide Colson, who later went to prison for 
his role in the Watergate scandal, referred to the administration's 
efforts to promote O'Neill and to challenge Kerry to debate him.

 "On June 15, 1971, Colson noted that Kerry first turned down a debate 
offer with O'Neill and that he was 'beginning to take a tremendous 
beating in the press.'

 "'Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph 
Nader,' Colson wrote about Kerry."
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:17:25 AM
In article <BwqWc.1533$Y%3.88@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
> > it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
> >
> 
> What hard evidence do you have of that?

See the link I posted a minute ago.
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:24:02 AM
In article <9YtWc.1744$Y%3.1388@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

> > >>O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
> > >>it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative -- 
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What hard evidence do you have of that?
> > >
> >
> > You might try this one:
> > http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/index_np.html
> >
> > Notice tho that it is still an opinion.
> >
> 
> Thus not evidence.

Kay do this one then, NOT opinion.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O'Neill
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:25:00 AM
In article <47CdnRQh-4qBFLrcRVn-pg@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> > Read the NY Times article from yesterday dumb jackass.  Carl Roves close 
> > friend is bankrolling the ads.   You're such an idiot you don't even know 
> > that Karl Rove is in charge of dirty tricks for Bush. 
> > 
> 
> What makes you think that Carl Roves is in charge for Bush?

Because his *official title* is "political strategist for George W. 
Bush?"

And yet another guy that worked for Nixon too. How about that?

http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:27:30 AM
In article <fqjfi0t2kjau3651q3rthbcufik79u0v5d@4ax.com>,
 Michael Bauer <Crackerhead> wrote:

> we won't win either way, but I can't stand Kerry.  His little beady
> eyes... 

If you wanna pick on that, Bush's eyes are even beadier....
0
forge10 (1697)
8/24/2004 6:30:51 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-CF3F46.18520323082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
> > reconcile that?
> >
>
> Someone lied. Considering everything, it appears obvious that the Swift
> Boat Vets lied.
>

How is that obvious?


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 9:46:35 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-DE8167.18531123082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> In article <OAsWc.1628$Y%3.1253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> > > In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> > portraying
> > > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> > >
> > > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> > > do with them:
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > >
> >
> > There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
> > anything to do with those ads.
>
> No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
>

People that would like to see Bush defeat Kerry, but not people in Bush's
organization.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 9:47:46 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-737ED5.18542823082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> In article <UvsWc.1625$Y%3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-C3F7BB.13391322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for
that
> > is
> > > > you have no evidence.
> > >
> > > Bush and McCain:
> > >
> > > http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
> > >
> > > http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
> > >
> > > GOP and Cleland:
> > >
> > > http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
> > >
> > > You're welcome.
> > >
> >
> > For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've
provided
> > none.
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but...
>

....you can't get him to accept your opinion as fact.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 9:48:31 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BD4097.19095623082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <HDvWc.1898$Y%3.1818@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense.  Putting their respective records head to head means a
landslide
> > for Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he's made Vietnam the central
issue
> > in his campaign.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush.
> > >
> >
> > In your opinion, but not in fact.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> > >
> >
> > I do back up my statements, why don't you back up yours?
>
> Perhaps you believe your assertions are backing up your assertions.
> Hint, they aren't.
>

Odd, it appears that is what you believe.


0
roncachamp (153)
8/24/2004 9:49:41 AM
forge wrote:
> In article <vZaWc.31$45.8203@news.uchicago.edu>,
>  loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Certainly. The inside first page of the NY Times has about a third of
>>a page devoted to corrections, and it's full every day. Only God is
>>incapable of mistakes... 
> 
> 
> Dunno, looked at an avocado lately? That pit is just too damn big.

Haas avocados. Don't get those freaky huge avocados from Florida.

> 
>>My brilliant father used to say that even Jesus made a mistake, out of a dozen
>>apostles even He picked Judas.
> 
> 
> Part of the plan, actually; without a betrayer he couldn't have been 
> martyred, and what good's a martyr that doesn't get martyred?

You know it, baybee!

