| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:00:45 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
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 While what you say may have merit regarding useless meetings, more telling is attendance to cast votes during normal Senate business. One cannot argue that attendance at Senate votes is bureaucracy or "useless" meetings -- it is what these Senators were hired to do. Both before and following their announcements of candidacy, both Kerry and Edwards had absentee rates far higher than most of their peers. As a matter of fact, Kerry's absentee record following his announcement actually improved after he announced. Before he announced, his absentee record was 57% (yep, he missed more votes than he cast). http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001349.php http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/03/vote_dammit/ Just a couple links found in a google search for "kerry senate voting attendance" |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om... Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the material and they declined to use it. LOL. You mean the way Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman? No, actually "reports" are that the Kerry Campaign SAYS they had nothing to do with it. The jury is still out and I have a feeling some enterprising reporter will get close to the truth eventually. dwhite |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om... Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the material and they declined to use it. LOL. You mean the way Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman? No, actually "reports" are that the Kerry Campaign SAYS they had nothing to do with it. The jury is still out and I have a feeling some enterprising reporter will get close to the truth eventually. dwhite |
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb3f76e36f4a229896f8@mayonews... 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 :-)) No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. 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. Crawford? Vacation? I guess you've never been to Crawford.  I reallydon't see a parallel between Kerry missing meetings on national security vs where Bush gets work done. Voters are looking for someone who can make the country safer and to make the evaluation you have to look at the resume, not only at what they say now. Here's a guy who missed most of his meetings on national security -- not a good thing by any stretch. People make time for the things they believe are important. dwhite |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb3f76e36f4a229896f8@mayonews... 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 :-)) No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. 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. Crawford? Vacation? I guess you've never been to Crawford. I reallydon't see a parallel between Kerry missing meetings on national security vs where Bush gets work done. Voters are looking for someone who can make the country safer and to make the evaluation you have to look at the resume, not only at what they say now. Here's a guy who missed most of his meetings on national security -- not a good thing by any stretch. People make time for the things they believe are important. dwhite |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews... 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. OK, bottom line, no BS. You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative? dwhite |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews... 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. OK, bottom line, no BS. You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative? dwhite |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb483633ede20c9896fb@mayonews... 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. I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear. dwhite 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) |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb483633ede20c9896fb@mayonews... 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. I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear. dwhite 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) |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... "Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews... 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. OK, bottom line, no BS. Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-) You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative? I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician. It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly) come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin. - Al |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... "Al Spohn" wrote in message news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews... 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. OK, bottom line, no BS. Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-) You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative? I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician. It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly) come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin. - Al |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... [...] I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear. You give him more credit than I do. Post 9/11, an aggressive offensive on terror was essentially a mandate. Plus, I don't think he believes it is potentially disastrous politically. On top of that, having pegged Kerry as being wishy-washy, he has very little choice but to stay the course. And, tragically, I think he really believes it will pay off in the long run. Did Clinton really poll on vacation spots and tie selection? dwhite - Al |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... [...] I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear. You give him more credit than I do. Post 9/11, an aggressive offensive on terror was essentially a mandate. Plus, I don't think he believes it is potentially disastrous politically. On top of that, having pegged Kerry as being wishy-washy, he has very little choice but to stay the course. And, tragically, I think he really believes it will pay off in the long run. Did Clinton really poll on vacation spots and tie selection? dwhite - Al |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... "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 I agree completely. Al |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... "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 I agree completely. Al |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the press is not slanted too much either way. dwhite I agree completely. Al Personally, I don't give a damn whether a press/media organization is "slanted" just as long as they are upfront and don't try to hide it. For that very reason I can enjoy reading Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly on the same cup of coffee. