"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:33:22 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >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, once again all this would have been less of a problem is Kerry
> had not indicated that he would be a better president because of his
> war experience. Now if Bush make inflated statements about his war
> record,( at the GOP convention) the Dems can trash his record.
>
> Pan Ohco

Bush has no "war record" except for the present conflict which stands at
1000 dead Americans......and counting. I doubt if we'll be hearing him brag
about that record. At least not until after the election.
H

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:33:22 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >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, once again all this would have been less of a problem is Kerry
> had not indicated that he would be a better president because of his
> war experience. Now if Bush make inflated statements about his war
> record,( at the GOP convention) the Dems can trash his record.
>
> Pan Ohco

Bush has no "war record" except for the present conflict which stands at
1000 dead Americans......and counting. I doubt if we'll be hearing him brag
about that record. At least not until after the election.
H

RMiller wrote:
>>Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
>>biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
>>bullets.
>
>
> I think I understand now. Clinton dodging the draft did it legally with
> deferrments. Cheney a nd friends dodged the draft with illegal deferments!!..
> Rosie

Rosie,

You do have a serious attention deficit disorder. I did not say that
Bush and Chaney did anything illegal. I just said that they chose not to
go to Vietnam. But, since you are so damn paranoid about anyone
impuning the character of the Moron, you leaped without first thinking,
again.
--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

RMiller wrote:
>>Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
>>biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
>>bullets.
>
>
> I think I understand now. Clinton dodging the draft did it legally with
> deferrments. Cheney a nd friends dodged the draft with illegal deferments!!..
> Rosie

Rosie,

You do have a serious attention deficit disorder. I did not say that
Bush and Chaney did anything illegal. I just said that they chose not to
go to Vietnam. But, since you are so damn paranoid about anyone
impuning the character of the Moron, you leaped without first thinking,
again.
--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

In article >, Michel Boucher
> wrote:


> Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
> cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
> way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.
>
> Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
> difficult.

As an historian you must realize that these people cannot argue a point
logically and cogently when it's faith-based. It's that second birth
that's causing most of the coherence problems.

In article >, Michel Boucher
> wrote:


> Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
> cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
> way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.
>
> Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
> difficult.

As an historian you must realize that these people cannot argue a point
logically and cogently when it's faith-based. It's that second birth
that's causing most of the coherence problems.

stark > wrote in
:

> In article >, Michel
> Boucher > wrote:
>
>
>> Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>> cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours.
>> That way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you
>> see.
>>
>> Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find
>> it difficult.
>
> As an historian you must realize that these people cannot argue a
> point logically and cogently when it's faith-based. It's that
> second birth that's causing most of the coherence problems.

I suppose the idea is to get them to realize that and admit they
cannot argue their politics because even when they think they do,
they don't use arguments to support them. Of course, it's the old
circuit: God exists because the Bible tells us so and the Bible is
right because God gave it to us.

Pan's refusal to accept my challenge on flimsy grounds that I am not
qualified to mentor him (as if he knows this) to play my role does
not bode well, especially if these people gain yet more power in a
first legitimate Bush term.

--

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

stark > wrote in
:

> In article >, Michel
> Boucher > wrote:
>
>
>> Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>> cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours.
>> That way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you
>> see.
>>
>> Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find
>> it difficult.
>
> As an historian you must realize that these people cannot argue a
> point logically and cogently when it's faith-based. It's that
> second birth that's causing most of the coherence problems.

I suppose the idea is to get them to realize that and admit they
cannot argue their politics because even when they think they do,
they don't use arguments to support them. Of course, it's the old
circuit: God exists because the Bible tells us so and the Bible is
right because God gave it to us.

Pan's refusal to accept my challenge on flimsy grounds that I am not
qualified to mentor him (as if he knows this) to play my role does
not bode well, especially if these people gain yet more power in a
first legitimate Bush term.

--

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

alzelt > wrote in
:

> Now cut that out, unless you wish to be called biased. Seems
> Republicans can only criticize real war vets, with navy records to
> boot. Just don't pick on the Moron because he jumped to head of line,
> then deserted from the Guard. Not too many people can claim joining
> the Guard and then deserting. Must be some kind of record.
>
> Next thing you know, you will tell me he still drinks.