-- 
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
0
Elizabot2 (2823)
8/24/2004 10:25:28 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-800ACA.19142023082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> In article <vIKdnbxVp-Vf47fcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> > > "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in
message
> > news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > > > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are
debunking
> > the
> > > > > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might
shift
> > to
> > > > > > Kerry's record.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win,
> > since
> > > > > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > > > > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a
landslide
> > for
> > > > Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal
point
> > of
> > > > the campaign.
> > >
> > > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.
> > >
> > > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy, lowering
> > > deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world (Clinton)
> > > vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
> > > respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush wins in
> > > a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.
> > >
> > > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Fritzinger
> >
> > But yet, every time we ask a Clinton worshiper how he created a good
economy
> > with out a Republican controlled congress...there is silence.
>
> You haven't asked me. For one, the tax increase showed Clinton was
> serious about reducing the deficit, which gave lending institutions more
> confidence.

Yet, Clinton showed true democrat colors that once we had a surplus he was
unwilling to allow American workers to put more money back in their pocket
and he felt Government could spend our money more wisely than we could.



> BTW, that tax increase was passed without a single Republican vote.

Because Republicans believe that American's should have more of their own
money.
Democrats believe our money is the Governments.
Republicans realize that Americans are overtaxed now as it is. Democrats
don't think we are taxed enough.


> >
> > Clinton was under as much pressure to fight terrorism as Bush is, and
> > Clinton allowed terrorist to go unchecked.  Even allowed an opportunity
to
> > get Bin Laden slip right out of his hands.
> >
>
> People have demonstrated you are lying.

Oh puh-lease, if you can show where I have lied please do so.
But if you are going to be someone elses mouthpiece, take it somewhere else
if you can't do your own work.

Try reading Richard Clarke's
> book. Clinton went after bin Laden, but couldn't go after him as much as
> he would have liked because of the Republican Congress.

WRONG

It was actually because we hadn't established better relations with
Pakistan.
They were the stumbling block.

Bin Laden was offered to the U.S., and Bill Clinton let it go.

There was also an opportunity to go after Bin Laden, and Bill Clinton let
that go too.



 Second, Clinton
> stopped the Millenium terrorist plot.

Source?

So, you are wrong.
> > Deficits rise and fall throught out history.
> > Imagine this though, Kerry says he can have it all fixed in four
years...
>
> Actually, IIRC, Kerry made the exact claim as Bush, that the deficit
> would be halved in 4 years. Do learn to read.

I read very well, which will be your down fall later on.

Now, I want you to show me where I have lied and do your own work please.


> >
> > Yea, right...:o)
>
> -- 
> Dave Fritzinger


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/24/2004 1:08:35 PM
forge, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use, wrote:

> In article <0rOdneAsDZyM67fcRVn-jQ@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
>> them.
> 
> No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of
> all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift
> Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or
> something, and can't know they exist.

  Yes, he has, you moronic shit stain. By the way, your ass-to-be-kissed-daily
Kerry is a "Swift Butt Veteran", you fucking idiot. Let him know you think
that's what he must be too.
0
throw1 (17)
8/24/2004 1:41:05 PM
forge, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use, wrote:

> In article <jarWc.1557$Y%3.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>> > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
>> >
>> 
>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> 
> --
> Huh?

  At least your truthful about yourself with your sig.
0
throw1 (17)
8/24/2004 1:42:20 PM
forge, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use, wrote:

> In article <UvsWc.1625$Y%3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> > Bush and McCain:
>> >
>> > http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
>> >
>> > http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
>> >
>> > GOP and Cleland:
>> >
>> > http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
>> >
>> > You're welcome.
>> >
>> 
>> For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've provided
>> none.
> 
> Because... because... oh waaaaaahhh! Quit picking on us!

  No.

0
throw1 (17)
8/24/2004 1:45:20 PM
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com>, another toothless little lap 
dog, wrote:

> 
>> There is nothing you could do "for my benefit." I really don't care
>> what opinions you've expressed on newsgroups or anywhere else, and a
>> more careful reading will reveal to you that I didn't ask.  
> 
> Quoting John Griffin:
>> >> >> Do they?  What hard evidence do you have of that?

No, imbecile, I didn't write that.   Clearly ">> >> >>" exceeds your 
mental capacity by at least "> >>."

