"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more likable
> then Kerry.

And this, of course, will be relevant just as soon as we
hold an election for someone we'd like to sit around
and drink beer with...

Bob M.

On 27 Aug 2004 14:19:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more
>> likable then Kerry.
>
>I expressed my opinion. Others are free to disagree although I find
>that one really hard to swallow, having seen both of them speak in
>public. Was the poll conducted by the Rutherford Institute
>perchance? :-)

To tell the truth Michel, I don't know who conducted the poll. It was
reported by NBC news. (Who we all know is a bastion of conservatism
:-) )
>
>>>non-elected incumbent
>>
>> Oh back to the old big lie again?
>
>Yes, the one about Bush having been elected...that lie. No one is
>blind, Pan, that doesn't not want to be.

Elected by the laws of the U.S. In this case the only thing that
matters.

Pan Ohco

On 27 Aug 2004 14:19:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more
>> likable then Kerry.
>
>I expressed my opinion. Others are free to disagree although I find
>that one really hard to swallow, having seen both of them speak in
>public. Was the poll conducted by the Rutherford Institute
>perchance? :-)

To tell the truth Michel, I don't know who conducted the poll. It was
reported by NBC news. (Who we all know is a bastion of conservatism
:-) )
>
>>>non-elected incumbent
>>
>> Oh back to the old big lie again?
>
>Yes, the one about Bush having been elected...that lie. No one is
>blind, Pan, that doesn't not want to be.

Elected by the laws of the U.S. In this case the only thing that
matters.

Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:31:44 -0700, J.J. Smith
> wrote:


>And you apparently don't believe the statements from Swifties who
>support Kerry's version of events, only those from Swifties who call
>Kerry a liar, nor do you believe official Navy documentation that
>supports Kerry's version.
>
I would believe Navy documentation. Now is Kerry would sign a standard
form 180 so the navy could release all documentation.....

>What's that "h" word I'm looking for...?

hopeful ?
>
>This whole election has been quite an interesting and intense look
>into human nature and _our_ (yes I'm including myself) inability to
>see past our own biases and rather than see what _is_ true, see what
>we _want_ truth to be.

Agreed
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:34:13 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more likable
>> then Kerry.
>
>And this, of course, will be relevant just as soon as we
>hold an election for someone we'd like to sit around
>and drink beer with...
>
>Bob M.
>
Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found Kerry
to more likeable.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:34:13 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more likable
>> then Kerry.
>
>And this, of course, will be relevant just as soon as we
>hold an election for someone we'd like to sit around
>and drink beer with...
>
>Bob M.
>
Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found Kerry
to more likeable.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:34:13 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Latest poll out last night found that the President is more likable
>> then Kerry.
>
>And this, of course, will be relevant just as soon as we
>hold an election for someone we'd like to sit around
>and drink beer with...
>
>Bob M.
>
Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found Kerry
to more likeable.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:07 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Hatten" > wrote in message
...
>> Never said you couldn't vote for the doofus. :-)
>
>Of course you can vote for the doofus. As evidenced
>by the current Administration.
>
>It wouldn't be NEARLY so painful to watch Bush if I
>didn't know that the Republican Party had a fairly large
>number of far more qualified people to choose from.
>
>
>Bob M.
>

Bob as a point of information, are you voting against Bush or for
Kerry.

As you can tell I am voting for Bush.

But on the other hand I would vote for Nader before Kerry. Nader only
said that I was a wastrel, Kerry said that I was war criminal the same
as he was.

Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:07 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Hatten" > wrote in message
...
>> Never said you couldn't vote for the doofus. :-)
>
>Of course you can vote for the doofus. As evidenced
>by the current Administration.
>
>It wouldn't be NEARLY so painful to watch Bush if I
>didn't know that the Republican Party had a fairly large
>number of far more qualified people to choose from.
>
>
>Bob M.
>

Bob as a point of information, are you voting against Bush or for
Kerry.

As you can tell I am voting for Bush.