No not drink, but he's snorting blow in a small room adjacent to the
Oval Office, the very same place where Clinton got *his* blow(job).

Bwahaha!!!

Hey, this is fun!

--

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

alzelt > wrote in
:

> Now cut that out, unless you wish to be called biased. Seems
> Republicans can only criticize real war vets, with navy records to
> boot. Just don't pick on the Moron because he jumped to head of line,
> then deserted from the Guard. Not too many people can claim joining
> the Guard and then deserting. Must be some kind of record.
>
> Next thing you know, you will tell me he still drinks.

No not drink, but he's snorting blow in a small room adjacent to the
Oval Office, the very same place where Clinton got *his* blow(job).

Bwahaha!!!

Hey, this is fun!

--

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

On 31 Aug 2004 23:17:21 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch for
>> them.
>
>Hardly. It's rcognizing that your economic system does not prepare
>you for the subtleties of political discourse beyond the boundaries
>of your national self-interest. It's what we in the biz call "an
>observation".
>
Another slight is not a good save. And what biz would that be?

>>> I have no real interest in your petty politics.
>> Petty? (slight two)
>
>Petty, of small importance, trivial, from the French "petit".
actually from the middle english "pety"
> It was
>in reference to the politics that are of concern only to you and your
>compatriots and garner little interest abroad.

Except you seem very interested.


>
>True Marxists do not convert anyone, and they don't belong to
>"Marxist" organizations or parties. Marxists should be everywhere,
>suggesting changes in policy to the right and the left, as Marx
>suggested in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). I take it
>you haven't read it yet, and I put on your booklist some time ago.
You put it on my reading list?
Have you read "Deliver us from evil"yet.

>For example, I can decide that the best thing for the US is to elect
>George Bush for the first time in 2004
The Big lie again, Just because you repeat it , will not make it so.

because only after another
>four years of those shenanigans and loss of life will the people of
>the United States realize how badly they've been cornholed by their
>government.
>
>>>Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>>>cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
>>>way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.
>>
>> And arguing you point, in the face of reality is useless.
>> George Bush was legally elected to be the President of the United
>> States. According to our laws and constitution.
>
>And if he admitted that he had broken the law and faked the results
>and lied about WMDs, or even just one of those things, would you ask
>for his dismissal and imprisonment?

Yes. Now will you admit that you are retelling the Big lie.


> What do you get out of
>Bush being president and not Kerry?
>How much of the wealth they
>generate for their buddies actually finds its way into YOUR pocket?

I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
We work for it Kerry wants to take it.

>> Once again you arrogance is showing. You are not qualified to
>> mentor, nor teach me anything.
>
>I was being fair and open (and yes, I am qualified tomentor
I'M sorry I just have to ask, should there be a space or an R between
the o and the m? :-)
>...it is a
>large part of what I do for a living)
And you do what?
>Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
>manner.
And calling someone irrational is a positive form of discussion?

Pan Ohco

On 1 Sep 2004 12:21:25 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>stark > wrote in
:

>> As an historian you must realize that these people cannot argue a
>> point logically and cogently when it's faith-based. It's that
>> second birth that's causing most of the coherence problems.
>
>I suppose the idea is to get them to realize that and admit they
>cannot argue their politics because even when they think they do,
>they don't use arguments to support them. Of course, it's the old
>circuit: God exists because the Bible tells us so and the Bible is
>right because God gave it to us.

Now I'm sure that in a conversation that y'all demand verification for
everything, you have a message when I stated that my thought on this
subject was "faith based" In fact though I was brought up in a church,
I haven't been inside one (except for wedding and funerals) in about
forty years.
>
>Pan's refusal to accept my challenge on flimsy grounds that I am not
>qualified to mentor him (as if he knows this) to play my role does
>not bode well,
It is the height of arrogance that you think you can mentor anyone
that you don't know.

> especially if these people gain yet more power in a
>first legitimate Bush term.

And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
the U.S.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:14:48 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>
>Clinton was not a draft dodger. That's more republican BS. He used legal,
>accepted educational deferments to avoid a war he was morally opposed to.
>That's not draft dodging.

