OT Political

In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Hey, Todd, isn't it about time to KF "Bay Area Jeff"?
>
>Is he in the new troll filter? ;-)

No, not yet. He's easy enough to remove with a simple killfile entry, so I
haven't bothered.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ted Kennedy
>
> I like Ted. I think, in the end, Senator Kennedy will be recognized for
> his dedication and service. I once heard a commentary that, though he
> never got to presidental office, he's accomplished far more for the
> American people than many realize and far more than he could have had he
> achieved the oval office.

One word comes to mind when I think of ol' Ted. Chappaquiddick. I suspect
far more people remember Mary Jo Kopechne's name than the name of any
legislation passed by the senior senator from Massachusetts.

> <OBWW> I also liked Bob Vila a little better than Steve and much more
> than... Kevin is it? Bob was the original. He broke the ground and made
> it easier for all others to follow.
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yea! Clinton (and Mr. Clinton) are out of office!
> Frank
>

Yeah? Maybe for you. Here in NY we're still stuck with the Clinton with
the big balls - Hillary.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]




> Saudade wrote:
>
> > tony1158 wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?"
> > > If the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for
> > > Kerry.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > <snip>
> >
> > The issues are FAR more complex than this simplistic representation.
> > However, since you phrase it this way my answer is yes, I'm way better
off
> > today.
>

In article <H9Yad.310223$%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?" If
> the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for Kerry.
>
Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
it should be.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

> > Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
> > it should be.

> Since I get the distinct impression Bush feels he is (or at least wants
> to be) the president of the world, the question becomes, "is the world
> better off than 4 years ago?"
>
> I believe that's the question former ambassadors, generals, etc. are
> using to determine their endorsements. They recognize and value the
> standing the US must maintain in world relations. One can't act the
> bully in the neighborhood and then be able to count on his neighbors for
> support and aid when he needs it.

50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists

WASHINGTON, Sept 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today 50 former high- level
diplomats, generals and admirals declared President Bush has made America
less safe and called for his ouster.

Members of the group are available for interview, including in Miami, where
several are giving public presentations this week in the run up to the
Presidential Debate on Thursday. Several are fluent in Spanish.

The group released a public statement that says President Bush has
squandered American lives and should not be trusted.

"The claim that we are safer is the biggest lie of this campaign season,"
states the group. "Now we are bogged down there in a quagmire with no
solution in sight."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37086

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:57:30 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
>> > it should be.
>
>> Since I get the distinct impression Bush feels he is (or at least wants
>> to be) the president of the world, the question becomes, "is the world
>> better off than 4 years ago?"
>>
>> I believe that's the question former ambassadors, generals, etc. are
>> using to determine their endorsements. They recognize and value the
>> standing the US must maintain in world relations. One can't act the
>> bully in the neighborhood and then be able to count on his neighbors for
>> support and aid when he needs it.
>
> 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
> Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today 50 former high- level
> diplomats, generals and admirals declared President Bush has made America
> less safe and called for his ouster.
>
> Members of the group are available for interview, including in Miami, where
> several are giving public presentations this week in the run up to the
> Presidential Debate on Thursday. Several are fluent in Spanish.
>
> The group released a public statement that says President Bush has
> squandered American lives and should not be trusted.
>
> "The claim that we are safer is the biggest lie of this campaign season,"
> states the group. "Now we are bogged down there in a quagmire with no
> solution in sight."
>
> http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37086
>
>

"Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most
LIBERAL
> Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes
don't
> change.

Woah, you're misinformed!

I'll reply to one point, the one above. Here's text copied and pasted
directly from the publication that Bush/Cheney cited when they wrongly
labeled Kerry as the most liberal senator:


"It didn't take long after the ratings were published in February for
Republicans and talking heads to start using Kerry's rating as a weapon
against him. Sometimes, the people citing the ratings would note that Kerry
was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2003. More often, the sound bite
would be that National Journal had ranked Kerry as "the most liberal
senator," without any reference to 2003. Occasionally, Republicans would
assert that Kerry had been ranked the most liberal senator on the basis of
his entire Senate career.

"But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most liberal
senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming in
below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
National Journal analysis published in March.

"John Edwards, who was ranked the fourth-most-liberal senator in 2003 (and
who also missed many votes that year), is the 27th-most-liberal senator
based on votes over his career."

