"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

I must be missing something here. What logic is there to examining the
content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents
first, then ask for an examination/explanation of the content.

So if I forge a document that states that John Kerry self-inflicted three
superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we
should examine the content of the forged document? Right, I can just see
it now.


Bingo! Boy you nailed that one. Where was Dan on that case?

dwhite

"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.

-- Andy Barss

I must be missing something here. What logic is there to examining the
content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents
first, then ask for an examination/explanation of the content.

So if I forge a document that states that John Kerry self-inflicted three
superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we
should examine the content of the forged document? Right, I can just see
it now.


Bingo! Boy you nailed that one. Where was Dan on that case?

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in message news:WiM3d.1750 I
actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite



"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Is was an anomaly. Don't get used to it.

That's OK. I'll just use the killfile instead. Out of sight, out of mind.

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in message news:WiM3d.1750 I
actually agree with you on this one to a degree, but almost surely for
completely different reasons. Thank you for starting to bottom post.

dwhite



"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Is was an anomaly. Don't get used to it.

That's OK. I'll just use the killfile instead. Out of sight, out of mind.

dwhite

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


I love this! Talking points from that bastion of fairness and
even-handedness, Terry McCauliff. If Karl Rove is that clever and capable
of pulling off such a sleight of hand exposition of the willingness of the
media (CBS) to, with few questions, air forgeries in order to bring down a
president, only to be shown to be partisan lapdogs of the Kerry campaign,
then we have the wrong person running the war.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


So, now we have gone beyond the 80's clarion call of "it's not the nature
of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges", we now have, "The
memos may be forged, but we should concern ourselves with the contents of
those FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents and indict and
investigate the president based upon the contents of these FORGED (i.e,
FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents. Wow. Complete melt-down on the left,
we now have such visceral hatred of the president that we should not
consider accusations in forged documents to be sufficient evidence for
conviction.

Realizing of course, that the FORGER has committed a felony (falsifying
federal documents).


-- Andy Barss

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


I love this! Talking points from that bastion of fairness and
even-handedness, Terry McCauliff. If Karl Rove is that clever and capable
of pulling off such a sleight of hand exposition of the willingness of the
media (CBS) to, with few questions, air forgeries in order to bring down a
president, only to be shown to be partisan lapdogs of the Kerry campaign,
then we have the wrong person running the war.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


So, now we have gone beyond the 80's clarion call of "it's not the nature
of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges", we now have, "The
memos may be forged, but we should concern ourselves with the contents of
those FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents and indict and
investigate the president based upon the contents of these FORGED (i.e,
FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents. Wow. Complete melt-down on the left,
we now have such visceral hatred of the president that we should not
consider accusations in forged documents to be sufficient evidence for
conviction.

Realizing of course, that the FORGER has committed a felony (falsifying
federal documents).


-- Andy Barss

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:22:51 GMT, Glen wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:


Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?


Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,


... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?


but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.



... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen


My above cited comments were ment to be sarcastic. I agree with you
that Mr. Kerry is the waffle king. I hope nobody interpreted my
comments as being in support of flip-flop John.

Glen


Sorry, if I left you with the wrong impression. I did not think that you
were supporting JK, I was simply reinforcing your sarcasm.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:22:51 GMT, Glen wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:


Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?


Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,


... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?


but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.



... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen


My above cited comments were ment to be sarcastic. I agree with you
that Mr. Kerry is the waffle king. I hope nobody interpreted my
comments as being in support of flip-flop John.

Glen


Sorry, if I left you with the wrong impression. I did not think that you
were supporting JK, I was simply reinforcing your sarcasm.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:17:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


I love this! Talking points from that bastion of fairness and
even-handedness, Terry McCauliff. If Karl Rove is that clever and capable
of pulling off such a sleight of hand exposition of the willingness of the
media (CBS) to, with few questions, air forgeries in order to bring down a
president, only to be shown to be partisan lapdogs of the Kerry campaign,
then we have the wrong person running the war.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


So, now we have gone beyond the 80's clarion call of "it's not the nature
of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges", we now have, "The
memos may be forged, but we should concern ourselves with the contents of
those FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents and indict and
investigate the president based upon the contents of these FORGED (i.e,
FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents. Wow. Complete melt-down on the left,
we now have such visceral hatred of the president that we should notxxx
that should have been "now"
consider accusations in forged documents to be sufficient evidence for
conviction.

