"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:66f9dc86-478f-451d-ac06-f39beab097e7@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> We simply have no comforting choices.
>
> That is certainly true. None of the candidates gives me even a mildy
> secure feeling, never mind the warm fuzzies. At the same time, McCain
> is coming across as a confused old man who sees too much in military
> solutions. His confusion worries me, because he's not much more than a
> year older than I am.
We are eye to eye on this one Charlie. I am not so sure that the Viet Nam
war did not have some adverse mental effect on McCain, even back in 2000 I
had that feeling. Hillary wants Obama to give up and join her as her vice
president running mate and she is/was behind when she made that comment. I
suspect that she believes that no one would find that odd and already she is
talking about the possibility of nuking Iran. Obama, I am not sure what
he stands for except change. It's a 50/50 chance it could be change for the
worse. But even with that in mind I'd rather see him in there than Billary.
On Sun, 4 May 2008 09:19:46 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>> Hagee makes rev Wright look like a saint.
>
>Hell, if it bothers you, just do a "write in" vote on Nov: Wright for prez,
>Hagee for vp, or vice versa.
>
>You're gonna get more of the same, either way.
I didn't know McCain really is getting a free pass. At this point it
is not clear who will win. I like candidates that will reduce taxes
and keep us out of war. There is none this time. I guess I could
write in "Ron Paul" since he made the most sense, although he wasn't
very charismatic.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1e11d1ac-fc62-45d5-8d3f-32751d588737@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 10:54 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > The alternative was different the second time around.
>>
>> If Bush were able to run again, I suspect that it would be the same this
>> time around also. As bas as the administration is I don't see a better
>> choice. I'm afraid that the next administration is going to be worse,
>> regardless of who gets in.
>
> Suppose you had a sore knee and a surgeon
> said he could fix it for you. So you go in for
> surgery and he botches the operation making
> it worse. Then he operates again, and the result
> is so bad the leg will need to be amputated. So
> he operates a third time and amputates the
> wrong leg.
>
> Now it may well be that no doctor in the world
> will be able to save your remaining leg, or restore
> the lost one, but don;'t you think it might be a
> good time to change surgeons anyhow?
If no doctor in the world would be able to save my leg what would be the
point of changing surgeons?
I would be looking for a surgeon that could save my leg or at the very least
not change surgeons until I had confidence in one. None of the candidates
have my confidence. The third option is to sit with what you got, at least
you know where you stand.
The alternatives want to give up on the defence of Iraq and raise taxes to
help pay for more government programs and health care for the undeserving.
I am not one to often go with the plilosophy of cutting off my nose to spite
my face. Unfortunately the country did just that when electing Carter.
On May 8, 11:59 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <d00971e8-3367-42cb-ab32-dea8811f7...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <[email protected]>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >> >No.
>
> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> >http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
>
> What's that got to do with the 2000 "Bush smear campaign"?
Sampley is one of the principle sources of the material that was used.
--
FF
On May 5, 10:54 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ...
>
> > The alternative was different the second time around.
>
> If Bush were able to run again, I suspect that it would be the same this
> time around also. As bas as the administration is I don't see a better
> choice. I'm afraid that the next administration is going to be worse,
> regardless of who gets in.
Suppose you had a sore knee and a surgeon
said he could fix it for you. So you go in for
surgery and he botches the operation making
it worse. Then he operates again, and the result
is so bad the leg will need to be amputated. So
he operates a third time and amputates the
wrong leg.
Now it may well be that no doctor in the world
will be able to save your remaining leg, or restore
the lost one, but don;'t you think it might be a
good time to change surgeons anyhow?
That was my view of the Bush Presidency in 2004.
--
FF
On May 10, 9:52=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 10, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]=
s.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> In article
> > > <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, F=
red the
> > > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> ...
>
> > >> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> >> In article
> > > <[email protected].=3D
> > >> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> >> >> In article
> > >> >> > <[email protected]=
om>,
> > > Fre=3D
> > >> >d the
> > >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> > >> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> In article
> > >> >> >> > <[email protected]=
.com>,
> > > F=3D
> > >> >red
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> > >> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> > >> >> >> >> >claiming =A0she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> > >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> > >> >> >> >No.
>
> > >> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> > >> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> > >> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> > >> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign .=
.." [my
> > >> >> emphasis].
>
> > >> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>
> > >> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on hi=
m?
>
> > >Non Sequitor. =A0As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
> > >up".
>
> > >Clearly I was not:
> > ...
> > I would not say that a candidate has any _legal_ responsibility
> > for the actions of persons not on their payroll, but would say
> > that they have a moral responsibility to denounce slander against
> > their opponent, when =A0asked about it. =A0 When Bush
> > was asked, he evaded the question, instead defending the legal
> > rights of the slanderers, something that was neither in doubt,
> > nor the topic of the question. =A0 Qui Tacet Consentit
>
> > ...
> > Not all of it, anyway. Just the part about Bush being responsible.
>
> I never said it was his idea, or his plan.
> But I do stand by the argument above.
>
> --
>
> FF
Fred ol' chap, Miller is a troll.
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected].=
com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fre=
d the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <[email protected]>, F=
red
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >> >No.
>
> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
> emphasis].
Uh, who was McCain running against?
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022100-106.htm
=2E..
One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to
the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University,
where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after
the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain
=93chose to sire children without marriage,=94 among other
hallucinations....
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=3D1&adxn..=
.
> >slogin&adxnnlx=3D1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
>
> Refers to "a smear campaign." Again, no mention of Bush.
>
> Like I said -- got a cite, Fred, for your claim that it was a "Bush smear
> campaign"?
Ah, I see, a smear campaign by Bush supporters, would be
more precise.
But...
http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr020900.html
"February 8, 2000 7:00PM
FLAILING AT McCAIN
The Bush campaign, which for months seemingly did everything right,
suddenly seems to be doing everything wrong. First, Bush let J. Thomas
Burch, Jr., slam John McCain as an enemy of veterans while introducing
Bush at a rally in South Carolina. ....