> 
>> However, thanks for 
>> amusing me by believing that my lack of interest in your opinions is 
>> "denial."
> 
> Translation: "I don't care what kind of evidence you have to support 
> what you're saying, I'm going to attempt loquacious bluster in order
> to blow over the fact that my argument is like a stack of loosely 
> associated toothpicks in a gale-force wind."

rotmfflmmfao.  You aren't just dumber than ">," you're also lamer than a 
three-legged dung beetle. I'm afraid that you really believe that that 
flouncy little spaz can be related to my lack of interest in the other 
halfwit's opinions.  That's fuckin' sad.
0
8/24/2004 2:02:29 PM
Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote in
news:greg-C18E51.05373321082004@news.central.cox.net: 

> In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
>> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> 
> You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
> stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 

Glad to see you admit that you think National Guard service is cowardly.

> Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be
> HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home
> enjoying them.

Bush has praised Kerry's Vietnam service, you dolt.
0
gactimus (1327)
8/24/2004 2:30:04 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tIvWc.1905$Y%3.1716@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Eris" <vithant01@antispm.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vd1li055k4l4no9qhn8jsuvetphrld2lfj@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >What evidence?
> > >
> >
> > People who actually serverd with Kerry. you know where in the same
> > place at the same time. First hand witnessess, versus hearsay.
> >
> 
> Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
> reconcile that?
> 
> 
> >
> > You religious right types, just get lower and lower.
> >
> 
> I'm a libertarian and an atheist.

Has nothing to do with his military service.

Cognitive dissonance.  These guys spent several very unpleasant years
in an unpleasant place doing very unpleasant things.  They kept
themselves together by telling themselves it had a positive purpose
and/or a positive outcome.  Then John Kerry in 1972 points out the
truth, namely, the war was a long drawn out ongoing criminal
conspiracy, pointless, unwinnable, moronic and immoral.  So these guys
came down on him then, and have never gotten over.

Mind you, Kerry said nothing about the war which wasn't true and fully
documented.  It was a really crummy war and, until Iraq, the worst
foreign polciy and military mistake in US history.
0
8/24/2004 3:35:55 PM
In article <Xns954F6ADA729C6PQ@alaska.local>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote in
> news:greg-C18E51.05373321082004@news.central.cox.net: 
> 
> > In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or not,
> >> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > 
> > You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers 
> > stateside while John Kerry fought for his country? 
> 
> Glad to see you admit that you think National Guard service is cowardly.

George Bush was cowardly.  And at the time, the National Guard was a
place to go when you didn't want to face the threat of Vietnam.  That
is why the waiting list to get in was so long and why Bush's father had
to pull strings to get him in.

> 
> > Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should be
> > HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was home
> > enjoying them.
> 
> Bush has praised Kerry's Vietnam service, you dolt.

While sending his cronies out to smear him.  Further, Bush has said "he
isn't sure" that Kerry deserved his medals.  Bush is slime.
0
anto4318 (55)
8/24/2004 3:40:36 PM
In article <Xns954DEB936E641thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4>, John
Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:

> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> 
> > Steven  P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > 
> >>> The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> >>> completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are debunking the
> >>> "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might shift to
> >>Kerry's record.
> > 
> > Anything to avoid dealing with Bush's record.
> 
> I hope you're capable spotting the joke here, but let me explain. He 
> implies that you don't want to talk about Kerry's record, and your reply 
> is "Bush's record."  Trust me, that's funny.