Y'all need to get your thoughts strait.
Clinton used "legal educational deferments."
But Bush dodged the draft by going into the guard.
>
>If you are concerned with truthfullness then look at Bush. When you apply a
>strict standard of truth to Kerry and ignore shrubby's numerous lies and
>evasions then you are nothing but a first class hypocrite.

Which lies?


Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:14:48 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>
>Clinton was not a draft dodger. That's more republican BS. He used legal,
>accepted educational deferments to avoid a war he was morally opposed to.
>That's not draft dodging.

Y'all need to get your thoughts strait.
Clinton used "legal educational deferments."
But Bush dodged the draft by going into the guard.
>
>If you are concerned with truthfullness then look at Bush. When you apply a
>strict standard of truth to Kerry and ignore shrubby's numerous lies and
>evasions then you are nothing but a first class hypocrite.

Which lies?


Pan Ohco

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
news
>
> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> the U.S.
> Pan Ohco

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact that if all the
votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that the
Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost surely
true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed, causing
thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
would have been still larger.

Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral vote
"victory" was by a razor-thin margin. Yet he is governing as if he won in a
landslide, refusing to compromise and cooperate, pandering to the far right
wing elements of the party, and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
in effect saying to the majority of voters "**** you, I don't care what you
think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with." That's
not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Peter Aitken

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
news
>
> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> the U.S.
> Pan Ohco

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact that if all the
votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that the
Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost surely
true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed, causing
thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
would have been still larger.

Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral vote
"victory" was by a razor-thin margin. Yet he is governing as if he won in a
landslide, refusing to compromise and cooperate, pandering to the far right
wing elements of the party, and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
in effect saying to the majority of voters "**** you, I don't care what you
think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with." That's
not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Peter Aitken

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:48:30 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:

>
>
>Pan Ohco wrote:

>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>No, I guess I didn't. Lt. Wm. Calley beat me to it.

No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
And if not, did Kerrys statements (that gave the impression that you
did) make you mad?
Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:48:30 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:

>
>
>Pan Ohco wrote:

>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>No, I guess I didn't. Lt. Wm. Calley beat me to it.

No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
And if not, did Kerrys statements (that gave the impression that you
did) make you mad?
Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:56:18 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>
>Can you never get anything correct? Your source that he shot himself
>please!!!

Try "Unfit For Command"

Now, if Kerry wants to put all these critics aside, he can by signing
a standard form 180. This would release all of his Navy records.

Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:11 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
>news
>>
>> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
>> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
>> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
>> the U.S.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
>thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
>those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact

Verification please. Your saying its a well established fact will not
make it so.

> that if all the
>votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that the
>Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
>small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
>that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
>riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
>administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
>ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost surely
>true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed, causing
>thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
>would have been still larger.

Verification please. How is it "almost surely true". Is this the
start of the "faith based" Democratic response.

>Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral vote
>"victory" was by a razor-thin margin.

Yes he did, you are right there.
And he won the presidency under the law of the U.S.
Therefore is the legal and legitimate President of the U.S.

> Yet he is governing as if he won in a
>landslide,

I disagree
..
>refusing to compromise and cooperate,

Could it not be that the Dem s are not co operating with him.

> and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
>in effect saying to the voters "**** you, I don't care what you
>think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."

Are you describing Clinton?

>That's not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Your right, now if you could get the Democrats to stop being so
intrusive.

>If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
>illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Is it that, or are you so far removed from reality that you can't see
straight.
>
>Peter Aitken
>

Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:11 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
>news
>>
>> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
>> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
>> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
>> the U.S.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
>thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and by
>those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact

Verification please. Your saying its a well established fact will not
make it so.

> that if all the
>votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that the
>Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
>small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
>that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
>riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
>administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
>ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost surely
>true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed, causing
>thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
>would have been still larger.

Verification please. How is it "almost surely true". Is this the
start of the "faith based" Democratic response.

>Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral vote
>"victory" was by a razor-thin margin.

Yes he did, you are right there.
And he won the presidency under the law of the U.S.
Therefore is the legal and legitimate President of the U.S.

> Yet he is governing as if he won in a
>landslide,

I disagree
..
>refusing to compromise and cooperate,

Could it not be that the Dem s are not co operating with him.

> and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
>in effect saying to the voters "**** you, I don't care what you
>think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."