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504E.shtml
=2E..
Bush appeared at a campaign rally with J. Thomas Burch Jr., the
chairman of a marginal outfit called the National Vietnam and Gulf War
Veterans Coalition. Burch bitterly decried McCain for "always"
opposing veterans legislation, including measures concerning Agent
Orange, health care and the Gulf War. When Burch finished slamming
McCain, Bush shook his hand and said, "Thank you, buddy."
There was one problem. What Burch had said was a lie. McCain had
cosponsored the Agent Orange act that became law. He also had
testified in favor of legislation to provide compensation to Gulf War
vets struck by unexplained illnesses. Perhaps Bush had not been aware
of McCain's record on veterans' issues. But after news accounts noted
that Burch had lied and after five senators who had fought in Vietnam
(including two Republicans) termed Burch's allegations "absolutely
false," Bush refused to repudiate Burch. Instead, the Bush campaign
crowed about the effectiveness of Burch's phony attack. Bush campaign
spokesman Tucker Eskew said, "The McCain campaign is squawking because
we hit them where they hurt. McCain and the media created a myth of
the [pro-McCain] military monolith in [South Carolina], and we
exploded that. We challenged him on his greatest point of pride, and
they stomped their feet, pointed fingers and whined."
=2E.
http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/02/11/veterans/index.html=
=2E.."I flew in because I was outraged by the statement Thomas Burch
made," Thornton says. "I told [Bush] he needed to apologize. He said
John McCain was a great American and a great veteran -- but he doesn't
control what Burch says. But the man was standing up on the platform,
elbow to elbow with him! He shook his hand!"...
So Burch smeared McCain while standing on stage next to Bush, and
then Bush shook his hand, and later bragged about the effectiveness of
Burch's help. I'd say Burch was part of the Bush campaign.
>
> I didn't think so. Do you *ever* read your "cites" before you post them?
>
> >Oh and they also said he was gay.
>
> >You honestly never heard about this before?
>
> Nope, never did.
What did you hear about the Bush vs McCain campaign in 2000?
--
FF
On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:8b8daee8-b140-427a-bca8-4d2696dcbdec@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
> >> than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
> >> and keep votes.
>
> > Uh, yeah. JAFP. Just another....etc.
>
> > I have an absolutely creepy feeling about this election. I've disliked
> > both candidates before, but I don't recall disliking every single
> > pretender from day #1, and getting this far along wishing that Pat
> > Paulsen or Dick Gregory were still around...and not for their punch
> > lines. In '64, LJ made my skin crawl in just about the same manner as
> > this whole election does.
>
> Now I remember why Bush was reelected.
I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
(that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
either time.
In general, I vote for the man (or woman), or try to, but the JAFP
syndrome has become epidemic in the past two decades, right down to
the local level, where one of our most admired politicians is a guy
who rode Bush's coattails into the Republican Party, and who now votes
any wah Bush wants to go, six years later. He's a pity, but the people
who support him are pitiful.
In article <[email protected]>, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>Hagee makes rev Wright look like a saint. Why is he getting a free ride on
>this?
Probably because he's not McCain's pastor, and McCain doesn't attend his
church.
Ya think?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
On May 10, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <8cb455fd-1864-4530-8537-980c31e8b...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> > <[email protected].=
> >> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Fre=
> >> >d the
> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> >> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> > <[email protected]>,
> > F=
> >> >red
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >> >> >> >No.
>
> >> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> >> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> >> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> >> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
> >> >> emphasis].
>
> >> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>
> >> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
>
> >Non Sequitor. As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
> >up".
>
> >Clearly I was not:
> ...
> I would not say that a candidate has any _legal_ responsibility
> for the actions of persons not on their payroll, but would say
> that they have a moral responsibility to denounce slander against
> their opponent, when asked about it. When Bush
> was asked, he evaded the question, instead defending the legal
> rights of the slanderers, something that was neither in doubt,
> nor the topic of the question. Qui Tacet Consentit
>
> ...
> Not all of it, anyway. Just the part about Bush being responsible.
I never said it was his idea, or his plan.
But I do stand by the argument above.
--
FF
On May 9, 5:05 am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]=
s.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> In article
> > > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, F=
red the
> > > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> > > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> > >> >> In article
> > >> > <[email protected]>,=
Fred
> > > the
> > >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> > >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> > >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> > >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> > >> >No.
>
> > >> Got a cite, then?
>
> > >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> > >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> > Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [m=
y
> > emphasis].
>
> Uh, who was McCain running against?
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views/022100-106.htm
> ...
> One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to
> the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University,
> where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after
> the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain
> =93chose to sire children without marriage,=94 among other
> hallucinations....
>
>
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=3D1&adxn=
...
> > >slogin&adxnnlx=3D1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
>
> > Refers to "a smear campaign." Again, no mention of Bush.
>
> > Like I said -- got a cite, Fred, for your claim that it was a "Bush smea=
r
> > campaign"?
>
> Ah, I see, a smear campaign by Bush supporters, would be
> more precise.
>
> But...
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr020900.html
>
> "February 8, 2000 7:00PM
> FLAILING AT McCAIN
> The Bush campaign, which for months seemingly did everything right,
> suddenly seems to be doing everything wrong. First, Bush let J. Thomas
> Burch, Jr., slam John McCain as an enemy of veterans while introducing
> Bush at a rally in South Carolina. ....
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504E.shtml
>
> ...
> Bush appeared at a campaign rally with J. Thomas Burch Jr., the
> chairman of a marginal outfit called the National Vietnam and Gulf War
> Veterans Coalition. Burch bitterly decried McCain for "always"
> opposing veterans legislation, including measures concerning Agent
> Orange, health care and the Gulf War. When Burch finished slamming
> McCain, Bush shook his hand and said, "Thank you, buddy."