But on the other hand I would vote for Nader before Kerry. Nader only
said that I was a wastrel, Kerry said that I was war criminal the same
as he was.

Pan Ohco

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Hatten" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Never said you couldn't vote for the doofus. :-)
>
> Of course you can vote for the doofus. As evidenced
> by the current Administration.
>
> It wouldn't be NEARLY so painful to watch Bush if I
> didn't know that the Republican Party had a fairly large
> number of far more qualified people to choose from.

I said the same thing about Clinton but the parties are loathe to not run
their incumbents

Bush is the lesser of two evils (three actually if you count Nader)

Don

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Hatten" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Never said you couldn't vote for the doofus. :-)
>
> Of course you can vote for the doofus. As evidenced
> by the current Administration.
>
> It wouldn't be NEARLY so painful to watch Bush if I
> didn't know that the Republican Party had a fairly large
> number of far more qualified people to choose from.

I said the same thing about Clinton but the parties are loathe to not run
their incumbents

Bush is the lesser of two evils (three actually if you count Nader)

Don

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Hatten" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Never said you couldn't vote for the doofus. :-)
>
> Of course you can vote for the doofus. As evidenced
> by the current Administration.
>
> It wouldn't be NEARLY so painful to watch Bush if I
> didn't know that the Republican Party had a fairly large
> number of far more qualified people to choose from.

I said the same thing about Clinton but the parties are loathe to not run
their incumbents

Bush is the lesser of two evils (three actually if you count Nader)

Don

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Larry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Pan Ohco (I believe) wrote:
>>>Did Kerry spend any time in hospital with his three Purple Hearts?
>>Don't know about the second and third but the definitive answer
>>to the first is: NO. It was a non-penetrating shrapnel wound that
>>was dressed with bacitracin. He never even saw a real doctor,
>>never mind the inside of a hospital, and he, himself, applied
>>for the purple heart. It was granted under his assurance that
>>his wound - though "possibly self-inflicted" - was gained under
>>enemy fire. Enemy fire that neither of the two men in the boat
>>with him will swear was present.
>
> Perhaps you would like to explain how a sharpnel wound can be "self
> inflicted." Let's see, he set off a hand grenade and stood next to it?

Beats the hell out of me, I'm repeating what was in the
report. Note that a "shrapnel" wound does not need to be
caused by "official shrapnel" - any type of flying object
with enough kinetic energy will do that job - it does not
take a hand grenade. I'm guessing perhaps a spent shell
casing being ejected somewhere on the boat that he got in
front of. Since he was a trained officer who should have
known where such shells could go, I expect that it would
not be unreasonable to ajudge that "self-inflicted". But
for all I know, yeah, maybe he did blow himself up with a
hand grenade. I've seen liberals do stupider things.
Often.

> While Kerry was serving his country and risking his life, Shrubby was AWOL
> and drinking beer. Guess who larry thinks is the better commander in chief?
> God, some people are sooooo stupid (yes larry I am talking about you).

There's one now...

Peter, your immaturity in these threads is legendary.
Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried if you _didn't_ think
I was stupid.

--
..-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-.|Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / |"Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home:www.smith-house.org:8000|http://www.smith-house.org:8000/books/list.html

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Larry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Pan Ohco (I believe) wrote:
>>>Did Kerry spend any time in hospital with his three Purple Hearts?
>>Don't know about the second and third but the definitive answer
>>to the first is: NO. It was a non-penetrating shrapnel wound that
>>was dressed with bacitracin. He never even saw a real doctor,
>>never mind the inside of a hospital, and he, himself, applied
>>for the purple heart. It was granted under his assurance that
>>his wound - though "possibly self-inflicted" - was gained under
>>enemy fire. Enemy fire that neither of the two men in the boat
>>with him will swear was present.
>
> Perhaps you would like to explain how a sharpnel wound can be "self
> inflicted." Let's see, he set off a hand grenade and stood next to it?