Are you describing Clinton?

>That's not the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Your right, now if you could get the Democrats to stop being so
intrusive.

>If you still don't understand why many people consider Bush to be an
>illegitimate president then you are truly dense.

Is it that, or are you so far removed from reality that you can't see
straight.
>
>Peter Aitken
>

Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 31 Aug 2004 23:17:21 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>> Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch
>>> for them.
>>
>>Hardly. It's rcognizing that your economic system does not
>>prepare you for the subtleties of political discourse beyond the
>>boundaries of your national self-interest. It's what we in the
>>biz call "an observation".
>>
> Another slight is not a good save. And what biz would that be?

Another claim to a slight does not a swallow make. I'm in the
recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political life of
the Parliament of Canada.

>>>> I have no real interest in your petty politics.
>>> Petty? (slight two)
>>
>>Petty, of small importance, trivial, from the French "petit".
> actually from the middle english "pety"

Which came from the ancien français "petit". That petty is used
instead of petit is evidenced in the term "petty bourgeoisie", fairly
recent translation of "petite bourgeoisie". It does not mean the
bourgeoisie with the narrow views (although some might interpret it as
meaning that), it means the lesser or minor bourgeoisie, the less
wealthy, the shopkeepers and office workers. In that same sense, I
used "petty politics", meaning the politics of lesser impact.

>> It was
>>in reference to the politics that are of concern only to you and
>>your compatriots and garner little interest abroad.
>
> Except you seem very interested.

Cheez, I said what I was interested in, when those national policies
become international in scope. I am not interested in funding for
research into the Lower Mississippi weasely politician habitat or the
federal transfer of funds for local trailer park projects (I am being
facetious here, obviously), or ANY state business that remains within
the state and does not cross into Canada or Mexico. If you don't like
it, then accept that this is your cross to bear.

>>as Marx suggested in the Manifesto of the Communist Party
>>(1848). I take it you haven't read it yet, and I put on your
>>booklist some time ago.
> You put it on my reading list?

Ok, let's say I do now.

> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.

I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss it
intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.

I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-
manifesto/index.htm

There. You can't say you can't find a copy :-)

>>For example, I can decide that the best thing for the US is to
>>elect George Bush for the first time in 2004
> The Big lie again, Just because you repeat it , will not make it
> so.

And you saying it's a lie does not mean it is. There. Tit for tat,
except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft refuted
explanation provided by INGSOC whereas I actually craft thoughtful
messages on the matter.

>>And if he admitted that he had broken the law and faked the
>>results and lied about WMDs, or even just one of those things,
>>would you ask for his dismissal and imprisonment?
>
> Yes. Now will you admit that you are retelling the Big lie.

No, but I'm gratified to see that you may eventually become an honest
Pharisee :-)

>>What do you get out of
>>Bush being president and not Kerry?
>>How much of the wealth they
>>generate for their buddies actually finds its way into YOUR
>>pocket?
>
> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.

I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into your
pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none. Your
overall wealth is the same. That you were able to retain some of the
money you generated merely indicates that opportunities were provided
to you to do so more easily. Had you invested in various tax-reducing
schemes or been able to deduct these sums for other reasons, you still
would have had the same amount of money that you do now. No new money
was generated. So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
when the crippling deficit hits the fan?

There was a TV show some years back, Dark Angel, that posited the idea
that US had been set back to the Third World by the explosion of a high
altitude nuke causing an electromagnetic pulse that fried all
electronics in a second. Never for a second did James Cameron ever
imagine that the same could be achieved in one term by George W. Bush.
You are running very close to edge of disaster and more running is only
a certainty of more disaster.

We have a right-wing politician in Canada, Camille Samson, who is a
social creditist. Once, at a rally, he was speaking against the ruling
party of Québec, the Union nationale, and he said the following
(translated free of charge for the benefit of the linguistically
impaired):

"The Union nationale has brought us to edge of the precipice. With the
Crédit social, we all take a step forward!"

Watch that first step down...it's a lulu.

> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.

Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have the
opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that I am not
only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting programs to
support the indigent and the needy, but that they should make
reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the mistakes of
right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.

>>...it is a
>>large part of what I do for a living)
> And you do what?

I collect and disseminate information for my employer and mentor others
to do the same.