>
> There was one problem. What Burch had said was a lie. McCain had
> cosponsored the Agent Orange act that became law. He also had
> testified in favor of legislation to provide compensation to Gulf War
> vets struck by unexplained illnesses. Perhaps Bush had not been aware
> of McCain's record on veterans' issues. But after news accounts noted
> that Burch had lied and after five senators who had fought in Vietnam
> (including two Republicans) termed Burch's allegations "absolutely
> false," Bush refused to repudiate Burch. Instead, the Bush campaign
> crowed about the effectiveness of Burch's phony attack. Bush campaign
> spokesman Tucker Eskew said, "The McCain campaign is squawking because
> we hit them where they hurt. McCain and the media created a myth of
> the [pro-McCain] military monolith in [South Carolina], and we
> exploded that. We challenged him on his greatest point of pride, and
> they stomped their feet, pointed fingers and whined."
> ..
>
> http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/02/11/veterans/ind...
>
> ..."I flew in because I was outraged by the statement Thomas Burch
> made," Thornton says. "I told [Bush] he needed to apologize. He said
> John McCain was a great American and a great veteran -- but he doesn't
> control what Burch says. But the man was standing up on the platform,
> elbow to elbow with him! He shook his hand!"...
>
> So Burch smeared McCain while standing on stage next to Bush, and
> then Bush shook his hand, and later bragged about the effectiveness of
> Burch's help. I'd say Burch was part of the Bush campaign.
>
>
>
> > I didn't think so. Do you *ever* read your "cites" before you post them?=
>
> > >Oh and they also said he was gay.
>
> > >You honestly never heard about this before?
>
> > Nope, never did.
>
> What did you hear about the Bush vs McCain campaign in 2000?
Oh, and this:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/07/mccain_and_bush.php
Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager and political adviser, is famous in
political circles as the master of "push polling". ...
in 2000, the Bush campaign targeted South Carolina, the next big
primary, and began calling voters, particularly elderly voters, to
ostensibly take a poll. But rather than asking how they felt about an
issue, they asked this question: "Would you be more or less likely to
vote for John McCain if you knew that he had fathered a bi-racial
child?". Now, they didn't actually say that he DID father a bi-racial
child. But at campaign stops, you could see McCain and his wife Cindy
with their dark-skinned daughter, Bridget. ...
and later ties Sampley in with Bush
=2E..
Even worse is Bush's association with Ted Sampley,
=2E..
So, no, I'm not making this stuff up.
--
FF
On May 5, 8:52 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:379a0946-6fbb-4b2d-a8cf-8389245658de@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
> > (that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
> > but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
> > a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
> > didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
> > glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
> > with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
> > either time.
>
> I think most people probably had not regreted electing him the first time,
> during the second election, he did win again. ;~)
>
>
>
> > In general, I vote for the man (or woman), or try to, but the JAFP
> > syndrome has become epidemic in the past two decades, right down to
> > the local level, where one of our most admired politicians is a guy
> > who rode Bush's coattails into the Republican Party, and who now votes
> > any wah Bush wants to go, six years later. He's a pity, but the people
> > who support him are pitiful.
>
> We simply have no comforting choices.
That is certainly true. None of the candidates gives me even a mildy
secure feeling, never mind the warm fuzzies. At the same time, McCain
is coming across as a confused old man who sees too much in military
solutions. His confusion worries me, because he's not much more than a
year older than I am.
On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <[email protected]>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >No.
>
> Got a cite, then?
>
I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
(with numerous references at the bottom)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
Oh and they also said he was gay.
You honestly never heard about this before?
--
FF
On May 5, 3:48 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:66f9dc86-478f-451d-ac06-f39beab097e7@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> > His confusion worries me, because he's not much more than a
> > year older than I am.
>
> We are eye to eye on this one Charlie. I am not so sure that the Viet Nam
> war did not have some adverse mental effect on McCain, even back in 2000 I
> had that feeling. ...
In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
--
FF
On May 4, 10:03 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> It was only after the annual Press Club meeting where all the world
> >> could see that indeed, no comments from Wright were taken out of
> >> context as suggested. No sound bites were isolated for political
> >> gain. No altering of recordings, overdubs took place, nor the famous
> >> dodge by politicians of "I misspoke". His vitriolic, racist spew was
> >> his own, and I will give him kudos for 1) saying what he meant, 2)
> >> meaning what he said, 3) not backing down in the face of harsh
> >> criticism, and 4) believing in what he said so thoroughly he was
> >> totally unrepentant. At least someone in the public eye has some
> >> balls.
>
> > I listed to parts 1 and 2 of a five part Youtube of his 'sermon' to
> > the National Press Club.
>
> > When asked to explain his statement regarding the attacks of September
> > 11, 2001, the "America's chickens had come home to roost." he said
> > he was quoting the Iraqi ambassador, a statement reminiscent of Pope
> > Benny's explanation for his disparaging comments about Islam. Like
> > the Pontiff before him, he did not explain WHY he chose that quote.
>
> > Do I need to listen to parts 3-5 to get to the controversial stuff?
>
> Given the attitude implied the above remark, I understand why you see no
> problem with Obama's San Francisco quote.
>
> For what it's worth:
> 1. The Iraqi ambassador denies having ever made such a remark. Even if this
> proves to be untrue on the part of the ambassador, the Wright use of the
> quote, the way it was used was in complete agreement with the statement, he
> was not disparaging, putting it down, or refuting it -- his comments were
> in accordance with one who agreed with that comment.
I suspect you are basically correct, his argument was that
American foreign policy helped create the mess that resulted
in the rise of al Queda and others.
While one might not agree with him, at least the notion
implies an understanding of the notion of causality as
opposed, say, to claiming that the attacks were the
result of America's tolerance of homosexuality.
> 2. That does not resolve the problems with Wright's other sermons, the ones
> talking about "rich whiiiite peeeeooople", the ones that accuse the US
> government of inventing AIDS to suppress the black population,
I've been looking for that one in particular, no luck so far.
> the GD
> America sermon.
Has America never done anything that is damnable in your
eyes? Are Americans served by pretending so?
> These are not just a few quotes cherry-picked or looped,
> these are Wright, in his own words, his own context, and on CD's that his
> congregation sells or has sold.