What is funny is a group that supports a President who is a twice
convicted criminal who avoids military service during Vietnam and left
the National Guard early because his drug addiction kept him from
passing the military drug scan and had to be appointed to office and
who now hopes to claim that the U.S. Military have awarded medals in
the past based on lies.
0
anto4318 (55)
8/24/2004 3:45:07 PM
In article <I_OdnfqhN5stoLbcRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-800ACA.19142023082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <vIKdnbxVp-Vf47fcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
> >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> > > news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > > In article <sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > > > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade away
> > > > > > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are
> debunking
> > > the
> > > > > > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion might
> shift
> > > to
> > > > > > > Kerry's record.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely win,
> > > since
> > > > > > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > > > > > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a
> landslide
> > > for
> > > > > Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the focal
> point
> > > of
> > > > > the campaign.
> > > >
> > > > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > > > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > > > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy, lowering
> > > > deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world (Clinton)
> > > > vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
> > > > respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush wins in
> > > > a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.
> > > >
> > > > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dave Fritzinger
> > >
> > > But yet, every time we ask a Clinton worshiper how he created a good
> economy
> > > with out a Republican controlled congress...there is silence.
> >
> > You haven't asked me. For one, the tax increase showed Clinton was
> > serious about reducing the deficit, which gave lending institutions more
> > confidence.
> 
> Yet, Clinton showed true democrat colors that once we had a surplus he was
> unwilling to allow American workers to put more money back in their pocket
> and he felt Government could spend our money more wisely than we could.
> 
> 
> 
> > BTW, that tax increase was passed without a single Republican vote.
> 
> Because Republicans believe that American's should have more of their own
> money.
> Democrats believe our money is the Governments.
> Republicans realize that Americans are overtaxed now as it is. Democrats
> don't think we are taxed enough.

Americans spendable income under Clinton went up, under Bush it is
down, you idiot.

> 
> 
> > >
> > > Clinton was under as much pressure to fight terrorism as Bush is, and
> > > Clinton allowed terrorist to go unchecked.  Even allowed an opportunity
> to
> > > get Bin Laden slip right out of his hands.
> > >
> >
> > People have demonstrated you are lying.
> 
> Oh puh-lease, if you can show where I have lied please do so.

LOL!  Holy shit!  The list is endless.

> But if you are going to be someone elses mouthpiece, take it somewhere else
> if you can't do your own work.
> 
> Try reading Richard Clarke's
> > book. Clinton went after bin Laden, but couldn't go after him as much as
> > he would have liked because of the Republican Congress.
> 
> WRONG
> 
> It was actually because we hadn't established better relations with
> Pakistan.
> They were the stumbling block.
> 
> Bin Laden was offered to the U.S., and Bill Clinton let it go.

Before the WTC

> 
> There was also an opportunity to go after Bin Laden, and Bill Clinton let
> that go too.

Bush is in the pocket of the Bin Laden's.

> 
> 
> 
>  Second, Clinton
> > stopped the Millenium terrorist plot.
> 
> Source?
> 
> So, you are wrong.
> > > Deficits rise and fall throught out history.
> > > Imagine this though, Kerry says he can have it all fixed in four
> years...
> >
> > Actually, IIRC, Kerry made the exact claim as Bush, that the deficit
> > would be halved in 4 years. Do learn to read.
> 
> I read very well, which will be your down fall later on.
> 
> Now, I want you to show me where I have lied and do your own work please.
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Yea, right...:o)
> >
> > -- 
> > Dave Fritzinger
> 
>
0
anto4318 (55)
8/24/2004 3:48:27 PM
A few quick comments if I may, Ed . . . . 

Ed Rasimus <rasimusNOSPAM@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
><dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it 
>>says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters 
>>seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort 
>>of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to 
>>Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race. 
>
>Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
>Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
>gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
>Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
>campaign. 

The same for me regards Ken Cordier. . . . 

>Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
>underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
>contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
>that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k 

Actually, it was 200K . . . . 

>therefore the
>ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
>by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org  and his investment of
>several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
>right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
>to be heard. 
>
>And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
>most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
>country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
>accident which was largely his own fault. 

If by his own fault you mean it was his grenade, it wasn't his -- it was someone else's.

Doug

>The fact that he was injured
>by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
>his record in the Senate. 
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org