>>Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
>>manner.
> And calling someone irrational is a positive form of discussion?

I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
irrational.

--

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 31 Aug 2004 23:17:21 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>> Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch
>>> for them.
>>
>>Hardly. It's rcognizing that your economic system does not
>>prepare you for the subtleties of political discourse beyond the
>>boundaries of your national self-interest. It's what we in the
>>biz call "an observation".
>>
> Another slight is not a good save. And what biz would that be?

Another claim to a slight does not a swallow make. I'm in the
recording things biz, events, facts, pertinent to the political life of
the Parliament of Canada.

>>>> I have no real interest in your petty politics.
>>> Petty? (slight two)
>>
>>Petty, of small importance, trivial, from the French "petit".
> actually from the middle english "pety"

Which came from the ancien français "petit". That petty is used
instead of petit is evidenced in the term "petty bourgeoisie", fairly
recent translation of "petite bourgeoisie". It does not mean the
bourgeoisie with the narrow views (although some might interpret it as
meaning that), it means the lesser or minor bourgeoisie, the less
wealthy, the shopkeepers and office workers. In that same sense, I
used "petty politics", meaning the politics of lesser impact.

>> It was
>>in reference to the politics that are of concern only to you and
>>your compatriots and garner little interest abroad.
>
> Except you seem very interested.

Cheez, I said what I was interested in, when those national policies
become international in scope. I am not interested in funding for
research into the Lower Mississippi weasely politician habitat or the
federal transfer of funds for local trailer park projects (I am being
facetious here, obviously), or ANY state business that remains within
the state and does not cross into Canada or Mexico. If you don't like
it, then accept that this is your cross to bear.

>>as Marx suggested in the Manifesto of the Communist Party
>>(1848). I take it you haven't read it yet, and I put on your
>>booklist some time ago.
> You put it on my reading list?

Ok, let's say I do now.

> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.

I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss it
intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.

I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-
manifesto/index.htm

There. You can't say you can't find a copy :-)

>>For example, I can decide that the best thing for the US is to
>>elect George Bush for the first time in 2004
> The Big lie again, Just because you repeat it , will not make it
> so.

And you saying it's a lie does not mean it is. There. Tit for tat,
except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft refuted
explanation provided by INGSOC whereas I actually craft thoughtful
messages on the matter.

>>And if he admitted that he had broken the law and faked the
>>results and lied about WMDs, or even just one of those things,
>>would you ask for his dismissal and imprisonment?
>
> Yes. Now will you admit that you are retelling the Big lie.

No, but I'm gratified to see that you may eventually become an honest
Pharisee :-)

>>What do you get out of
>>Bush being president and not Kerry?
>>How much of the wealth they
>>generate for their buddies actually finds its way into YOUR
>>pocket?
>
> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.

I asked you how much of the money THEY generate found its way into your
pocket? I'd say from your response that the answer is none. Your
overall wealth is the same. That you were able to retain some of the
money you generated merely indicates that opportunities were provided
to you to do so more easily. Had you invested in various tax-reducing
schemes or been able to deduct these sums for other reasons, you still
would have had the same amount of money that you do now. No new money
was generated. So, how much of a cut are you going to be able to keep
when the crippling deficit hits the fan?

There was a TV show some years back, Dark Angel, that posited the idea
that US had been set back to the Third World by the explosion of a high
altitude nuke causing an electromagnetic pulse that fried all
electronics in a second. Never for a second did James Cameron ever
imagine that the same could be achieved in one term by George W. Bush.
You are running very close to edge of disaster and more running is only
a certainty of more disaster.

We have a right-wing politician in Canada, Camille Samson, who is a
social creditist. Once, at a rally, he was speaking against the ruling
party of Québec, the Union nationale, and he said the following
(translated free of charge for the benefit of the linguistically
impaired):

"The Union nationale has brought us to edge of the precipice. With the
Crédit social, we all take a step forward!"

Watch that first step down...it's a lulu.

> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.

Well, I favour higher taxes and I always indicate whenever I have the
opportunity to speak to one of my elected representatives that I am not
only willing to pay higher taxes if they stop cutting programs to
support the indigent and the needy, but that they should make
reasonable fiscal sacrifices mandatory to correct the mistakes of
right-wing governments' horrific spendo policies.