As Santayana noted, those who fail to learn from history
are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps if Americans were more
familiar with the Spanish American War we would have
been more skeptical back in 2002-3, might not have been
inclined to trust the press to check on or report simple
facts.
>
> Now, frankly, I don't care which candidate the Dems put forth, so I don't
> have a dog in this fight. I have taken a careful, studied, unbiased look
> at what Obama and his pastor of 20 years have said and been saying. The
> only rational conclusions one can draw are:
You've been following him for 20 years????
>
> 1) Either Obama is lying about his knowledge of Wright's positions and
> attitudes or he was tremendously ignorant and not paying attention while
> sitting in Wright's church for 20 years. Neither of those two conditions
> speaks well of Obama's ability to be the leader of the US and have to
> understand what our enemies and adversaries are planning and saying.
>
> 2) Obama himself is an elitist who holds even his own constituents in
> contempt.
False dichotomy.
> Whitewash his San Fran comments however you wish (as I said, I
> really don't care); the bottom line was that he was pointing to the blue
> collar workers in a very disparaging and condescending tone.
Only if you think that all blue collar workers are gun-nuts
or religious extremists.
--
FF
On May 5, 3:24=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> His confusion worries me, because he's not much more than a
> year older than I am.
THAT explains a few things........................
On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
> than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
> and keep votes.
Uh, yeah. JAFP. Just another....etc.
I have an absolutely creepy feeling about this election. I've disliked
both candidates before, but I don't recall disliking every single
pretender from day #1, and getting this far along wishing that Pat
Paulsen or Dick Gregory were still around...and not for their punch
lines. In '64, LJ made my skin crawl in just about the same manner as
this whole election does.
On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>
> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected].=
> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fre=
> >d the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> > <[email protected]>, F=
> >red
> >> > the
> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >> >> >No.
>
> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
> >> emphasis].
>
> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>
> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
Non Sequitor. As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
up".
Clearly I was not:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/e9cf1d604cc1dd63?dmode=source
and here are a few more:
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
You might not believe those people, that's your choice. I don't
believe Rush Limbaugh or moveon.org.
I would not say that a candidate has any _legal_ responsibility
for the actions of persons not on their payroll, but would say
that they have a moral responsibility to denounce slander against
their opponent, when asked about it. When Bush
was asked, he evaded the question, instead defending the legal
rights of the slanderers, something that was neither in doubt,
nor the topic of the question. Qui Tacet Consentit
Note that McCain publicly opposed his party's airing of an anti-
Obama commercial featuring the Rev Wright, before even he
was publicly asked about it. He didn't say they had no legal
right to do so, only that they should not do so.
I suppose you haven't heard about that either.
>
>
> >http://www.commondreams.org/views/022100-106.htm
> >=2E..
> >One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to
> >the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University,
> >where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after
> >the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain
> >=93chose to sire children without marriage,=94 among other
> >hallucinations....
>
> Again -- where is your cite that this was part of a "Bush smear campaign"?
>
My conclusion is that it was a quid pro quo for his appearance
as an invited speaker.
But you're right, I can't find a cite for the exact phrase
"Bush smear campaign", (excepting in reference to the
CBS story). There are numerous articles referring to
a smear campaign against McCain springing up after
he beat Bush in the New Hampshire Primary in 2000,
but none of them SAY Bush himself authored them.
here is one of several:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
And I've already cited an article attributing "push polls" to
Karl Rove, but that article didn't use the exact phrase
"bush smear campaign" either.
Regarding "Bush smear machine"
http://alexrosenleaf.blogspot.com/2006/11/mccain-promises-promises.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2005-08/msg01266.html
But of course, that's "machine" not " campaign"
So you can justify the statement that I made up the phrase
"Bush smear campaign" since I do seem to be the first
person to use those exact words.
>
>
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=3D1&ad...
> >..
> >> >slogin&adxnnlx=3D1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
>
> >> Refers to "a smear campaign." Again, no mention of Bush.
>
> >> Like I said -- got a cite, Fred, for your claim that it was a "Bush smear
> >> campaign"?
>
> >Ah, I see, a smear campaign by Bush supporters, would be
> >more precise.
>
> Closer to the mark, but still inaccurate.
>
> "Bush supporters" != "McCain opponents".
Well, yes. Until McCain dropped out, it was the case,
as you symbolically indicate, that pretty much all Bush
Supporter had to be oppose McCain. So?
I daresay that when a candidate (e.g. Bush) invites someone
(e.g. Burch) onstage to speak at his political rallies, stands
there while he lies about the opponent, and then shakes his
hand afterward, that person is a supporter of that candidate,
and what they say onstage is part of the campaign.
Oh, but you mean they didn't SAY Burch was a
Bush supporter. You got me there!
How about Ted Sampley, does this person SAY he was a Bush
Supporter?
http://truthteller998.vox.com/library/post/bush-endorses-mccain-gee-john-mccain-remember-the-year-2000.html
Do you think I'm making this up?
--
FF
On May 5, 2:54 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:1e11d1ac-fc62-45d5-8d3f-32751d588737@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 10:54 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> messagenews:d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > The alternative was different the second time around.
>
> >> If Bush were able to run again, I suspect that it would be the same this
> >> time around also. As bas as the administration is I don't see a better
> >> choice. I'm afraid that the next administration is going to be worse,
> >> regardless of who gets in.
>
> > Suppose you had a sore knee and a surgeon
> > said he could fix it for you. So you go in for
> > surgery and he botches the operation making
> > it worse. Then he operates again, and the result
> > is so bad the leg will need to be amputated. So
> > he operates a third time and amputates the
> > wrong leg.
>
> > Now it may well be that no doctor in the world
> > will be able to save your remaining leg, or restore
> > the lost one, but don;'t you think it might be a
> > good time to change surgeons anyhow?
>
> If no doctor in the world would be able to save my leg what would be the
> point of changing surgeons?
Well I dunno, maybe you could find one that wouldn't amputate
one of your arms.
>
> ...