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most
> > LIBERAL
> > > Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes
> > don't
> > > change.
> >
> > Woah, you're misinformed!
> >
> > "But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most
> liberal
> > senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming
> in
> > below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
> > California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
> > National Journal analysis published in March.
> >
>
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm
>
> Whew! I sure am relieved that Kerry is only the *11th* most liberal
> senator. Nipping on the heels of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy isn't
> exactly putting you on the conservative side of the Democratic party. Any
> way you slice it, the guy's a BIG TIME liberal. Now, being a BIG TIME
> liberal isn't a crime, so why not embrace it instead of pretending you're
> some kind of centrist?

How many Democratic senators are there Todd? You know there are only 100
senators, right? And that less than half of them are Democrats, right?
He's not even in the most liberal 20% of Democrats. That's a far cry from
"most liberal," and it reveals the unethical deliberate misinformation
tactics of Cheney and Bush.

>OK, he's not the "most liberal". How does "one
> of the most liberal" work?

Now can you admit that Cheney/Bush have deliberately mischaracterized Kerry
and outright lied when they said he was the single most liberal senator and
to the left of Kennedy?

> > >OK, he's not the "most liberal". How does "one
> > > of the most liberal" work?

> > Now can you admit that Cheney/Bush have deliberately mischaracterized
> > Kerry and outright lied when they said he was the single most liberal
senator
> > and to the left of Kennedy?

> According to the ratings, in 2003, he was the most liberal. I notice that
> the publication has been in full backpedal mode explaining why that was,
but
> that was what they reported, so no, it wasn't a lie. If you want to
> complain that it's "selective", you have a point, but there's a lot of
that
> going around on both sides. Frankly, I don't care if he's the single most
> liberal over his entire career or just 95% as liberal as the top guy.
> Either way, he's waaaaaay left on the political spectrum.

Cheney said he was the most liberal over the last 20 years. Cheney said he
was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Cheney said these were facts reported in
the National Journal.

Cheney lied.

He knowingly lied.

He knew full well that Kerry was not the most liberal over 20 years. He
knew the National Review had just mentioned Kerry's record in 2003 and that
record was very misleading. Cheney certainly knew that Kerry has never been
considered more liberal than Ted Kennedy by anyone with any knowledge.

Cheney lied.

Bush lied in the debate last night when he said Ted Kennedy was the
conservative senator from Massachusetts.

Now you are trying to defend and perpetuate the lies.

Jeff Harper

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:30:06 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, tm <[email protected]> wrote:
>>But Ted Kennedy and GW Bush have a lot in common, they are both
>>drunken fuckups from powerful political families who have
>>unsuccessfully run for president.
>
> What have you been smoking? GWB has run for President only once, and obviously
> was successful.

Cue "he lost popular vote and I don't understand the electoral college" whine,
or "maybe the 17th rererererecount might have showed Gore on top but they only
did 16 rerererererecounts" whine. Even odds as to which; any guesses?

Dave Hinz

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:36:03 +0900, tm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Cue "he lost popular vote and I don't understand the electoral college"
>> whine,
>> or "maybe the 17th rererererecount might have showed Gore on top but they
>> only
>> did 16 rerererererecounts" whine. Even odds as to which; any guesses?

> Humourless lot, ain't you?

Naah, it's just that that one keeps coming up by people who can't get over
the _last_ election, and I'm not looking forward to the same people whining
for years over _this_ election.

Yea! Clinton (and Mr. Clinton) are out of office!
Frank

Saudade wrote:

> tony1158 wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?"
> > If the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for
> > Kerry.
> >
> > Tony
> <snip>
>
> The issues are FAR more complex than this simplistic representation.
> However, since you phrase it this way my answer is yes, I'm way better off
> today.

Yes,
Terrorists now live in fear, before they could hit and run and know they
might get a cruise missile shot at them in retaliation and it would be all
done for.
We have a President that has backbone and stands for what he believes, not
the sway of voter polls.

On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most LIBERAL
Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes don't
change. He didn't receive an honorable discharge from the Military until it
was initiated in Clintons last year in office. Hmm, could there be some back
scratching here. He hasn't signed the form to open his military records.
The only reason to do that is you have something to hide, hence no timely
honarable discharge.. If the military had any backbone they would have
court-martialed him for aiding the enemy as a commander in the US military he
violated his oath when he testified before congress. He says he's intouch
with the middle class, no he's an elitist that told the St. Louis audience
nobody made $200K he could tell by looking, has his nails manicured (gee's
that real middle class), has a history of wanting more government involvement
in our daily lives.