>>...it is a
>>large part of what I do for a living)
> And you do what?

I collect and disseminate information for my employer and mentor others
to do the same.

>>Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
>>manner.
> And calling someone irrational is a positive form of discussion?

I didn't call you irrational. Show me where I used the word
irrational.

--

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
...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:11 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
> >news
> >>
> >> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> >> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> >> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> >> the U.S.
> >> Pan Ohco
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
> >thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and
by
> >those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact
>
> Verification please. Your saying its a well established fact will not
> make it so.

Go and read almost any reliable source (yes the Times and CNN, but also
conservative pubs such as Wall St Journal and The Economist from the late
winter/early spring after the election. A group of news and other
organizations sponsired this recount complete with neutral observers. The
result was that if the original recount requested by Gore had been done,
Bush still would have won, but if all counties had been recounted Gore would
have won.

> > that if all the
> >votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that
the
> >Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
> >small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
> >that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
> >riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
> >administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
> >ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost
surely
> >true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed,
causing
> >thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
> >would have been still larger.
>
> Verification please. How is it "almost surely true". Is this the
> start of the "faith based" Democratic response.

See the previous response.

>
> >Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral
vote
> >"victory" was by a razor-thin margin.
>
> Yes he did, you are right there.
> And he won the presidency under the law of the U.S.
> Therefore is the legal and legitimate President of the U.S.
>
> > Yet he is governing as if he won in a
> >landslide,
>
> I disagree

You are so completely wrong it is laughable. This point has been made by
many including conservative commentators and publications.

> .
> >refusing to compromise and cooperate,
>
> Could it not be that the Dem s are not co operating with him.

That's probabaly part of it but so what? Bush is being so blatant about it -
there is no excuse for it.

>
> > and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
> >in effect saying to the voters "**** you, I don't care what you
> >think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."
>
> Are you describing Clinton?

Don;t be an ass. Clinton not only won by a large margin but he was known for
compromising with the republicans and pushing agendas that are ususlly
thought of as republican. There were bitter complaints for many years from
both the dems (Clinton is abandoning our principals) and fromt he
republicans (Clinton is stealing our ideas).

I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are again
here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the facts you are. For
example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at least a
week and you never heard of it - well duh! You seem to have no interest at
all about what is really going on in the world - sort of like Bush come to
think of it. As long as the "news" you hear fits your preconceptions you are
willing to leave it at that - no curiosity, no concern with truth. Your idea
of political discourse is a few pseudo-clever jabs and some 7th grade-level
insults. I hope you are not tyupical of Bush supporters because there so
damn many of them.

--
Peter Aitken


Bumper sticker seen in Florida: Let's not elect Bush this time either.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:38:11 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
> >news
> >>
> >> And you have yet to prove that Bush is not the "legitimate" president.
> >> You constancy ask other to prove that he is.
> >> Yet in reality he sits in the White House. Approve under the laws of
> >> the U.S.
> >> Pan Ohco
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "legal" then he is,
> >thanks to the Supreme Court. But "legitimate" has many other meanings and
by
> >those meanings he is not. It is a well established fact
>
> Verification please. Your saying its a well established fact will not
> make it so.

Go and read almost any reliable source (yes the Times and CNN, but also
conservative pubs such as Wall St Journal and The Economist from the late
winter/early spring after the election. A group of news and other
organizations sponsired this recount complete with neutral observers. The
result was that if the original recount requested by Gore had been done,
Bush still would have won, but if all counties had been recounted Gore would
have won.

> > that if all the
> >votes in Florida had been counted properly - not just the counties that
the
> >Dems requested, but all of them - then Gore would have won the state by a
> >small margin and hence the electoral vote. It is also almost surely true
> >that if the Florida felony conviction "cannot vote" list had not been
> >riddled with errors ( a list managed by the state's republican
> >administration), preventing thousands of legitimate voters from casting a
> >ballot, Gore's margin would have been even greater. It is also almost
surely
> >true that if the ballot in Palm Beach had not been poorly designed,
causing
> >thousands of Gore voters to mistakenly vote for Buchanan, Gore's margin
> >would have been still larger.
>
> Verification please. How is it "almost surely true". Is this the
> start of the "faith based" Democratic response.