>
> The alternatives want to give up on the defence of Iraq and raise taxes to
> help pay for more government programs and health care for the undeserving.
Iraq would be a lot easier to defend if we weren't defending it
from Iraqis.
--
FF
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b8daee8-b140-427a-bca8-4d2696dcbdec@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
>> than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
>> and keep votes.
>
> Uh, yeah. JAFP. Just another....etc.
>
> I have an absolutely creepy feeling about this election. I've disliked
> both candidates before, but I don't recall disliking every single
> pretender from day #1, and getting this far along wishing that Pat
> Paulsen or Dick Gregory were still around...and not for their punch
> lines. In '64, LJ made my skin crawl in just about the same manner as
> this whole election does.
>
Now I remember why Bush was reelected.
In article <8cb455fd-1864-4530-8537-980c31e8b7d2@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
> <[email protected].=
>> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Fre=
>> >d the
>> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
>> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> > <[email protected]>,
> F=
>> >red
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>> >> >> >No.
>>
>> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>>
>> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>>
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
>> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>>
>> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
>> >> emphasis].
>>
>> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>>
>> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
>
>Non Sequitor. As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
>up".
>
>Clearly I was not:
Not all of it, anyway. Just the part about Bush being responsible.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote
>
>> We simply have no comforting choices.
>
> All is want, and I mean ALL, is simply someone who will uphold the oath of
> office:
>
> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> execute the office of President of the United States,
> and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
> ... with a vengence, and NOTHING else!
Totally agree but that statement has flaws. Our politicians have learned to
circumvent and have conditioned us to not expect much out of them. They
have turned the political offices into their own "Welfare Institution". We
have been conditioned to understand that none of them have abilities much
past a grade schooler, so to the best of my ability does not stand for much
these days. This stands true regardless of which team that they play for,
republican or democrat.
Thank those that vote for a "party" regardless of who is running.
In article <d00971e8-3367-42cb-ab32-dea8811f77de@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <[email protected]>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>> >No.
>>
>> Got a cite, then?
>
>http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
>
What's that got to do with the 2000 "Bush smear campaign"?
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:379a0946-6fbb-4b2d-a8cf-8389245658de@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
> (that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
> but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
> a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
> didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
> glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
> with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
> either time.
I think most people probably had not regreted electing him the first time,
during the second election, he did win again. ;~)
>
> In general, I vote for the man (or woman), or try to, but the JAFP
> syndrome has become epidemic in the past two decades, right down to
> the local level, where one of our most admired politicians is a guy
> who rode Bush's coattails into the Republican Party, and who now votes
> any wah Bush wants to go, six years later. He's a pity, but the people
> who support him are pitiful.
We simply have no comforting choices.
In article <d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 5, 8:52 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:379a0946-6fbb-4b2d-a8cf-8389245658de@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
>> > (that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
>> > but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
>> > a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
>> > didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
>> > glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
>> > with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
>> > either time.
>>
>> I think most people probably had not regreted electing him the first time,
>> during the second election, he did win again. ;~)
>
>The alternative was different the second time around.
>
Yeah, it was even worse than the first time...
In article <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc03d3@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected].=
>com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fre=
>d the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
>> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> > <[email protected]>, F=
>red
>> > the
>> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>> >> >No.
>>
>> >> Got a cite, then?
>>
>> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
>> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>>
>> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
>> emphasis].
>
>Uh, who was McCain running against?
So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views/022100-106.htm
>=2E..
>One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to
>the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University,
>where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after
>the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain
>=93chose to sire children without marriage,=94 among other
>hallucinations....
Again -- where is your cite that this was part of a "Bush smear campaign"?
>>
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=3D1&adxn..=
>..
>> >slogin&adxnnlx=3D1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
>>
>> Refers to "a smear campaign." Again, no mention of Bush.
>>
>> Like I said -- got a cite, Fred, for your claim that it was a "Bush smear
>> campaign"?
>
>Ah, I see, a smear campaign by Bush supporters, would be
>more precise.
Closer to the mark, but still inaccurate.
"Bush supporters" != "McCain opponents".
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It was only after the annual Press Club meeting where all the world
>> could see that indeed, no comments from Wright were taken out of
>> context as suggested. No sound bites were isolated for political
>> gain. No altering of recordings, overdubs took place, nor the famous
>> dodge by politicians of "I misspoke". His vitriolic, racist spew was
>> his own, and I will give him kudos for 1) saying what he meant, 2)
>> meaning what he said, 3) not backing down in the face of harsh
>> criticism, and 4) believing in what he said so thoroughly he was
>> totally unrepentant. At least someone in the public eye has some
>> balls.
>>
>
> I listed to parts 1 and 2 of a five part Youtube of his 'sermon' to
> the
> National Press Club.
>
> When asked to explain his statement regarding teh attacks of September
> 11, 2001, the "America's chickens had come home to roost." he said
> he was quoting the Iraqi ambassador, a statement reminiscent of Pope
> Benny's explanation for his disparaging comments about Islam. Like
> the Pontiff before him, he did not explain WHY he chose that quote.
>
> Do I need to listen to parts 3-5 to get to the controversial stuff?
>
Given the attitude implied the above remark, I understand why you see no
problem with Obama's San Francisco quote.
For what it's worth:
1. The Iraqi ambassador denies having ever made such a remark. Even if this
proves to be untrue on the part of the ambassador, the Wright use of the
quote, the way it was used was in complete agreement with the statement, he
was not disparaging, putting it down, or refuting it -- his comments were
in accordance with one who agreed with that comment.
2. That does not resolve the problems with Wright's other sermons, the ones
talking about "rich whiiiite peeeeooople", the ones that accuse the US
government of inventing AIDS to suppress the black population, the GD
America sermon. These are not just a few quotes cherry-picked or looped,
these are Wright, in his own words, his own context, and on CD's that his
congregation sells or has sold.
