>
>
>it is service ONLY if you show up..................which apparently
>bush did not!
>
>

We do not really know, unless you have some inside source!!

Rosie

>
>
>it is service ONLY if you show up..................which apparently
>bush did not!
>
>

We do not really know, unless you have some inside source!!

Rosie

On 28 Aug 2004 00:23:29 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>There you go again, making unsubstantiated assertions.

You are the one that said Bush was lot legally elected
> I'm asking
>YOU to provide the research.
And you want me to verify (or not) what you said. I feel that is your
place to prove your statements.

> 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?

Is it not your place to prove your hypothesis.
And yes you have asked me to prove your statements in the past.
>
>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.

Of which you have no proof.

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

Michel you made the statement. Your the one to convince others of the
truth of your comments.
>
>> 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.

No they are just proof of the count.

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000
>
> The results were not confirmed and
Yes they were, read the site that you provided. The vote under the
count method, favored by Gore, show Bush to have more votes.

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

Then you must enjoy reading your own post. :-)

Pan Ohco

On 28 Aug 2004 00:23:29 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>There you go again, making unsubstantiated assertions.

You are the one that said Bush was lot legally elected
> I'm asking
>YOU to provide the research.
And you want me to verify (or not) what you said. I feel that is your
place to prove your statements.

> 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?

Is it not your place to prove your hypothesis.
And yes you have asked me to prove your statements in the past.
>
>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.

Of which you have no proof.

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

Michel you made the statement. Your the one to convince others of the
truth of your comments.
>
>> 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.

No they are just proof of the count.

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000
>
> The results were not confirmed and
Yes they were, read the site that you provided. The vote under the
count method, favored by Gore, show Bush to have more votes.

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

Then you must enjoy reading your own post. :-)

Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:15:25 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...

>> 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?
>

Interesting article by Winston Groom

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/...ister?oinsight
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:15:25 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Smith" > wrote in message
...

>> 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?
>

Interesting article by Winston Groom

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/...ister?oinsight
Pan Ohco

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:16:31 GMT, wrote:

>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
>

They only died when he refused to take Ossam.
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 00:44:21 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>The secret masturbators tied up the work of government for two years
>with their innuendo and persiflage. Nothing was accomplished, the
>point of the exercise was invisible to most people and it seemed
>there was no end to the muckraking they were willing to entertain
>simply to express their overweening and bilious hatred of Clinton.
>
>This investigation was the real crime and those who pushed it through
>the real criminals. They should have been horsewhipped if you people
>had had any common sense. The fact that they haven't been
>horsewhipped or castigated in any fashion by their own kind speaks
>volumes for the quality of political discourse that too often reeks
>out of the right wing of the US Capitalist Partei.

And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 00:44:21 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>The secret masturbators tied up the work of government for two years
>with their innuendo and persiflage. Nothing was accomplished, the
>point of the exercise was invisible to most people and it seemed
>there was no end to the muckraking they were willing to entertain
>simply to express their overweening and bilious hatred of Clinton.
>
>This investigation was the real crime and those who pushed it through
>the real criminals. They should have been horsewhipped if you people
>had had any common sense. The fact that they haven't been
>horsewhipped or castigated in any fashion by their own kind speaks
>volumes for the quality of political discourse that too often reeks
>out of the right wing of the US Capitalist Partei.

And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)
Pan Ohco

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:32:51 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>Except when you are AWOL. Given that shrubby used family connections to jump
>ahead of 500 people on the National Guard waiting list, I wonder who went to
>'Nam in his place? I wonder if that person was killed or crippled?

I wonder who replaced Kerry for the remainder (8-14 months) of his
tour in Vietnam?
And did he get killed or injured?

Pan Ohco

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:32:51 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>Except when you are AWOL. Given that shrubby used family connections to jump
>ahead of 500 people on the National Guard waiting list, I wonder who went to
>'Nam in his place? I wonder if that person was killed or crippled?

I wonder who replaced Kerry for the remainder (8-14 months) of his
tour in Vietnam?
And did he get killed or injured?

Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
> hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)

Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all apron-wearing
tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any country or people, not
even those who have harmed my people. It doesn't prevent me from
seeing clearly what has been and is being done. I've explained that.
I guess you weren't listening.

--

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
:

> And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
> hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)

Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all apron-wearing
tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any country or people, not
even those who have harmed my people. It doesn't prevent me from
seeing clearly what has been and is being done. I've explained that.
I guess you weren't listening.

--

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

RMiller wrote:

>>I am certain she must mean George Bush. After all, it was he, who
>>climbed out of a jet, in a flight suit, and declared Mission Accomplished.
>>--
>
>
> Wrong again, I meant Kerry. After all he served only 3 months in combat plus
> one month at the beach in training.
>
> Serving in the National Guard may not be your cup of tea, but it is SERVICE.
>
> Rosie

Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
sound of beer cans popping open.