See the previous response.

>
> >Then there's the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and his electoral
vote
> >"victory" was by a razor-thin margin.
>
> Yes he did, you are right there.
> And he won the presidency under the law of the U.S.
> Therefore is the legal and legitimate President of the U.S.
>
> > Yet he is governing as if he won in a
> >landslide,
>
> I disagree

You are so completely wrong it is laughable. This point has been made by
many including conservative commentators and publications.

> .
> >refusing to compromise and cooperate,
>
> Could it not be that the Dem s are not co operating with him.

That's probabaly part of it but so what? Bush is being so blatant about it -
there is no excuse for it.

>
> > and otherwise ignoring the voters' wishes. He is
> >in effect saying to the voters "**** you, I don't care what you
> >think, me and my pals are goung to do whatever we can get away with."
>
> Are you describing Clinton?

Don;t be an ass. Clinton not only won by a large margin but he was known for
compromising with the republicans and pushing agendas that are ususlly
thought of as republican. There were bitter complaints for many years from
both the dems (Clinton is abandoning our principals) and fromt he
republicans (Clinton is stealing our ideas).

I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are again
here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the facts you are. For
example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at least a
week and you never heard of it - well duh! You seem to have no interest at
all about what is really going on in the world - sort of like Bush come to
think of it. As long as the "news" you hear fits your preconceptions you are
willing to leave it at that - no curiosity, no concern with truth. Your idea
of political discourse is a few pseudo-clever jabs and some 7th grade-level
insults. I hope you are not tyupical of Bush supporters because there so
damn many of them.

--
Peter Aitken


Bumper sticker seen in Florida: Let's not elect Bush this time either.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
m:

> I hope you are not typical of Bush
> supporters because there so damn many of them.

Sad to say, I think Pan is one of the brighter ones.

--

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

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
m:

> I hope you are not typical of Bush
> supporters because there so damn many of them.

Sad to say, I think Pan is one of the brighter ones.

--

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

wrote:
>
> Total [bullshit]. Let me just suggest this bumper sticker:
>
> No One Died
> When Clinton Lied


Vince Foster? HTH :-)

Bob

wrote:
>
> Total [bullshit]. Let me just suggest this bumper sticker:
>
> No One Died
> When Clinton Lied


Vince Foster? HTH :-)

Bob

Pan Ohco wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:48:30 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>No, I guess I didn't. Lt. Wm. Calley beat me to it.
>
>
> No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
> And if not, did Kerrys statements (that gave the impression that you
> did) make you mad?
> Pan Ohco

The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:48:30 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>No, I guess I didn't. Lt. Wm. Calley beat me to it.
>
>
> No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
> And if not, did Kerrys statements (that gave the impression that you
> did) make you mad?
> Pan Ohco

The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are again
>here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the facts you are.

> For
>example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at least a
>week and you never heard of it - well duh!

Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.


>Your idea
>of political discourse is a few pseudo-clever jabs and some 7th grade-level
>insults.

Is that like "I said so, so it true"
It's amazing, Conservatives have to verify every word, but liberal
only have to say, I remember this, and it surely must follow.

Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>I don't know why I waste my time, Pan. You have repeatedly and are again
>here revealing how totally ignorant of the news and the facts you are.

> For
>example the recount story was plastered all over the news for at least a
>week and you never heard of it - well duh!

Once again you think that verification is saying "the story was
plastered all over the news" A date , a byline, a url might help.


>Your idea
>of political discourse is a few pseudo-clever jabs and some 7th grade-level
>insults.

Is that like "I said so, so it true"
It's amazing, Conservatives have to verify every word, but liberal
only have to say, I remember this, and it surely must follow.

Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:56:18 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Can you never get anything correct? Your source that he shot himself
>>please!!!
>
>
> Try "Unfit For Command"
>
> Now, if Kerry wants to put all these critics aside, he can by signing
> a standard form 180. This would release all of his Navy records.
>
> Pan Ohco
Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.

As for records, at least he has well documented records, as opposed to
our dress up C in C.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:56:18 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Can you never get anything correct? Your source that he shot himself
>>please!!!
>
>
> Try "Unfit For Command"
>
> Now, if Kerry wants to put all these critics aside, he can by signing
> a standard form 180. This would release all of his Navy records.
>
> Pan Ohco
Unfit for command. Now there is an authoritative book.