Beats the hell out of me, I'm repeating what was in the
report. Note that a "shrapnel" wound does not need to be
caused by "official shrapnel" - any type of flying object
with enough kinetic energy will do that job - it does not
take a hand grenade. I'm guessing perhaps a spent shell
casing being ejected somewhere on the boat that he got in
front of. Since he was a trained officer who should have
known where such shells could go, I expect that it would
not be unreasonable to ajudge that "self-inflicted". But
for all I know, yeah, maybe he did blow himself up with a
hand grenade. I've seen liberals do stupider things.
Often.

> While Kerry was serving his country and risking his life, Shrubby was AWOL
> and drinking beer. Guess who larry thinks is the better commander in chief?
> God, some people are sooooo stupid (yes larry I am talking about you).

There's one now...

Peter, your immaturity in these threads is legendary.
Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried if you _didn't_ think
I was stupid.

--
..-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-.|Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / |"Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home:www.smith-house.org:8000|http://www.smith-house.org:8000/books/list.html

Mr. Wizard wrote:
>>I'd like to see Bush's fellow National
>>Guardsmen back up his claim to have done his full service, but we
>>can't see to *find* any.
>
> wrong
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14805

It won't stop the claims. Even majorly liberal newspapers
buried their retractions (post-ballot recounting by the
Miami Herald) about Bush "stealing" the '00 election in
the back pages and regularly report the same old liberal
claims on the front and editorial pages. It's the only
issue they have that might generate any sympathy vote,
they can't let go of it.

--
..-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-.|Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / |"Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home:www.smith-house.org:8000|http://www.smith-house.org:8000/books/list.html

Mr. Wizard wrote:
>>I'd like to see Bush's fellow National
>>Guardsmen back up his claim to have done his full service, but we
>>can't see to *find* any.
>
> wrong
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14805

It won't stop the claims. Even majorly liberal newspapers
buried their retractions (post-ballot recounting by the
Miami Herald) about Bush "stealing" the '00 election in
the back pages and regularly report the same old liberal
claims on the front and editorial pages. It's the only
issue they have that might generate any sympathy vote,
they can't let go of it.

--
..-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-.|Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / |"Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home:www.smith-house.org:8000|http://www.smith-house.org:8000/books/list.html

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:41:31 -0400, Larry Smith
> wrote:

>Mr. Wizard wrote:
>>>I'd like to see Bush's fellow National
>>>Guardsmen back up his claim to have done his full service, but we
>>>can't see to *find* any.
>>
>> wrong
>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14805
>
>It won't stop the claims. Even majorly liberal newspapers
>buried their retractions (post-ballot recounting by the
>Miami Herald) about Bush "stealing" the '00 election in
>the back pages and regularly report the same old liberal
>claims on the front and editorial pages. It's the only
>issue they have that might generate any sympathy vote,
>they can't let go of it.

It can be fairly argued that those on the right bring up the 2000
Florida vote count brouhaha as much as the left does. It appears both
sides are not so much obsessed with it as they use it as a wedge issue
wherever it is useful to their side of the argument.

Of course, if both sides prefer it to be seen as their obsession with
the issue, so be it.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:41:31 -0400, Larry Smith
> wrote:

>Mr. Wizard wrote:
>>>I'd like to see Bush's fellow National
>>>Guardsmen back up his claim to have done his full service, but we
>>>can't see to *find* any.
>>
>> wrong
>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14805
>
>It won't stop the claims. Even majorly liberal newspapers
>buried their retractions (post-ballot recounting by the
>Miami Herald) about Bush "stealing" the '00 election in
>the back pages and regularly report the same old liberal
>claims on the front and editorial pages. It's the only
>issue they have that might generate any sympathy vote,
>they can't let go of it.

It can be fairly argued that those on the right bring up the 2000
Florida vote count brouhaha as much as the left does. It appears both
sides are not so much obsessed with it as they use it as a wedge issue
wherever it is useful to their side of the argument.