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the press is not slanted too much either way. dwhite I agree completely. Al Personally, I don't give a damn whether a press/media organization is "slanted" just as long as they are upfront and don't try to hide it. For that very reason I can enjoy reading Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly on the same cup of coffee. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... [...] No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) - Al [...] |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says... [...] No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) - Al [...] |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) - Al ROTFLMAO!! ... you just may have something there, Al! ;) -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) - Al ROTFLMAO!! ... you just may have something there, Al! ;) -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbcc438a7b9d1b298970e@mayonews... In article , dwhite110 @optonline.net says... [...] No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. His promise for a less dangerous and better future with no apparent plan of action to get us there somehow seems convincing to you??? What am I missing here? I mean, what else is he going to say? I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) Al, this is just all really over the top. Bush has shown he and his admin are anything but helpless. In fact, he sees his pivotal place in history and is doing the right thing despite the naysayers who have their own pecadillos. I think sometimes that Bush is just a sounding board for angry people to bounce their frustration off of. dwhite |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbcc438a7b9d1b298970e@mayonews... In article , dwhite110 @optonline.net says... [...] No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected. That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. His promise for a less dangerous and better future with no apparent plan of action to get us there somehow seems convincing to you??? What am I missing here? I mean, what else is he going to say? I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.) Al, this is just all really over the top. Bush has shown he and his admin are anything but helpless. In fact, he sees his pivotal place in history and is doing the right thing despite the naysayers who have their own pecadillos. I think sometimes that Bush is just a sounding board for angry people to bounce their frustration off of. dwhite |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com... In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I guess. Our differences can be boiled down quite succinctly to this: Saddam said he didn't have any WMDs. Bush, Blair, Powell, Clinton, Kerry, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman, and a host of others said he did. You believe that Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush et al were lying. I believe the opposite. -- 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. |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com... In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I guess. Our differences can be boiled down quite succinctly to this: Saddam said he didn't have any WMDs. Bush, Blair, Powell, Clinton, Kerry, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman, and a host of others said he did. You believe that Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush et al were lying. I believe the opposite. -- 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. |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reportedly so, yes. That is the reason, I believe, he went to Martha's Vineyard one year. He is also famous for staging "unscripted" moments like when he placed stones in the shape of a cross while at Normandy while a hundred reporters watched. Problem is there are normally no stones on that beach. dwhite I don't recall the stones. But I do remember seeing him kneel down to straighten a flag that had fallen over in one of the cemeteries. And I do remember seeing him look back over his shoulder to make sure the cameras were on before he straightened it. John Martin |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reportedly so, yes. That is the reason, I believe, he went to Martha's Vineyard one year. He is also famous for staging "unscripted" moments like when he placed stones in the shape of a cross while at Normandy while a hundred reporters watched. Problem is there are normally no stones on that beach. dwhite I don't recall the stones. But I do remember seeing him kneel down to straighten a flag that had fallen over in one of the cemeteries. And I do remember seeing him look back over his shoulder to make sure the cameras were on before he straightened it. John Martin |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1096075148.WmD+4Yx15VBhsbjHf+y4+w@teranews... On 24 Sep 2004 23:45:33 GMT, (JMartin957) wrote: There was also the "tears on demand" occurence at the Ron Brown (?) funeral. He was yucking it up with several people as they were headed to a limo, then saw that cameras were on him and become stone-cold sober with a feigned tear. That was the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and sums Clinton up in 2 seconds. He was actually walking with the pastor I believe when that happened. dwhite |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1096075148.WmD+4Yx15VBhsbjHf+y4+w@teranews... On 24 Sep 2004 23:45:33 GMT, (JMartin957) wrote: There was also the "tears on demand" occurence at the Ron Brown (?) funeral. He was yucking it up with several people as they were headed to a limo, then saw that cameras were on him and become stone-cold sober with a feigned tear. That was the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and sums Clinton up in 2 seconds. He was actually walking with the pastor I believe when that happened. dwhite |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
No, but off topic posting political crap to a woodworking newsgroup should be. It isn't even a board in any parties platform. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote in message news:1096694685.ld1LJL/DlOPVcVqNnXQKdA@teranews...
On 1 Oct 2004 22:05:24 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: IIUC there are two kinds of Senate Intelligence meetings. Closed door during whihc the Senators have access to classified information and open meetings which are dog and pony shows for the public. Kerry missed a lot of the dog and pony shows. His attendence record at the closed sessions is not publicly available. Slight quibble with your choice of words. Kerry *refuses* to make his attendance record at the closed sessions known. The chairman of the committee has indicated he will make the attendance record public, but [just as with his military records] Kerry must request that the chairman do so. As most engineering texts will say, "the conclusion is left to the reader". My only quibble with yours is that I've read more than a few engineering texts and do not recall reading that in any. Do you nkow if GWB's discharge papers, equivalent to a DD218 or whatever it is, have been posted anywhere on the web? -- FF |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