As for records, at least he has well documented records, as opposed to
our dress up C in C.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:47:08 -0000, Bubbabob
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
>> Tell me Alan did you cut off peoples heads and ears. Did you burn
>> villages and kill livestock.
>
>I knew and saw many that did. I witnessed many interrogations involving
>field phone generators clipped to testicles or wound around an MP's
>nightstick and forced up female suspect's vaginas. Also interrogations
>that began with someone pinning the suspect's scrotum to the chair with
>the tip of a K-Bar knife. I saw scalp belts and ear necklaces and even a
>necklace made from assholes cut from dead VC. I saw one guy who made a
>ventriloquist's dummy out of someone's skull and was allowed to keep it
>for his full tour of duty. I saw POW's rolled in concertina wire and
>stacked in pyramids of 10. No food for a week, just a hosing down once a
>day. After a week of 'softening' they were given to the ARVN troops and
>the QC, who promptly interrogated them to death. I saw the bodies of
>farmers who'd been butchered in their rice fields by 'Dragon Ships'
>pushed a mile back to their village by bulldozers. When their families
>ID'd them, the QC threw entire families, children included, into 'Tiger
>Cages'. I knew Jolly Green Giant crews whose idea of a good time was to
>lasso a family's water buffalo and drop it on their house from several
>hundred feet.
>
>A lot of the US military acted exactly like Nazis in VN and the chain of
>command knew all about it, all the way back to LBJ.
>>
>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>
>Kerry told the truth, even if he hadn't seen it first-hand.

O.K. now what did you do about this.
Pan Ohco

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:47:08 -0000, Bubbabob
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
>> Tell me Alan did you cut off peoples heads and ears. Did you burn
>> villages and kill livestock.
>
>I knew and saw many that did. I witnessed many interrogations involving
>field phone generators clipped to testicles or wound around an MP's
>nightstick and forced up female suspect's vaginas. Also interrogations
>that began with someone pinning the suspect's scrotum to the chair with
>the tip of a K-Bar knife. I saw scalp belts and ear necklaces and even a
>necklace made from assholes cut from dead VC. I saw one guy who made a
>ventriloquist's dummy out of someone's skull and was allowed to keep it
>for his full tour of duty. I saw POW's rolled in concertina wire and
>stacked in pyramids of 10. No food for a week, just a hosing down once a
>day. After a week of 'softening' they were given to the ARVN troops and
>the QC, who promptly interrogated them to death. I saw the bodies of
>farmers who'd been butchered in their rice fields by 'Dragon Ships'
>pushed a mile back to their village by bulldozers. When their families
>ID'd them, the QC threw entire families, children included, into 'Tiger
>Cages'. I knew Jolly Green Giant crews whose idea of a good time was to
>lasso a family's water buffalo and drop it on their house from several
>hundred feet.
>
>A lot of the US military acted exactly like Nazis in VN and the chain of
>command knew all about it, all the way back to LBJ.
>>
>> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
>
>Kerry told the truth, even if he hadn't seen it first-hand.

O.K. now what did you do about this.
Pan Ohco

In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:


> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.
>

Another perk for the 1%. Hmmm. That $5900 was my money, goofus. Just
another reason why I'm not voting for GWB.

In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:


> I got to keep about $4000. of my own money last year.
> My son got to keep $1900. of his own money.
> We work for it Kerry wants to take it.
>

Another perk for the 1%. Hmmm. That $5900 was my money, goofus. Just
another reason why I'm not voting for GWB.

In article >, Pan Ohco
> wrote:

> On 1 Sep 2004 12:21:25 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
> >stark > wrote in
> :
>
> Now I'm sure that in a conversation that y'all demand verification for
> everything, you have a message when I stated that my thought on this
> subject was "faith based" In fact though I was brought up in a church,
> I haven't been inside one (except for wedding and funerals) in about
> forty years.

Ah another example of "faith-based" being whatever I want to believe
in. For some reason I'd rather see faith-basers being an active member
of some cult rather than free floaters. Hey maybe that's what
Republicans are after all.