And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
think you need to think through your blatant bias.
--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

RMiller wrote:

>>I am certain she must mean George Bush. After all, it was he, who
>>climbed out of a jet, in a flight suit, and declared Mission Accomplished.
>>--
>
>
> Wrong again, I meant Kerry. After all he served only 3 months in combat plus
> one month at the beach in training.
>
> Serving in the National Guard may not be your cup of tea, but it is SERVICE.
>
> Rosie

Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
sound of beer cans popping open.

And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
think you need to think through your blatant bias.
--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

>
>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>
>

Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
Rosie

>
>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>
>

Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
Rosie

RMiller wrote:

>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
> Rosie

Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.

--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

RMiller wrote:

>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
> Rosie

Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.

--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

BubbaBob wrote:

> alzelt > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Serving proudly, and fighting unjustified wars are not the same.
>>But, he is entitled to same rights as anyone. I just happen to
>>think my serving in Vietnam was dishonorable to the ideals of
>>America.
>
>
> As was mine (and everyone else's).

Well, Chaney didn't have that cross to bare. He simply dodged it. As did
Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of the "brain" trust.

--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

BubbaBob wrote:

> alzelt > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Serving proudly, and fighting unjustified wars are not the same.
>>But, he is entitled to same rights as anyone. I just happen to
>>think my serving in Vietnam was dishonorable to the ideals of
>>America.
>
>
> As was mine (and everyone else's).

Well, Chaney didn't have that cross to bare. He simply dodged it. As did
Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of the "brain" trust.

--
Alan


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."

........President George W. Bush, at the signing of the $417
billion defense-spending bill, August, 2004

(RMiller) wrote in
:

>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of
>>duty. He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>
> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South
> Pacific, maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam
> area. Rosie

As it's nowhere nearly as much "serving" as being excused from the
National Guard, eh? You'd lost that argument the moment you suggested
Bush had served, but now it's rolling away from you. You can't catch
up with it and make it work.

--

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

(RMiller) wrote in
:

>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of
>>duty. He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>
> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South
> Pacific, maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam
> area. Rosie

As it's nowhere nearly as much "serving" as being excused from the
National Guard, eh? You'd lost that argument the moment you suggested
Bush had served, but now it's rolling away from you. You can't catch
up with it and make it work.

--

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

"Ken Davey" > wrote in
:

>> Now's your chance (your last chance)
>> to make a Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me.
>> Go for it!
>>
> Geez Mike,
> You are blowing our (Canadian) cover.
> Not only are you actually engaging the retarded giant that dwells
> to the south of us but you are presenting a reasonable debating
> point to an (obviously) brain dead Bush apologist.

I have faith in Pan and give him every opportunity to openly debate
properly referenced viewpoints, but he has always backed down in the
past. The last time, I challenged him to read Karl Marx and to
explain to me where in Karl Marx he saw what he thought he saw. He
was disingeniously unavailable until the past few days and I suspect
he will be disingeniously unavailable for the next while also.

> We (Canadians) are not supposed to begin to understand the
> manifest destiny that The USasians take for granted.

Seeing as we're right in their sights, it would behoove us to take
note of their imperialist ambitions :-)

> Your place in the grand scheme of things should not rise above the
> posting of a recipie for pea soup.

I might, but unfortunately I can't find one that does not have ham in
it and I don't like ham in pea soup. It detracts from the taste of
the peas. Basically, it's this:

one large grated carrot
one large chopped onion
1 elbee of white peas (not beans), unbroken
12 cups water
salt
white pepper

Soak beans in 6 cups water overnight. Cook until skins detach,
remove skins. Put all remaining ingredients (including 6 cups water)
in large pot, bring to boil, simmer 3 hours, season occasionally to
taste. Eat.

--

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

"Ken Davey" > wrote in
:

>> Now's your chance (your last chance)
>> to make a Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me.
>> Go for it!
>>
> Geez Mike,
> You are blowing our (Canadian) cover.
> Not only are you actually engaging the retarded giant that dwells
> to the south of us but you are presenting a reasonable debating
> point to an (obviously) brain dead Bush apologist.

I have faith in Pan and give him every opportunity to openly debate
properly referenced viewpoints, but he has always backed down in the
past. The last time, I challenged him to read Karl Marx and to
explain to me where in Karl Marx he saw what he thought he saw. He
was disingeniously unavailable until the past few days and I suspect
he will be disingeniously unavailable for the next while also.

> We (Canadians) are not supposed to begin to understand the
> manifest destiny that The USasians take for granted.

Seeing as we're right in their sights, it would behoove us to take
note of their imperialist ambitions :-)

> Your place in the grand scheme of things should not rise above the
> posting of a recipie for pea soup.