0
dreese1 (31)
8/24/2004 4:31:06 PM
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:240820040848273623%anto@sales.com...
> In article <I_OdnfqhN5stoLbcRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Osprey
> <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:dfritzinnospam-800ACA.19142023082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > In article <vIKdnbxVp-Vf47fcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
> > >  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b82925bb.0408231529.2f30a0fb@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:<39qWc.1503$Y%3.265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > news:dfritzinnospam-F2BF4B.13475722082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > > > In article
<sZ8Wc.800$Y%3.65@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > > > > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:Xns954D9A850B53thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Democrats need to try to let the Vietnam debate fade
away
> > > > > > > > > completely, now that most of the Swift Boat people are
> > debunking
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "Kerry as War Hero" story.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can they afford to do that?  If they do, the discussion
might
> > shift
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > Kerry's record.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or it might shift to Bush's record. Then, Kerry would surely
win,
> > > > since
> > > > > > > Bush has been the worst president of my memory, and I remember
> > > > > > > presidents back to Eisenhower.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, comparing the records of Bush and Kerry would mean a
> > landslide
> > > > for
> > > > > > Bush.  Kerry knows that, that's why he has made Vietnam the
focal
> > point
> > > > of
> > > > > > the campaign.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, Bush has to go negative on Kerry because he knows he has no
> > > > > record worth running on. See, two can play at this game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, the worst president in your memory was Bill Clinton.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, G.W Bush, as I stated. Perhaps you didn't like Clinton, but,
> > > > > IMHO, he was a far better president than Bush. Good economy,
lowering
> > > > > deficits, respect from our allies and the rest of the world
(Clinton)
> > > > > vs. a not very good economy, rapidly increasing deficits, and less
> > > > > respect from the rest of the world (GWB). Sorry, in this, Bush
wins in
> > > > > a landslide, as the worst president of my memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, again, it is up to you to back up your stupid comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dave Fritzinger
> > > >
> > > > But yet, every time we ask a Clinton worshiper how he created a good
> > economy
> > > > with out a Republican controlled congress...there is silence.
> > >
> > > You haven't asked me. For one, the tax increase showed Clinton was
> > > serious about reducing the deficit, which gave lending institutions
more
> > > confidence.
> >
> > Yet, Clinton showed true democrat colors that once we had a surplus he
was
> > unwilling to allow American workers to put more money back in their
pocket
> > and he felt Government could spend our money more wisely than we could.
> >
> >
> >
> > > BTW, that tax increase was passed without a single Republican vote.
> >
> > Because Republicans believe that American's should have more of their
own
> > money.
> > Democrats believe our money is the Governments.
> > Republicans realize that Americans are overtaxed now as it is. Democrats
> > don't think we are taxed enough.
>
> Americans spendable income under Clinton went up, under Bush it is
> down, you idiot.

Wrong, and speaking about name calling...you never did get back to me about
your statement that Corrections isn't law enforcement after I supplied you
with the information that we are.

How come?  Embarrassed?


>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Clinton was under as much pressure to fight terrorism as Bush is,
and
> > > > Clinton allowed terrorist to go unchecked.  Even allowed an
opportunity
> > to
> > > > get Bin Laden slip right out of his hands.
> > > >
> > >
> > > People have demonstrated you are lying.
> >
> > Oh puh-lease, if you can show where I have lied please do so.
>
> LOL!  Holy shit!  The list is endless.

Then start the list and be prepared to prove your assertions.
This is where you failed before.
Especially after I nailed you for your lies...remember the one about you
saying you seen someone post something that they never posted?
Once you were asked to back it up, you never could.


>
> > But if you are going to be someone elses mouthpiece, take it somewhere
else
> > if you can't do your own work.
> >
> > Try reading Richard Clarke's
> > > book. Clinton went after bin Laden, but couldn't go after him as much
as
> > > he would have liked because of the Republican Congress.
> >
> > WRONG
> >
> > It was actually because we hadn't established better relations with
> > Pakistan.
> > They were the stumbling block.
> >
> > Bin Laden was offered to the U.S., and Bill Clinton let it go.
>
> Before the WTC
>
> >
> > There was also an opportunity to go after Bin Laden, and Bill Clinton
let
> > that go too.
>
> Bush is in the pocket of the Bin Laden's.

Again, more empty rhetoric from the liberal.