Now, frankly, I don't care which candidate the Dems put forth, so I don't
have a dog in this fight. I have taken a careful, studied, unbiased look
at what Obama and his pastor of 20 years have said and been saying. The
only rational conclusions one can draw are:
1) Either Obama is lying about his knowledge of Wright's positions and
attitudes or he was tremendously ignorant and not paying attention while
sitting in Wright's church for 20 years. Neither of those two conditions
speaks well of Obama's ability to be the leader of the US and have to
understand what our enemies and adversaries are planning and saying.
2) Obama himself is an elitist who holds even his own constituents in
contempt. Whitewash his San Fran comments however you wish (as I said, I
really don't care); the bottom line was that he was pointing to the blue
collar workers in a very disparaging and condescending tone.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Leon wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8b8daee8-b140-427a-bca8-4d2696dcbdec@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
>>> than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
>>> and keep votes.
>>
>> Uh, yeah. JAFP. Just another....etc.
>>
>> I have an absolutely creepy feeling about this election. I've disliked
>> both candidates before, but I don't recall disliking every single
>> pretender from day #1, and getting this far along wishing that Pat
>> Paulsen or Dick Gregory were still around...and not for their punch
>> lines. In '64, LJ made my skin crawl in just about the same manner as
>> this whole election does.
>>
>
> Now I remember why Bush was reelected.
Yep. And the choices in this election aren't even close to *that* good.
I take that back, JFK dems should be pretty happy with John McCain
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 11, 9:11 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <428574f0-7c68-44bc-a635-d5216a9e7...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I never said it was his idea, or his plan.
>>
>> "... part of the Bush smear campaign". Your words. Not mine.
>
>Yep. I never believed for a minute that he was running his
>own campaign. Few politicians do.
>
So at the same time, he's responsible for it, and yet not responsible.
You live on a strange planet.
In article <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befae93@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 6, 3:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <[email protected]>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>
>No.
>
Got a cite, then?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
"Leon" wrote
> We simply have no comforting choices.
All is want, and I mean ALL, is simply someone who will uphold the oath of
office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."
... with a vengence, and NOTHING else!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Uh, defense of Iraq? Yeah, sure Leon. And raise taxes to pay for what?
> Maybe this ill-advised war that has just about bankrupted the country?
Yeah, the defense of Iraq. Do you presume that Iraq would simply become a
nice and less dangerous place to live if we pulled out next year?
Maybe whe should not have gone in in the first place but here we are.
>
> You're not really clear about your wishes as a voter, though. Are you
> saying you'd like Shitbird Bush for a third term?
No, not at all. I am simply stating that I trust him more than either of
the current 3 candidates. Just because he has not done so well does not
mean that his replacements will not do worse. Most of the time the
candidates promise you things that you want to hear and have no intention on
following through and or any possible way to accomplish the promises. With
the 3 candidates we have now, I hope they have no intention or any possible
way of accomplishing what they have in store for us.
On May 4, 9:20 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> >Hagee makes rev Wright look like a saint. Why is he getting a free ride on
> >this?
>
> Probably because he's not McCain's pastor, and McCain doesn't attend his
> church.
>
> Ya think?
Try to be fair to the Garageman. After all, Obama only faithfully
attended Wright's church, the church of his self proclaimed spiritual
leader (at least until last week) for a short 20 years. After all
Obama may not have been that familiar with Wright; but he respected
the man enough to have Wright perform his marriage ceremony and
baptize both his kids.
But it was only 20 years of long, dedicated, ardent attendance to
Wright's church, listening to him every Sunday that caused Obama to
claim that he could no more disown Wright than he could his own
grandmother, the very one that raised him. Now that's tight. And to
defend Wright after hearing that he said that "the white man" gave
"the black man" aids as a means to control him, now that's even
tighter. It was a taped statement; in or out of context it stands on
its own merits.
It was only after the annual Press Club meeting where all the world
could see that indeed, no comments from Wright were taken out of
context as suggested. No sound bites were isolated for political
gain. No altering of recordings, overdubs took place, nor the famous
dodge by politicians of "I misspoke". His vitriolic, racist spew was
his own, and I will give him kudos for 1) saying what he meant, 2)
meaning what he said, 3) not backing down in the face of harsh
criticism, and 4) believing in what he said so thoroughly he was
totally unrepentant. At least someone in the public eye has some
balls.
Sadly, the familial bonds were indeed broken (perhaps there was some
misspeakin' goin' on) when it began to cost polling points. Obama's
twenty years of respect, devotion and admiration went to hell when the
almighty polling numbers were released. But twenty years of close
association...
We have a saying in construction: "It's had to shovel shit and not
get any on you".
As far as Hagee and McCain goes, I am not aware of any pronouncements
of familial bonding. I live in San Antonio where Hagee has his
headquarters, and I believe that if JM was in town to go to church
there Hagee would have made it a press event. He does when anyone
else does. I can assure you there is no 20 year family-close
relationship with McCain and Hagee as the local liberal press would
have gladly and loudly pasted them both with a branding of some neo-
right wing-Christian-Nazi brush.
Hagee is not well liked here by many and regarded by locals with great
suspicion. Don't get me wrong, he does a lot of good, but in the cold
light of day it seems he is more of an empire builder than anything
else.
But more to point, I don't believe that McCain has had such a long,
intimate personal history with Hagee as Obama has had with Wright.
Obviously, both Wright and Hagee have their own agendas. I think
Obama's foul up was when he was confronted with Wright's comments, he
tried to sell them back to us our lack of understanding of the black
man's plight. Obama tried to make US feel unelightened, and to make
us feel ashamed of ourselves for not having the understanding or
compassion to be able to take Wright's comments to heart. It was a
great sales pitch, (can that guy deliver a speach?) but as you can see
now (last week), he realizes it didn't work as he could no longer
cover for his old friend.
So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
and keep votes.
Just my 0.02.
Robert
On May 4, 3:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> ...