I might, but unfortunately I can't find one that does not have ham in
it and I don't like ham in pea soup. It detracts from the taste of
the peas. Basically, it's this:

one large grated carrot
one large chopped onion
1 elbee of white peas (not beans), unbroken
12 cups water
salt
white pepper

Soak beans in 6 cups water overnight. Cook until skins detach,
remove skins. Put all remaining ingredients (including 6 cups water)
in large pot, bring to boil, simmer 3 hours, season occasionally to
taste. Eat.

--

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

>
>>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
>> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
>> Rosie
>
>Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
>serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
>the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
>to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.
>
>--
>Alan
>


This has nothing to do with pleasing me, you made a comment , I responded to
it.
The tour of VietNam consisted of ... one month of training, and three months of
combat. He chose to leave , citing a rule that one could leave after three
Peuple Hearts.He has to deal with it, just as Bush has to deal with what he did
or didn't do.

Rosie

>
>>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South Pacific,
>> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
>> Rosie
>
>Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
>serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
>the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
>to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.
>
>--
>Alan
>


This has nothing to do with pleasing me, you made a comment , I responded to
it.
The tour of VietNam consisted of ... one month of training, and three months of
combat. He chose to leave , citing a rule that one could leave after three
Peuple Hearts.He has to deal with it, just as Bush has to deal with what he did
or didn't do.

Rosie

>
>Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
>finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
>is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
>sound of beer cans popping open.
>
>And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
>become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
>time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
>think you need to think through your blatant bias.
>--
>Alan
>
Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not service
unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would disagree
with you.

As for blatant bias... Look in the mirror, if you would like to see someone
with bias.
Rosie

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
> >finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
> >is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
> >sound of beer cans popping open.
> >
> >And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
> >become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
> >time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
> >think you need to think through your blatant bias.
> >--
> >Alan
> >
> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not
service
> unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would
disagree
> with you.


> Rosie

Service in the National Guard is just as honorable as in any other branch.
Using family and political connections to jump to the head of the line is
not honorable. He was not willing to put his life on the line for his
country, but seems to have no qualms about sending others to fight and die
in a war that he was determined to start.
H

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
> >finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
> >is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
> >sound of beer cans popping open.
> >
> >And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
> >become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
> >time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
> >think you need to think through your blatant bias.
> >--
> >Alan
> >
> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not
service
> unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would
disagree
> with you.


> Rosie

Service in the National Guard is just as honorable as in any other branch.
Using family and political connections to jump to the head of the line is
not honorable. He was not willing to put his life on the line for his
country, but seems to have no qualms about sending others to fight and die
in a war that he was determined to start.
H

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
> >>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South
Pacific,
> >> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
> >> Rosie
> >
> >Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
> >serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
> >the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
> >to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.
> >
> >--
> >Alan
> >
>
>
> This has nothing to do with pleasing me, you made a comment , I responded
to
> it.
> The tour of VietNam consisted of ... one month of training, and three
months of
> combat. He chose to leave , citing a rule that one could leave after
three
> Peuple Hearts.He has to deal with it, just as Bush has to deal with what
he did
> or didn't do.
>
> Rosie
>

People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
> >>>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, the first year was not considered Viet Nam, it was South
Pacific,
> >> maybe a total of five weeks was spent in the Viet Nam area.
> >> Rosie
> >
> >Again, since when are you the arbitor of just how long someone must
> >serve to please you? Or are you so ****ed that your leader hid out in
> >the Guard(out of site) that you have to qualify what a democrat must do
> >to be a hero. You are running out of logic and running on envy now.
> >
> >--
> >Alan
> >
>
>
> This has nothing to do with pleasing me, you made a comment , I responded
to
> it.
> The tour of VietNam consisted of ... one month of training, and three
months of
> combat. He chose to leave , citing a rule that one could leave after
three
> Peuple Hearts.He has to deal with it, just as Bush has to deal with what
he did
> or didn't do.
>
> Rosie
>

People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

> I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>one can garner from right and right,

Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.

> that lead me to believe this.
>You have indicated you disagree without providing substantiating
>evidence to back your opinion.

Fact Bush lives in the White House.
Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner
Fact The supreme Court rule that no more recounts were warranted.

In the U.S. the electoral collage is the deciding body as to who is
the elected President.
Now you may not like it , But you know Michel we didn't ask you.

If you need anymore sources, read any paper (liberal of conservative)
and they will say the Bush is President of the U.S.




>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion

No your not. I have spoke to you about this a number of times before,
but you just will not look around you, and see reality.

> (wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ).

Hay I'm open, you just can't prove your ideas

> Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
unrepentant commie.

And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion (wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ). Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

Michel, I am not trying to convert you.You are and all ways will be a
unrepentant commie.