Of course, if both sides prefer it to be seen as their obsession with
the issue, so be it.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:41:31 -0400, Larry Smith
> wrote:

>Mr. Wizard wrote:
>>>I'd like to see Bush's fellow National
>>>Guardsmen back up his claim to have done his full service, but we
>>>can't see to *find* any.
>>
>> wrong
>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14805
>
>It won't stop the claims. Even majorly liberal newspapers
>buried their retractions (post-ballot recounting by the
>Miami Herald) about Bush "stealing" the '00 election in
>the back pages and regularly report the same old liberal
>claims on the front and editorial pages. It's the only
>issue they have that might generate any sympathy vote,
>they can't let go of it.

It can be fairly argued that those on the right bring up the 2000
Florida vote count brouhaha as much as the left does. It appears both
sides are not so much obsessed with it as they use it as a wedge issue
wherever it is useful to their side of the argument.

Of course, if both sides prefer it to be seen as their obsession with
the issue, so be it.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Was the poll conducted by the Rutherford Institute
>>perchance? :-)
>
> To tell the truth Michel, I don't know who conducted the poll. It
> was reported by NBC news. (Who we all know is a bastion of
> conservatism :-) )

NBC, as I recall, is owned by General Electric, and I am not aware of
their politics. That would be because they live in a foreign country
from me and I pay little attention to corporate shenanigans.
However, I have observed that large corporations like GE tend to
hedge their bets.

>>Yes, the one about Bush having been elected...that lie. No one is
>>blind, Pan, that doesn't not want to be.
>
> Elected by the laws of the U.S. In this case the only thing that
> matters.

Elected (if one concludes that) by the system which is promulgated in
the laws of the US. Systems can be made to do things that are
inconsistent with the intent of the laws.

In fact, the decision to recognize his ascendancy to the presidency
was the result of a decision made by the Supreme Court which was
mostly if not exclusively populated by Reagan and Bush appointments.
The actual count of ballots was terminated before a conclusion could
be reached that would be deleterious to Bush's claim. That it is
within the pervue of the judiciary to make such decisions seems to
indicate a venal side to appointments to the bench that makes the
whole matter unsavoury when one is told to expect objectivity in
these matters and that democracies of a freemasonic nature are based
on full and unstinting respect for the will of the people. I guess
that was the first victim of Bush's War on Reason.

What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie, cheat
and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were unwilling
to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral system, so they
backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a weakness of the
Democrats which convinces me that it may well their strength.

Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others. Find
the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I dare you.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Was the poll conducted by the Rutherford Institute
>>perchance? :-)
>
> To tell the truth Michel, I don't know who conducted the poll. It
> was reported by NBC news. (Who we all know is a bastion of
> conservatism :-) )

NBC, as I recall, is owned by General Electric, and I am not aware of
their politics. That would be because they live in a foreign country
from me and I pay little attention to corporate shenanigans.
However, I have observed that large corporations like GE tend to
hedge their bets.

>>Yes, the one about Bush having been elected...that lie. No one is
>>blind, Pan, that doesn't not want to be.
>
> Elected by the laws of the U.S. In this case the only thing that
> matters.

Elected (if one concludes that) by the system which is promulgated in
the laws of the US. Systems can be made to do things that are
inconsistent with the intent of the laws.

In fact, the decision to recognize his ascendancy to the presidency
was the result of a decision made by the Supreme Court which was
mostly if not exclusively populated by Reagan and Bush appointments.
The actual count of ballots was terminated before a conclusion could
be reached that would be deleterious to Bush's claim. That it is
within the pervue of the judiciary to make such decisions seems to
indicate a venal side to appointments to the bench that makes the
whole matter unsavoury when one is told to expect objectivity in
these matters and that democracies of a freemasonic nature are based
on full and unstinting respect for the will of the people. I guess
that was the first victim of Bush's War on Reason.

What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie, cheat
and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were unwilling
to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral system, so they
backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a weakness of the
Democrats which convinces me that it may well their strength.

Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others. Find
the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I dare you.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
> The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found
> Kerry to more likeable.