>
> It was only after the annual Press Club meeting where all the world
> could see that indeed, no comments from Wright were taken out of
> context as suggested. No sound bites were isolated for political
> gain. No altering of recordings, overdubs took place, nor the famous
> dodge by politicians of "I misspoke". His vitriolic, racist spew was
> his own, and I will give him kudos for 1) saying what he meant, 2)
> meaning what he said, 3) not backing down in the face of harsh
> criticism, and 4) believing in what he said so thoroughly he was
> totally unrepentant. At least someone in the public eye has some
> balls.
>
I listed to parts 1 and 2 of a five part Youtube of his 'sermon' to
the
National Press Club.
When asked to explain his statement regarding teh attacks of September
11, 2001, the "America's chickens had come home to roost." he said
he was quoting the Iraqi ambassador, a statement reminiscent of Pope
Benny's explanation for his disparaging comments about Islam. Like
the Pontiff before him, he did not explain WHY he chose that quote.
Do I need to listen to parts 3-5 to get to the controversial stuff?
--
FF
On May 6, 12:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> > along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> > claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> Yeah I had my doubts before Bush was running. McCain has always seemed to
> color out side the lines.
We need someone who colors outside the lines, but I'd like to at least
think that the someone knew why there were lines there.
On May 6, 3:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
No.
--
FF
On May 4, 5:09 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> That, and Obama's own little gaffe in San Fran where he basically insulted
> the Democrat union base as a bunch of uncultured, gun-toting, sheep pretty
> much took the bloom off the Obama rose to all but the most loyal followers
> of the Obmamessiah. ...
>
Of course it's cleat to anyone with two brain cells to rub together
that
Obama's comment about why _some_ people are attracted to fringe
beliefs and activities applied only to those who had, in fact,
joined
those fringe groups.
--
FF
On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <[email protected]>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >No.
>
> Got a cite, then?
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
--
FF
On May 5, 8:52 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:379a0946-6fbb-4b2d-a8cf-8389245658de@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
> > (that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
> > but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
> > a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
> > didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
> > glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
> > with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
> > either time.
>
> I think most people probably had not regreted electing him the first time,
> during the second election, he did win again. ;~)
The alternative was different the second time around.
--
FF
On May 6, 8:26=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 6, 6:02 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:78=
[email protected]...
>
> > > > In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> > > > along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> > > > claiming =A0she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> > > Yeah I had my doubts before Bush was running.
> > > McCain has always seemed to
> > > color out side the lines.
>
> > We need someone who colors outside the lines, but I'd like to at least
> > think that the someone knew why there were lines there.
>
> Back in 2000 McCain was unable to wrest the Republicans
> away from the religo-fascists. =A0So, not being able to beat
> them, he's joined them, selling his soul to the devil as it
> were. =A0I doubt that it has really helped him much though.
> Falwell might have endorsed him if he hadn't died first,
> and I doubt that Robertson will.
>
> --
>
> FF
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/amccainp5aq8.jpg
On May 5, 2:54 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:1e11d1ac-fc62-45d5-8d3f-32751d588737@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 10:54 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> messagenews:d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > The alternative was different the second time around.
>
> >> If Bush were able to run again, I suspect that it would be the same this
> >> time around also. As bas as the administration is I don't see a better
> >> choice. I'm afraid that the next administration is going to be worse,
> >> regardless of who gets in.
>
> > Suppose you had a sore knee and a surgeon
> > said he could fix it for you. So you go in for
> > surgery and he botches the operation making
> > it worse. Then he operates again, and the result
> > is so bad the leg will need to be amputated. So
> > he operates a third time and amputates the
> > wrong leg.
>
> > Now it may well be that no doctor in the world
> > will be able to save your remaining leg, or restore
> > the lost one, but don;'t you think it might be a
> > good time to change surgeons anyhow?
>
> If no doctor in the world would be able to save my leg what would be the
> point of changing surgeons?
>
> I would be looking for a surgeon that could save my leg or at the very least
> not change surgeons until I had confidence in one. None of the candidates
> have my confidence. The third option is to sit with what you got, at least
> you know where you stand.
>
> The alternatives want to give up on the defence of Iraq and raise taxes to
> help pay for more government programs and health care for the undeserving.
>
> I am not one to often go with the plilosophy of cutting off my nose to spite
> my face. Unfortunately the country did just that when electing Carter.
Uh, defense of Iraq? Yeah, sure Leon. And raise taxes to pay for what?
Maybe this ill-advised war that has just about bankrupted the country?
You're not really clear about your wishes as a voter, though. Are you
saying you'd like Shitbird Bush for a third term?
On May 11, 9:11 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <428574f0-7c68-44bc-a635-d5216a9e7...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 10, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <8cb455fd-1864-4530-8537-980c31e8b...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> > <[email protected].=
> >> >> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Fre=
> >> >> >d the
> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> >> >> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article
>
> > <[email protected]>,
> >> > F=
> >> >> >red
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> >> >> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> >> >> >> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>
> >> >> >> >> >No.
>
> >> >> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>
> >> >> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
> >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
> >> >> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>
> >> >> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..."
> > [my
> >> >> >> emphasis].
>
> >> >> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>
> >> >> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
>
> >> >Non Sequitor. As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
> >> >up".
>
> >> >Clearly I was not:
> >> ...
> >> I would not say that a candidate has any _legal_ responsibility
> >> for the actions of persons not on their payroll, but would say
> >> that they have a moral responsibility to denounce slander against
> >> their opponent, when asked about it. When Bush
> >> was asked, he evaded the question, instead defending the legal
> >> rights of the slanderers, something that was neither in doubt,
> >> nor the topic of the question. Qui Tacet Consentit
>
> >> ...
> >> Not all of it, anyway. Just the part about Bush being responsible.
>
> >I never said it was his idea, or his plan.
>
> "... part of the Bush smear campaign". Your words. Not mine.
Yep. I never believed for a minute that he was running his
own campaign. Few politicians do.
--
FF
On May 6, 6:02 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:42 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > > In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> > > along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> > > claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>
> > Yeah I had my doubts before Bush was running.
> > McCain has always seemed to
> > color out side the lines.
>
> We need someone who colors outside the lines, but I'd like to at least
> think that the someone knew why there were lines there.