As to the basis of my opinion, I use reality.
Bush was legally elected, the States said so, the electoral collage
said so, the Supremes said so.
And he is living in the white house.

No matter how often you say that he was not legally elected, will not
make it so.

If you need more information, read any paper (liberal or conservative)
they will mention that Bush is the president of the United States.

And I know that you were only kidding about that last chance thing.
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 19:15:56 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>> And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
>> hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)
>
>Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all apron-wearing
>tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any country or people, not
>even those who have harmed my people. It doesn't prevent me from
>seeing clearly what has been and is being done. I've explained that.
>I guess you weren't listening.

Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to slight
the U.S.
So from now on I will bring each such instance, to your attention.

Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

> I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>one can garner from right and right,

Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.

> that lead me to believe this.
>You have indicated you disagree without providing substantiating
>evidence to back your opinion.

Fact Bush lives in the White House.
Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner
Fact The supreme Court rule that no more recounts were warranted.

In the U.S. the electoral collage is the deciding body as to who is
the elected President.
Now you may not like it , But you know Michel we didn't ask you.

If you need anymore sources, read any paper (liberal of conservative)
and they will say the Bush is President of the U.S.




>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion

No your not. I have spoke to you about this a number of times before,
but you just will not look around you, and see reality.

> (wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ).

Hay I'm open, you just can't prove your ideas

> Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
unrepentant commie.

And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 19:15:56 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>> And this is simply for you to express your overweening and bilous
>> hatred of Bush and the U.S.A. :-)
>
>Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all apron-wearing
>tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any country or people, not
>even those who have harmed my people. It doesn't prevent me from
>seeing clearly what has been and is being done. I've explained that.
>I guess you weren't listening.

Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to slight
the U.S.
So from now on I will bring each such instance, to your attention.

Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion (wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ). Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

Michel, I am not trying to convert you.You are and all ways will be a
unrepentant commie.

As to the basis of my opinion, I use reality.
Bush was legally elected, the States said so, the electoral collage
said so, the Supremes said so.
And he is living in the white house.

No matter how often you say that he was not legally elected, will not
make it so.

If you need more information, read any paper (liberal or conservative)
they will mention that Bush is the president of the United States.

And I know that you were only kidding about that last chance thing.
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> You are the one that said Bush was not legally elected

> I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>one can garner from right and right, that lead me to believe this.

Ah yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinker .

>You have indicated you disagree without providing substantiating
>evidence to back your opinion. I have challenged you to prove me
>wrong (hence using YOUR sources, not mine). Do you get where I'm
>going with this or do I need to be more explicit?

You are going to have to be more explicit.
Why use my source, that you will just say are conservative trash.
I can use your sources that show you are wrong, and then you can't
argue the source. Fully read the latest URL, that you posted.
>
>No, I want you to provide sources for your point of view.

The U.S. constitution.
The Collage of Electors. will elect the President of the U.S.
They did.
George Bush is in the White House.
You may not like it. But we didn't ask you.
>
>We've been through this before and every time you've taken the
>coward's way out and gone silent.

I go silent when your answers are so left field, that they are seen
for what they are. And therefore don't bother responding.
>
>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion.

No your not. Time and time again I have given you the basis for my
opinion. And you will name it conservative trash and do not consider
it.


>(wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ).

I would be open to yours, but I like some kind of reality in my
thought processes.

> Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

I'm not here to convert you Michel. You are unrepentant commie and
will always be so.

Your kidding about that last chance thing aren't you?
Pan Ohco

On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> You are the one that said Bush was not legally elected

> I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>one can garner from right and right, that lead me to believe this.

Ah yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinker .

>You have indicated you disagree without providing substantiating
>evidence to back your opinion. I have challenged you to prove me
>wrong (hence using YOUR sources, not mine). Do you get where I'm
>going with this or do I need to be more explicit?

You are going to have to be more explicit.
Why use my source, that you will just say are conservative trash.
I can use your sources that show you are wrong, and then you can't
argue the source. Fully read the latest URL, that you posted.
>
>No, I want you to provide sources for your point of view.

The U.S. constitution.
The Collage of Electors. will elect the President of the U.S.
They did.
George Bush is in the White House.
You may not like it. But we didn't ask you.
>
>We've been through this before and every time you've taken the
>coward's way out and gone silent.

I go silent when your answers are so left field, that they are seen
for what they are. And therefore don't bother responding.
>
>But chew on this: I am open to reviewing that which forms the basis
>of YOUR opinion.

No your not. Time and time again I have given you the basis for my
opinion. And you will name it conservative trash and do not consider
it.


>(wish you were as open to mine, but hey...I'm easy
>going :-) ).

I would be open to yours, but I like some kind of reality in my
thought processes.

> Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!

I'm not here to convert you Michel. You are unrepentant commie and
will always be so.

Your kidding about that last chance thing aren't you?
Pan Ohco