Who's this Michael guy?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> Bob as a point of information, are you voting against Bush or for
> Kerry.

Most likely Kerry, as he and Bush are the only choices with
any real hope of election this year. I'm sorry, but nothing
George Bush has done in the past four years has convinced
me that he is competent to hold the office.

I don't KNOW that Kerry will do any better, but I am at
the point where I am fairly well convinced that he cannot
possibly do worse. Bush's stands on certain issues such
a *** marriage (how again is it that the party which
SUPPOSEDLY is in favor of increased states' rights wants
to pass an amendment to the NATIONAL constitution
regarding marriage?) and his overall handling of science
policy (the stem cell research issue being just one example)
alone would justify this; add in the poorest job of foreign
policy leadership in the past forty years, and highly
questionable handling of the economy, and that pretty much
seals the deal for me.

As implied before, there are people in BOTH parties I would
be more likely to actively support that either Bush or
Kerry - John McCain comes to mind, for one - but given the
choices available, I'll take Kerry, thank you very much.

Bob M.

>
>Kerry has certainly been over-emphasizing his Vietnam service, but it pales
>to insignificance when you consider the following:
>

An understatement, to say the least. He has based his whole campaign on the
fact that three months in combat makes him qualified to be president in time of
War..

>- The hypocritical republicans who fumed and ranted about Clinton's lack of
>service and are completely silent about Bush'

Bush did serve in the National Guard, and Clinton dmonstrated AGAINST the
US..



IMHO , the 527 groups are all disgusting, but why is the one supported by
millionaire dems, ok, whereas the one supported by former military who are
speaking the truth not?
Not true??
Kerry WAS in Cambodia Christmas EVE ???
not true???

Adm. Schacte himself says that Kerry wounded himself... not enemy fire.. Not
true??

Men and women who served in VN for longer than a few months, felt it a point
of Honor NOT to go for a Purple Heart for such tiny tiny wounds.-Especially
self inflicted.
Rosie

>
>> Did Kerry spend any time in hospital with his three Purple Hearts?
>
>Yes, and he still has the shrapnel in his leg to prove it.
>

no, he mised no duty with any of his "wounds" check again.
Rosie

On 27 Aug 2004 20:36:52 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
>president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie, cheat
>and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were unwilling
>to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral system, so they
>backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a weakness of the
>Democrats which convinces me that it may well their strength.
>
>Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others. Find
>the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I dare you.


Well this lie is about four years old by now.
So it will take some time for you to Google for the evidence.
There were three recounts by the media, after Bush became President.
All found that Bush had won in Florida by about 500 votes.
This has been reported numerous times.

Pan Ohco

On 27 Aug 2004 20:36:52 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
>president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie, cheat
>and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were unwilling
>to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral system, so they
>backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a weakness of the
>Democrats which convinces me that it may well their strength.
>
>Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others. Find
>the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I dare you.


Well this lie is about four years old by now.
So it will take some time for you to Google for the evidence.
There were three recounts by the media, after Bush became President.
All found that Bush had won in Florida by about 500 votes.
This has been reported numerous times.

Pan Ohco

On 27 Aug 2004 20:37:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>> Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
>> The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found
>> Kerry to more likeable.
>
>Who's this Michael guy?

Excuse me again Michel, I'll get right one of these days. :-(
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 27 Aug 2004 20:36:52 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
>>president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie,
>>cheat and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were
>>unwilling to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral
>>system, so they backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a
>>weakness of the Democrats which convinces me that it may well
>>their strength.
>>
>>Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others.
>>Find the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I
>>dare you.
>
> Well this lie is about four years old by now.

There you go again, making unsubstantiated assertions. I'm asking
YOU to provide the research. I have done this in the past and every
time you've either skirted the issue of gone silent on me. Why?
Don't you have the nuts to own up to the fact that you have no
evidence to disprove this hypothesis of mine?