Realizing of course, that the FORGER has committed a felony (falsifying
federal documents).


-- Andy Barss

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:17:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Todd Fatheree wrote:
: : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that
: : Bush lied about anything.
:
: His TANG service.

: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony
: papers to show it.

I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl
Rove's lair of deceit.


I love this! Talking points from that bastion of fairness and
even-handedness, Terry McCauliff. If Karl Rove is that clever and capable
of pulling off such a sleight of hand exposition of the willingness of the
media (CBS) to, with few questions, air forgeries in order to bring down a
president, only to be shown to be partisan lapdogs of the Kerry campaign,
then we have the wrong person running the war.

And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination
of the *content* of the memos.


So, now we have gone beyond the 80's clarion call of "it's not the nature
of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges", we now have, "The
memos may be forged, but we should concern ourselves with the contents of
those FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents and indict and
investigate the president based upon the contents of these FORGED (i.e,
FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents. Wow. Complete melt-down on the left,
we now have such visceral hatred of the president that we should notxxx
that should have been "now"
consider accusations in forged documents to be sufficient evidence for
conviction.

Realizing of course, that the FORGER has committed a felony (falsifying
federal documents).


-- Andy Barss

snip
No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is
a complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of
obfuscation that is going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and
practically everybody else gave the president the authority to act.
The rest is splitting hairs and political maneuvering. Anybody who
is really watching can see that Kerry's position on the war is
complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

I find it repulsive that an intelligent, educated person could argue
that 1000's of people dying is "splitting hairs".

I came into this thread late and have read it from the beginning,
and you know what? The dogmatism exhibited here is just mind bending.
Those of you that think the "left" is "weak" or that the "right" is
"stupid", "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry flip/flops" - you're all
missing it. Instead of spending time spouting your uninformed
opinions to those who neither hear nor listen, try educating
yourselves on what's really going on in this country. It's not
hard, it just takes a little effort. Draw your ownconclusions but
please do it from an informed basis.

Have I offended anyone? I don't care. Why? Because the only
real question we as citizens should be asking is:
"Are we willing to send our sons and daughters to die in a far away
place when we can't even agree on why they're there?"

As long as we're discussing the pros/cons of Kerry's hair style
or whether Bush got a prostate exam when he was s'posed to, we're
not discussing the real issues.

Now, excuse me but I have some wood to split, looks to be a
long, cold and expensive winter.


(Oh, and while I'm offending people - CW, quit top posting.)

snip
No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is
a complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of
obfuscation that is going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and
practically everybody else gave the president the authority to act.
The rest is splitting hairs and political maneuvering. Anybody who
is really watching can see that Kerry's position on the war is
complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

I find it repulsive that an intelligent, educated person could argue
that 1000's of people dying is "splitting hairs".

I came into this thread late and have read it from the beginning,
and you know what? The dogmatism exhibited here is just mind bending.
Those of you that think the "left" is "weak" or that the "right" is
"stupid", "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry flip/flops" - you're all
missing it. Instead of spending time spouting your uninformed
opinions to those who neither hear nor listen, try educating
yourselves on what's really going on in this country. It's not
hard, it just takes a little effort. Draw your ownconclusions but
please do it from an informed basis.

Have I offended anyone? I don't care. Why? Because the only
real question we as citizens should be asking is:
"Are we willing to send our sons and daughters to die in a far away
place when we can't even agree on why they're there?"

As long as we're discussing the pros/cons of Kerry's hair style
or whether Bush got a prostate exam when he was s'posed to, we're
not discussing the real issues.

Now, excuse me but I have some wood to split, looks to be a
long, cold and expensive winter.


(Oh, and while I'm offending people - CW, quit top posting.)

