"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:01:30 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:


THE REAL KERRY

By HOWIE CARR


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----

Gunner,

The New York Post? What's next from you, the National Enquirer? What
a
truly
pathetic miserable toothless gutless worm you are.


Haha! Don't hold back, Abrasha. Tell us what you really think...g

Being a denizen of the most remote of the former Territories, The State
of
Utter Confusion, Gunner may not realize that he's quoting from the NY
Metro
area's favorite bird-cage liner. It's about like quoting on the subject
of
gun control from "Vanity Fair."

I really dont care where the cite came from. Was it factually incorrect?
Was it riddled with inaccuracies? Was any data made up?

You have no way of knowing, Gunner, unless you want to spend your life
double-checking everyone else's facts. It's something I do from time to time
in my work. Believe me, you couldn't check 1/20th of what you post.

So you never have any idea if what you're quoting here is accurate, or if
it's a made-up bunch of bull. That's why the quality of the source is
important. You're so utterly indiscriminate that you never know what the
hell you're posting.

In its heyday, the NYP was the city's afternoon, blue-collar tabloid:
jingoist, reactionary, unabashadly partisan and, at the same time,
pro-union. It was one of those weird, angular takes on the news of which big
cities used to have many.

It's gone downhill from there. Now it's just a piece of crap. No one who
knows the media out here would ever quote the Post on anything without being
shame-faced about it. Oh, it's good for horoscopes and gossip.

When the Internet first made so many news sources available to everyone, I
was hopeful, like many people, that the result would be a much
better-informed populace. I've lost faith in that idea. What it's done,
rather than inform, is to allow polarized partisanship to flower. People
like you select your news on the basis of whether it says something you
like. You're a perfect example. You rarely make any attempt to check it, or
even to discriminate among sources. You can't possibly *know* the quality of
so many sources. But you can pile up an endless mountain of "cites," many of
which are just feeding off of each other's b.s., and then challenge someone
to refute them.

That's a prescription for ignorance. You may recall that I took the time to
check one of your "cites" less than a year ago, and found that all of the
first three "key facts" the piece reported were bogus. Nobody can do that
with all of your sources; no one would even want to try. I just assume that
all of your links are bull****, and it's likely that I'm more than half
right, on the basis of what I have been able to check.


Yes? No? Or does the messenger mean more than the message?

See above.


I see that the latest CNN/Gallup Poll has Kerry ahead of Bush by 53% to
46%.
That's a reflection of Kerry getting a boost from his string of primary
victories but it shows that, once again, the country could be in a mood
to
favor a Democrat -- at least against a Bush.

This is going to be an interesting one, all right.

Ed Huntress

Yup.

One thing to remember though..no matter how many of us Conservatives
Bush has ****ed off..damned few of us will vote for an individual
farther Left than the Kennedys.

You won't have to. There is no one farther left than the Kennedy's. g This
stuff about Kerry being an extreme lefty is just more bull**** from the
right. They're trying to set up a defense by demonizing Kerry by using the
"L" word. Watch closely: Rove will have a whole list of lies and
misrepresentations cooked up by Super Tuesday, and we'll probably start
seeing "cites" referring to them posted here by you. I think we can count on
it.

The thing that's perked up my attention is that it's beginning to look that
the old "L"-word trick has lost its steam. It's a 25-year-old trick, and
people are getting sick of it.

Kerry screwed the pooch as far as Conservative vets are concerned, so
dont bother thinking they might give him a "brotherhood vote" and
frankly...few folks I know want to vote themselves a series of
confisticatory tax increases..which is all they are gonna get if they
vote for Dems.

That's what they'll be getting if they vote for Republicans, too, by the end
of the next administration. Bush has set the future President up for a fall.
If taxes on the wealthy and on corporations aren't restored, the US dollar
is going to be worth its weight in toilet paper within about 8 years. Our
taxes on the upper 5% of income earners are lower now than they've been
since WWII. Our deficits are almost beyond belief. It's not sustainable, and
there is hardly any "discretionary spending" to cut. (Bush is counting
Homeland Security spending as "discretionary," BTW, and all of that increase
he's bitching about is for HLS programs his administration initiated. But
he's counting on people like you not noticing that. It appears he's
succeeding.) If you cut all of it out, you solve around 10% of the problem.
After that, it's Social Security or defense that would have to go.

Nearly every economist in the US and around the world, outside of those
working for the administration or the RNC, is saying the same thing, whether
they're from the left or the right.


Im tickled when I see the Left ****ing and moaning about Bush spending
money. ****es me off too. On the other hand..they are mad about such
things as the Perscription Drug Benefits bill, because it didnt go far
enough.

The drug bill puts mountains of money in the pockets of Big Pharma, with
virtually no restraints on their prices, and with a very screwed-up set of
costs for the beneficiaries. It's the biggest giveaway since Eisenhower gave
the trucking- and automobile industries the Interstate Highway System.


The 9 Stooges have blithered on about repealing the "tax cuts on the
rich", and making sure the Rich Pay their fair share etc

That's because they know what they're talking about, and you don't.


What they dont tell you is that they will increase the taxes on
everyone. And if you dont think so..Ive got some prime ocean front
property just east of Phoenix to sell you really cheap..

Get yourself subscriptions to _The Wall Street Journal_ and to _The
Economist_, get your nose out of those ridiculous neocon and libertarian
blogs, and find out what the hell you're talking about. I'll e-mail you a
relevant article from this week's Economist to get you started. g


Chortle..you think Bush's spending (on entitlements btw..a Demonrat
favorite money sink) is bad..get Leftists such as Kerry and Clinton in
office.

No one has ever run deficits like the ones Bush is running. Again, find out
what you're talking about.

Ed Huntress