I know what my conclusions are based on many years of reading and
actually *thinking* about what I read, the "left" as well as the
"right", and I this is my conclusion. To this, all you can say is:

> So it will take some time for you to Google for the evidence.

Not very convincing, Panbo...not very convincing at all.

> There were three recounts by the media, after Bush became
> President. All found that Bush had won in Florida by about 500
> votes. This has been reported numerous times.

But those had no impact on his becoming president. He was made
president *before* those recounts had been completed and *before* the
results were known. In the case of elections, "close enough for folk
music" doesn't count. Those things happen in banana republics and
corrupt states. What would have happened if those recounts had
demonstrated that he had in fact lost Florida by 500 votes? Do you
think there would be a hope in hell he'd be removed from office? Not
on your bippy. Those dexter masturbators wanted that presidency so
badly they were willing to falsify results, twist the truth and deny
people the right to vote to get him elected. Just reading about and
listening to the bilious rhethoric of the "right" is indication
enough that the will to pervert the system was there.

A summary of the Florida issue: "The Bush campaign sued to prevent
additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the
tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual
recounts. This case eventually reached the United States Supreme
Court, which ruled 5-4 to **stop**the**vote**count, which allowed
Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed
Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner.
The Supreme Court also found that the additional recounts requested
by Gore to be unconstitutional, in a 7-2 vote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000

You don't smell a rat? Really? The results were not confirmed and
measures were taken to ensure that whatever the results were, they
would not affect Bush's run at the presidency.

Oh, I can just see the next Subject line:

READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAYS ABOUT THE US ELECTORAL PROCESS--
SHOCKING!

Nancree, this is your call to arms! Hurrah! Huzzah!

I get a kick out of such total disingenuity...:-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 27 Aug 2004 20:36:52 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>What I suspect is that the Republicans wanted one of theirs to be
>>president so badly after Clinton that they were willing to lie,
>>cheat and defraud for it. The Democrats on the other hand were
>>unwilling to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral
>>system, so they backed down. That has been touted by neocons as a
>>weakness of the Democrats which convinces me that it may well
>>their strength.
>>
>>Prove me wrong, Pan. Don't just claim it, don't parrot others.
>>Find the evidence and put it before me that this is not true. I
>>dare you.
>
> Well this lie is about four years old by now.

There you go again, making unsubstantiated assertions. I'm asking
YOU to provide the research. I have done this in the past and every
time you've either skirted the issue of gone silent on me. Why?
Don't you have the nuts to own up to the fact that you have no
evidence to disprove this hypothesis of mine?

I know what my conclusions are based on many years of reading and
actually *thinking* about what I read, the "left" as well as the
"right", and I this is my conclusion. To this, all you can say is:

> So it will take some time for you to Google for the evidence.

Not very convincing, Panbo...not very convincing at all.

> There were three recounts by the media, after Bush became
> President. All found that Bush had won in Florida by about 500
> votes. This has been reported numerous times.

But those had no impact on his becoming president. He was made
president *before* those recounts had been completed and *before* the
results were known. In the case of elections, "close enough for folk
music" doesn't count. Those things happen in banana republics and
corrupt states. What would have happened if those recounts had
demonstrated that he had in fact lost Florida by 500 votes? Do you
think there would be a hope in hell he'd be removed from office? Not
on your bippy. Those dexter masturbators wanted that presidency so
badly they were willing to falsify results, twist the truth and deny
people the right to vote to get him elected. Just reading about and
listening to the bilious rhethoric of the "right" is indication
enough that the will to pervert the system was there.

A summary of the Florida issue: "The Bush campaign sued to prevent
additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the
tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual
recounts. This case eventually reached the United States Supreme
Court, which ruled 5-4 to **stop**the**vote**count, which allowed
Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed
Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner.
The Supreme Court also found that the additional recounts requested
by Gore to be unconstitutional, in a 7-2 vote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000

You don't smell a rat? Really? The results were not confirmed and
measures were taken to ensure that whatever the results were, they
would not affect Bush's run at the presidency.