>
> >
> >
> >
> >  Second, Clinton
> > > stopped the Millenium terrorist plot.
> >
> > Source?
> >
> > So, you are wrong.
> > > > Deficits rise and fall throught out history.
> > > > Imagine this though, Kerry says he can have it all fixed in four
> > years...
> > >
> > > Actually, IIRC, Kerry made the exact claim as Bush, that the deficit
> > > would be halved in 4 years. Do learn to read.
> >
> > I read very well, which will be your down fall later on.
> >
> > Now, I want you to show me where I have lied and do your own work
please.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yea, right...:o)
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Dave Fritzinger
> >
> >


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/24/2004 4:52:29 PM
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:240820040840365352%anto@sales.com...
> In article <Xns954F6ADA729C6PQ@alaska.local>, Gactimus
> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>
> > Greg <greg@nothere.net> wrote in
> > news:greg-C18E51.05373321082004@news.central.cox.net:
> >
> > > In article <17zmz18int7gt$.dlg@alaska.local>,
> > > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The New Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad is out and believe it or
not,
> > >> it's even more devastating than the first one.
> > >
> > > You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers
> > > stateside while John Kerry fought for his country?
> >
> > Glad to see you admit that you think National Guard service is cowardly.
>
> George Bush was cowardly.

Flying a plane is cowardly?
Every time a pilot flies, they are not cowards.
Can you fly a fighter?



And at the time, the National Guard was a
> place to go when you didn't want to face the threat of Vietnam.  That
> is why the waiting list to get in was so long and why Bush's father had
> to pull strings to get him in.
>
> >
> > > Did Bush even show up for pampers duty during that time?  Bush should
be
> > > HONORING John Kerry for fighting for Bush's freedoms while Bush was
home
> > > enjoying them.
> >
> > Bush has praised Kerry's Vietnam service, you dolt.
>
> While sending his cronies out to smear him.

False again, and you have been asked to prove your assertions.
You lied then, as you are lying again.


Further, Bush has said "he
> isn't sure" that Kerry deserved his medals.  Bush is slime.

Provide the source to back that up.

Liberals are slime


0
noneedtoknow (858)
8/24/2004 4:54:33 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<%7EWc.2261$Y%3.1481@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-CF3F46.18520323082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > Some of those first hand witnesses are Swift Boat Vets.  How do you
> > > reconcile that?
> > >
> >
> > Someone lied. Considering everything, it appears obvious that the Swift
> > Boat Vets lied.
> >
> 
> How is that obvious?

You are thick, aren't you. The NY Times, Washington Post, and Chicago
Tribune have all published accounts that show the SBVTs to be wrong.
They have shown the ties between SBVT and the Republicans backing
Bush, and there have been numerous eyewitness accounts that back
Kerry's version of the story. Ergo, the SBVT have clearly lied.

You really ought to learn that Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source
for news...

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/24/2004 5:38:43 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<69EWc.2262$Y%3.492@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-DE8167.18531123082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <OAsWc.1628$Y%3.1253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "david raoul derbes" <loki@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:M3cWc.34$45.8535@news.uchicago.edu...
> > > > In article <s17Wc.684$Y%3.430@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > > Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > > > >news:cgagb2$g9p$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>  portraying
> > > > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Why would that be?  Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> > > >
> > > > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> > > > do with them:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
> > > anything to do with those ads.
> >
> > No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
> >
> 
> People that would like to see Bush defeat Kerry, but not people in Bush's
> organization.

At least one was. He had to quit the campaign yesterday. 

You lose, again. 

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
8/24/2004 5:40:06 PM
"Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<P9EWc.2263$Y%3.196@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-737ED5.18542823082004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <UvsWc.1625$Y%3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dfritzinnospam-C3F7BB.13391322082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
> > > > In article <yW6Wc.671$Y%3.497@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  "Steven  P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
>  news:dfritzinnospam-15CF83.15153621082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See other posts I have made in this and other threads.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've seen them.  You presented no evidence.  The likely reason for
>  that
>  is
> > > > > you have no evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Bush and McCain:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
> > > >
> > > > http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html
> > > >
> > > > GOP and Cleland:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=notebook120202twp
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For what?  I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've
>  provided
> > > none.
> >
> > You can lead a horse to water, but...
> >
> 
> ...you can't get him to accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, but I provided the evidence. Others (Dave Derbes among them)
hae corroborated my evidence. My "opinion" is indeed fact, while yours
appears to be what you want to believe, against all the evidence.

You lose, again...

--
Dave Fritzinger