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we
are getting what we deserve in politicians.

Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist
on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top
in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to
corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing
whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a
difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of
chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the
only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers
money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is
never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport
27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?

From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in
Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more
vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe?
Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport
lobsters?

My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting
more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in
meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done
between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for
Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is
setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally
acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with
conducting presidential business.

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we
are getting what we deserve in politicians.

Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist
on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top
in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to
corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing
whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a
difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of
chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the
only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers
money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is
never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport
27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?

From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in
Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more
vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe?
Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport
lobsters?

My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting
more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in
meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done
between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for
Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is
setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally
acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with
conducting presidential business.

- Al

In article , lid
says...
Dan White wrote:

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder
we are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in
Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars
worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was
he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
investigation before condemning him.

- Al

In article , lid
says...
Dan White wrote:

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.


I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder
we are getting what we deserve in politicians.


As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.


You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in
Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars
worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was
he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
investigation before condemning him.

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
[...]
Fred, I can't argue the point with someone who doesn't believe UNMOVIC was
completely impotent. The threat of force was a complete joke. Saddam
became the wealthiest man on Earth because of the UN. 12 years of threats,
and during that time he amasses billions and billions. As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.

Grudging Kerry supporter that I might be, it was still great to see
Rather et al take it in the shorts on this issue.

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
[...]
Fred, I can't argue the point with someone who doesn't believe UNMOVIC was
completely impotent. The threat of force was a complete joke. Saddam
became the wealthiest man on Earth because of the UN. 12 years of threats,
and during that time he amasses billions and billions. As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.

Grudging Kerry supporter that I might be, it was still great to see
Rather et al take it in the shorts on this issue.

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message
...

And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

No, Kerry did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not
declare war. That's like saying that a law thar permits police
officers to carry guns is approval of every shooting by a police
officer.


No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is a
complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of obfuscation that is
going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and practically everybody else
gave the president the authority to act. The rest is splitting hairs and
political maneuvering. Anybody who is really watching can see that Kerry's
position on the war is complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

Right, and Bush is completely above any influence by the polls,
obfuscation or political maneuvering. Anyone that is in a position to
run for president cannot get there without being a self-serving, self
absorbed (and rarely self-made) individual. The question is whether or
not the person that gets elected, whether in a moment of boredom or
possibly even guilt (unlikely) is ever actually capable of making a
decision putting the country's interest ahead of their own. I say that
if you elect a person capable of doing that 10% of the time, you have a
winner - and that's the best you can expect. The tie-breaking bonus is
in finding a candidate whose personal interest happen to coincide with
the best interests of the country. Someday I hope to be proven wrong,
but I don't think it's going to be this time around.
/fatalism :-)

- Al
(self-absorbed, but otherwise lacking the credentials to run for office)

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message
...

And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

No, Kerry did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not
declare war. That's like saying that a law thar permits police
officers to carry guns is approval of every shooting by a police
officer.


No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is a
complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of obfuscation that is
going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and practically everybody else
gave the president the authority to act. The rest is splitting hairs and
political maneuvering. Anybody who is really watching can see that Kerry's
position on the war is complely, exclusively driven by the polls.

Right, and Bush is completely above any influence by the polls,
obfuscation or political maneuvering. Anyone that is in a position to
run for president cannot get there without being a self-serving, self
absorbed (and rarely self-made) individual. The question is whether or
not the person that gets elected, whether in a moment of boredom or
possibly even guilt (unlikely) is ever actually capable of making a
decision putting the country's interest ahead of their own. I say that
if you elect a person capable of doing that 10% of the time, you have a
winner - and that's the best you can expect. The tie-breaking bonus is
in finding a candidate whose personal interest happen to coincide with
the best interests of the country. Someday I hope to be proven wrong,
but I don't think it's going to be this time around.
/fatalism :-)

- Al
(self-absorbed, but otherwise lacking the credentials to run for office)

In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message .net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

- Al

In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message .net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth. It
is an amazing thing.

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the
mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the
obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies
aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we
can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored
with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)

- Al

In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth. It
is an amazing thing.