Oh, I can just see the next Subject line:

READ WHAT MICHEL BOUCHER SAYS ABOUT THE US ELECTORAL PROCESS--
SHOCKING!

Nancree, this is your call to arms! Hurrah! Huzzah!

I get a kick out of such total disingenuity...:-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 27 Aug 2004 20:37:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Pan Ohco > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
>>> The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found
>>> Kerry to more likeable.
>>
>>Who's this Michael guy?
>
> Excuse me again Michel, I'll get right one of these days. :-(

Well, I never know if it's me or someone else...there are Michaels in
this group. I realize it's tough trying to remember that my name
does *not* have an "a" in it :->

Apology accepted.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 27 Aug 2004 20:37:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Pan Ohco > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> Bob this quote is out of context as you know.
>>> The statement was in response to Michael's comment that he found
>>> Kerry to more likeable.
>>
>>Who's this Michael guy?
>
> Excuse me again Michel, I'll get right one of these days. :-(

Well, I never know if it's me or someone else...there are Michaels in
this group. I realize it's tough trying to remember that my name
does *not* have an "a" in it :->

Apology accepted.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:35:45 -0500, Pan Ohco >
arranged random neurons, so they looked like this:

>Oh come on Terry, your statement has been blown.

<snip>

I'd love to reply to this, but someone has busted me to my ISP,
saying: "OFF TOPIC Post with the intent to disrupt the newsgroup" This
makes twice and it seems to be personal, as both times it was in a
thread where I banged the liberal Democrat drum. At least, I haven't
heard of anyone else getting ratted out to their ISP in this thread.
And I've been posting to this ng for a good 10 years and this makes
exactly twice (see above).

OB: So, pardon me while I take my fuming off to make, say, an angel
food cake. By hand. With a wire whisk. By the time I get done, I'll be
too tired to be mad.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Duncan Hines

To reply, remove replace "spaminator" with "cox"

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Pan Ohco (I believe) wrote:
>
> >Did Kerry spend any time in hospital with his three Purple Hearts?
>
> Don't know about the second and third but the definitive answer
> to the first is: NO. It was a non-penetrating shrapnel wound that
> was dressed with bacitracin. He never even saw a real doctor,
> never mind the inside of a hospital, and he, himself, applied
> for the purple heart. It was granted under his assurance that
> his wound - though "possibly self-inflicted" - was gained under
> enemy fire. Enemy fire that neither of the two men in the boat
> with him will swear was present.
>
> Kerry trivialized the serious wounds incurred by thousands of
> veterens, and he did it to try to push up his score and get an
> early rotation - which he did, four months, far less than the
> year and a half most soldier served in Vietnam.
>
> Of course this is all moot, isn't it? I mean, he did return
> those metals to the gov't, didn't he? He threw them over the
> fence at the White House, didn't he? So he doesn't have them
> any more, right? Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeeee.
>
Versus those wonderful medals W earned protecting the Louisiana contingency
going to the polls during his stint in the military....but wait, where are
all the men who served with him?

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Pan Ohco (I believe) wrote:
>
> >Did Kerry spend any time in hospital with his three Purple Hearts?
>
> Don't know about the second and third but the definitive answer
> to the first is: NO. It was a non-penetrating shrapnel wound that
> was dressed with bacitracin. He never even saw a real doctor,
> never mind the inside of a hospital, and he, himself, applied
> for the purple heart. It was granted under his assurance that
> his wound - though "possibly self-inflicted" - was gained under
> enemy fire. Enemy fire that neither of the two men in the boat
> with him will swear was present.
>
> Kerry trivialized the serious wounds incurred by thousands of
> veterens, and he did it to try to push up his score and get an
> early rotation - which he did, four months, far less than the
> year and a half most soldier served in Vietnam.
>
> Of course this is all moot, isn't it? I mean, he did return
> those metals to the gov't, didn't he? He threw them over the
> fence at the White House, didn't he? So he doesn't have them
> any more, right? Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeeee.
>
Versus those wonderful medals W earned protecting the Louisiana contingency
going to the polls during his stint in the military....but wait, where are
all the men who served with him?