Back in 2000 McCain was unable to wrest the Republicans
away from the religo-fascists. So, not being able to beat
them, he's joined them, selling his soul to the devil as it
were. I doubt that it has really helped him much though.
Falwell might have endorsed him if he hadn't died first,
and I doubt that Robertson will.
--
FF
On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:06:23 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
>execute the office of President of the United States,
>and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
>and defend the Constitution of the United States."
>
>... with a vengence, and NOTHING else!
Yeah but at bush lite's second inaugural everything after, " ...to the
best of my ability...", got drowned out by laughter.
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d873220c-b010-48ab-a275-e9b98c137627@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:52 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:379a0946-6fbb-4b2d-a8cf-8389245658de@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On May 4, 8:29 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I sure don't. I voted for Nixon against Kennedy, in my first election
>> > (that's assuming my absentee ballot got counted), voted for Goldwater,
>> > but have voted mostly Democratic since. Bush looked, and sounded, like
>> > a far less intelligent version of his father at the outset, so I
>> > didn't vote for him. By his second time around, his lacks were
>> > glaringly obvious, but too many people were riding his hobby horse
>> > with him and he got back in. Now, most people regret his being elected
>> > either time.
>>
>> I think most people probably had not regreted electing him the first
>> time,
>> during the second election, he did win again. ;~)
>
> The alternative was different the second time around.
If Bush were able to run again, I suspect that it would be the same this
time around also. As bas as the administration is I don't see a better
choice. I'm afraid that the next administration is going to be worse,
regardless of who gets in.
Yup, I think that Ron Paul is getting a free ride too. How about his holy
man?
cm
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hagee makes rev Wright look like a saint. Why is he getting a free ride
> on this? All we hear about is rev Wright's affiliation with Obama.
>
> Watch this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddr5udwe6cs
>
> or/and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_oe2I1uwDA
>
>
[email protected] wrote:
... snip
>
> Obviously, both Wright and Hagee have their own agendas. I think
> Obama's foul up was when he was confronted with Wright's comments, he
> tried to sell them back to us our lack of understanding of the black
> man's plight. Obama tried to make US feel unelightened, and to make
> us feel ashamed of ourselves for not having the understanding or
> compassion to be able to take Wright's comments to heart. It was a
> great sales pitch, (can that guy deliver a speach?) but as you can see
> now (last week), he realizes it didn't work as he could no longer
> cover for his old friend.
That, and Obama's own little gaffe in San Fran where he basically insulted
the Democrat union base as a bunch of uncultured, gun-toting, sheep pretty
much took the bloom off the Obama rose to all but the most loyal followers
of the Obmamessiah. So, when Rev Wright went off the deep end and still
mired in his own words, he pretty much was left with no choice but to throw
Wright under the bus.
>
> So now that great sales pitch failed, he looks to many to be no more
> than a weak-kneed, shifty hypocrite that will do what it takes to get
> and keep votes.
>
> Just my 0.02.
>
> Robert
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <76d0ffc9-19c2-4a1e-818a-26ab87791c40@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <[email protected]>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>> >No.
>>
>> Got a cite, then?
>>
>
>I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
>(with numerous references at the bottom)
Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..." [my
emphasis].
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=
>slogin&adxnnlx=1210135492-V8fB14f/I/UPeefA0zDB5g
Refers to "a smear campaign." Again, no mention of Bush.
Like I said -- got a cite, Fred, for your claim that it was a "Bush smear
campaign"?
I didn't think so. Do you *ever* read your "cites" before you post them?
>Oh and they also said he was gay.
>
>You honestly never heard about this before?
Nope, never did.
In article <428574f0-7c68-44bc-a635-d5216a9e7e9f@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 10, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <8cb455fd-1864-4530-8537-980c31e8b...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 10, 11:34 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <32dc3079-6b0b-4b03-ac3a-9ec4b1bc0...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >On May 9, 12:05 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> > <[email protected].=
>> >> >com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On May 7, 1:01 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> > <ba14edc1-a24a-46e8-8321-02569befa...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Fre=
>> >> >d the
>> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 6, 3:41 pm,
>> >> >> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> >> >
> <[email protected]>,
>> > F=
>> >> >red
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
>> >> >> >> >> >along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
>> >> >> >> >> >claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny, Fred. You just make that up?
>>
>> >> >> >> >No.
>>
>> >> >> >> Got a cite, then?
>>
>> >> >> >I apologize, she's from Bangladesh.
>>
>> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
>> >> >> >(with numerous references at the bottom)
>>
>> >> >> Which says "... an UNIDENTIFIED PARTY began a ... smear campaign ..."
> [my
>> >> >> emphasis].
>>
>> >> >Uh, who was McCain running against?
>>
>> >> So his opponent is necessarily responsible for any attacks made on him?
>>
>> >Non Sequitor. As you will recall, you asked if I was "making this
>> >up".
>>
>> >Clearly I was not:
>> ...
>> I would not say that a candidate has any _legal_ responsibility
>> for the actions of persons not on their payroll, but would say
>> that they have a moral responsibility to denounce slander against
>> their opponent, when asked about it. When Bush
>> was asked, he evaded the question, instead defending the legal
>> rights of the slanderers, something that was neither in doubt,
>> nor the topic of the question. Qui Tacet Consentit
>>
>> ...
>> Not all of it, anyway. Just the part about Bush being responsible.
>
>I never said it was his idea, or his plan.
"... part of the Bush smear campaign". Your words. Not mine.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In 2000 that was part of the Bush smear campaign,
> along with using photos of him with his adopted daughter,
> claiming she was his biracial out-of-wedlock kid.
Yeah I had my doubts before Bush was running. McCain has always seemed to
color out side the lines.
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:06:23 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
> >execute the office of President of the United States,
> >and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> >and defend the Constitution of the United States."
> >
> >... with a vengence, and NOTHING else!
>
>
> Yeah but at bush lite's second inaugural everything after, " ...to the
> best of my ability...", got drowned out by laughter.
Hell, he didn't get past the "faithfully" part.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)