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the
mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the
obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies
aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we
can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored
with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)

- Al

"Dan White" wrote in message et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

--

FF

"Dan White" wrote in message et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

--

FF

"Swingman" wrote in message ...
..
The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS
based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case
in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956461/

To me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry
machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves
off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.

Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the
material and they declined to use it.


I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.

I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally
destructive of Democracy.

--

FF

"Swingman" wrote in message ...
..
The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS
based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case
in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956461/

To me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry
machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves
off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.

Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the
material and they declined to use it.


I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.

I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally
destructive of Democracy.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in message

I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind
fool.

I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally
destructive of Democracy.

Have NO fear on that count ... ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in message

I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind
fool.

I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally
destructive of Democracy.

Have NO fear on that count ... ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message
et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

Not all the way, they haven't. Although they now admit that the documents are
forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message
et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

Not all the way, they haven't. Although they now admit that the documents are
forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article MPG.1bbb4954d15f76a39896fd@mayonews, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message
.net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent
years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate
(and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be
President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another
four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the
White House.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article MPG.1bbb4954d15f76a39896fd@mayonews, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message
.net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent
years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate
(and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be
President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another
four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the
White House.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article ,
says...
In article MPG.1bbb4954d15f76a39896fd@mayonews, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message
.net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent
years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate
(and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be
President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another
four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the
White House.

Nah, if it's Dole you're talking about, his political history was
riddled with creative campaign financing from inappropriate sources. On
top of that, he was Big Tobacco's talking dummy. Nothing that in my
book would rule him out as a viable candidate, mind you, but certainly
enough for me to recognize his measure of honesty where the rubber meets
the road. I'll take somebody willing to lie about their nocturnal cigar
activity over someone who circumvents the rules in campaign financing
and is in the pocket of reprehensible special interest groups any day.

- Al

In article ,
says...
In article MPG.1bbb4954d15f76a39896fd@mayonews, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dan White" wrote in message
.net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent
years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had
such a choice, though.

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate
(and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be
President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another
four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the
White House.

Nah, if it's Dole you're talking about, his political history was
riddled with creative campaign financing from inappropriate sources. On
top of that, he was Big Tobacco's talking dummy. Nothing that in my
book would rule him out as a viable candidate, mind you, but certainly
enough for me to recognize his measure of honesty where the rubber meets
the road. I'll take somebody willing to lie about their nocturnal cigar
activity over someone who circumvents the rules in campaign financing
and is in the pocket of reprehensible special interest groups any day.

- Al

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb4b2bc6634c579896fe@mayonews...
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned
that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth.
It
is an amazing thing.

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the
mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the
obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies
aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we
can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored
with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)

- Al

I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the
press is not slanted too much either way.

dwhite

"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb4b2bc6634c579896fe@mayonews...
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...

Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in
particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.


Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned
that
people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth.
It
is an amazing thing.

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the
mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the
obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies
aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we
can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored
with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)

- Al

I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the
press is not slanted too much either way.

dwhite

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message
et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the
same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

Not all the way, they haven't. Although they now admit that the documents
are
forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.

Actually, Fred and Doug, last I heard (this morning) Dan Rather has almost
come out and said he thinks the documents are true. CBS did not say they
are forgeries last I heard. They said that they cannot "prove their
authenticity" and so should not have run with the story. This is a far cry
from admitting the use of forgeries. There's more to the story, but I
didn't hear it clearly and haven't had time to check it out.

dwhite


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message
et...

As far as falsified
documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the
same
vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to
everybody.


Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

Not all the way, they haven't. Although they now admit that the documents
are
forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.

Actually, Fred and Doug, last I heard (this morning) Dan Rather has almost
come out and said he thinks the documents are true. CBS did not say they
are forgeries last I heard. They said that they cannot "prove their
authenticity" and so should not have run with the story. This is a far cry
from admitting the use of forgeries. There's more to the story, but I
didn't hear it clearly and haven't had time to check it out.

dwhite


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.