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>
> Clinton was never a draft dodger (someone who illegally evaded his
> obligations)

True. he used legal means to avoid the draft. Either way, he was too much
of a pussy to go into the service.

Bush may have taken an easy road, but at least he went.

Kerry went but scorned the idea that he should be there. Came back looking
like a relative of Jane Fonda

Any way you cut it, all three are weasles of some sort. Kerry, like all
politicians, is an opportunist and tries to make himslef look like something
he is not. His medals are questionable at best.

Kerry would be in much better shape if he kept his mouth shut and let the
records speak for them selves. His "reporting for duty" comment and salute
was enough to make a mature person puke.
Ed

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
:

> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>>
>> Clinton was never a draft dodger (someone who illegally evaded
>> his obligations)
>
> True. he used legal means to avoid the draft.

As did Bush. He went into the National Guard.

> Either way, he was
> too much of a pussy to go into the service.

Hardly a sound argument backed up by solid information from reputable
(ie, not Murdoch) sources. I think this is some sort of personal
opinion, which you are free to hold, but please do not pretend that
it has any basis in reality.

> Bush may have taken an easy road, but at least he went.

No, he avoided service in Vietnam by going into the National Guard.

> Kerry went but scorned the idea that he should be there.

And he was the only one who though Vietnam was a bad idea but went
anyway?

> Came back
> looking like a relative of Jane Fonda

Bilious and unsubstantiated invective, badly constructed and with the
intent to make a suggestion that no one can verify anyway.

> Any way you cut it, all three are weasles of some sort. Kerry,
> like all politicians, is an opportunist and tries to make himslef
> look like something he is not. His medals are questionable at
> best.

Or not. I guess Bush's advantage is that he has no combat medals and
so no one can say they are questionable. Smart move on his part
avoiding the draft by going in to the National Guard.

Bwahaha!!!!

> Kerry would be in much better shape if he kept his mouth shut and
> let the records speak for them selves. His "reporting for duty"
> comment and salute was enough to make a mature person puke.

Or not. Obviously, your bias is showing. Yours can hardly be
considered a non-partisan opinion and given the level of bile spewed
by consies at democrats I would say that your arguments are weakened
by your rhethoric, not reinforced by them.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

> On 27 Aug 2004 20:36:52 GMT, Michel Boucher >
>>The Democrats on the other hand were unwilling
>>to participate in a mockery of the whole electoral system

There has never been, and probably never will be, as great
a mockery of the whole US political system than the way the
Democrats closed ranks to protect Clinton from impeachment
for his crimes.

When Nixon broke the law the Republicans were among the first
to call for his resignation, and they were instrumental in
forcing him out. When came the Democrats turn, they closed
their eyes to Clinton's lawbreaking and protected him. And
in the end they did not only the country but themselves a
great disservice. Had Gore been able to run as an incumbent,
nobody today would be worrying about ads denigrating Kerry.
Have they learned yet? Apparently not, since the leader of
the Democratic party, Terry McAuliffe, is a creature of the
Clinton machine, and everything he says and does advances
the himself, the Clintons, and the Democratic party - in that
order. The interests of the US citizens enter into it not at
all.

And that, my friend, is why the Democrats must never again
be allowed to govern the country. They can't even govern
themselves.

--
..-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-.|Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / |"Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home:www.smith-house.org:8000|http://www.smith-house.org:8000/books/list.html

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:54:29 -0600, BubbaBob
> wrote:

>Larry Smith > wrote:
>
>> When Nixon broke the law the Republicans were among the first
>> to call for his resignation, and they were instrumental in
>> forcing him out.
>
>What absolute bullshit.

Total. Let me just suggest this bumper sticker:

No One Died
When Clinton Lied

-------------------
Ha Ha. What supervisor? There isn't any.