This choice boils down to several simple ideologies:
Bush
Tax people less and let them decide on how to spend their own money
Let Christians live with their beliefs, not be told when and where they can
express their beliefs
Economic growth is based on a secure nation. Think of what would happen if
following 9-11 there had been another one in 6 months. We would have been in
a depression regardless of who was president.
Common sense enviornmental policy, we are a fossil fuel based economy, no
new technology has proven to be less cost effective we should be beefing up
US based oil production and drilling in Anwar, building some refineries and
pushing hydrogen technology.
Job growth is based on sound economic principles, not economic
protectionism. Time forces jobs to change, how many jobs were the around
home computers 50 years ago, zero they didn't exist. How many blacksmiths
and carriage builders do we need today verses a 100 years ago, virtually
none.
Free enterprise works.
A person should be able to invest a small amout of the money they would
otherwise pay into social security, so they can be better off financially
when the retire.

Kerry,
Tax to supply the government money to control our lives.
Give preference not equality to athiests
Economic growth is based on government growth.
Enviornmental policy is - to hell with the economy as long as it saves the
purple striped coachroach from the endangered spieces list. Add 50 cents a
gallon to gasoline so we use less.
Job growth is via protectionism. i.e. prevent outsourcing, and have US
consomers pay higher costs for goods and services.
Wants to keep the elites seperated from the working class via depending on
the government instead of themselves.

Folks the left has lied to you for years. They say "trust the government it
will take care of you". Example social security, medicare, medicade,
unemployment insurance, prescription drugs, OSHA, public schools, school
lunch programs, agricultural price support..... Guess who pays, you the
taxpayer. Wonder why its tough to compete with foreign labor, they don't
have those costs to support! The left says big business is all corrupt and
it's your enemy, hmm they provide jobs, benifits, community involvement,
investment opportunities for people to make money, yea there really bad
alright.



tony1158 wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?" If
> the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for Kerry.
>
> Tony
>
> www.votepair.org

I'm glad I moved to NC, I don't have to put up with her!
Frank

Mike Marlow wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Yea! Clinton (and Mr. Clinton) are out of office!
> > Frank
> >
>
> Yeah? Maybe for you. Here in NY we're still stuck with the Clinton with
> the big balls - Hillary.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
> > Saudade wrote:
> >
> > > tony1158 wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?"
> > > > If the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for
> > > > Kerry.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > The issues are FAR more complex than this simplistic representation.
> > > However, since you phrase it this way my answer is yes, I'm way better
> off
> > > today.
> >

BRAVO!

Phil wrote:

> Yes,
> Terrorists now live in fear, before they could hit and run and know they
> might get a cruise missile shot at them in retaliation and it would be all
> done for.
> We have a President that has backbone and stands for what he believes, not
> the sway of voter polls.
>
> On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most LIBERAL
> Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes don't
> change. He didn't receive an honorable discharge from the Military until it
> was initiated in Clintons last year in office. Hmm, could there be some back
> scratching here. He hasn't signed the form to open his military records.
> The only reason to do that is you have something to hide, hence no timely
> honarable discharge.. If the military had any backbone they would have
> court-martialed him for aiding the enemy as a commander in the US military he
> violated his oath when he testified before congress. He says he's intouch
> with the middle class, no he's an elitist that told the St. Louis audience
> nobody made $200K he could tell by looking, has his nails manicured (gee's
> that real middle class), has a history of wanting more government involvement
> in our daily lives.
>
> This choice boils down to several simple ideologies:
> Bush
> Tax people less and let them decide on how to spend their own money
> Let Christians live with their beliefs, not be told when and where they can
> express their beliefs
> Economic growth is based on a secure nation. Think of what would happen if
> following 9-11 there had been another one in 6 months. We would have been in
> a depression regardless of who was president.
> Common sense enviornmental policy, we are a fossil fuel based economy, no
> new technology has proven to be less cost effective we should be beefing up
> US based oil production and drilling in Anwar, building some refineries and
> pushing hydrogen technology.
> Job growth is based on sound economic principles, not economic
> protectionism. Time forces jobs to change, how many jobs were the around
> home computers 50 years ago, zero they didn't exist. How many blacksmiths
> and carriage builders do we need today verses a 100 years ago, virtually
> none.
> Free enterprise works.
> A person should be able to invest a small amout of the money they would
> otherwise pay into social security, so they can be better off financially
> when the retire.
>
> Kerry,
> Tax to supply the government money to control our lives.
> Give preference not equality to athiests
> Economic growth is based on government growth.
> Enviornmental policy is - to hell with the economy as long as it saves the
> purple striped coachroach from the endangered spieces list. Add 50 cents a
> gallon to gasoline so we use less.
> Job growth is via protectionism. i.e. prevent outsourcing, and have US
> consomers pay higher costs for goods and services.
> Wants to keep the elites seperated from the working class via depending on
> the government instead of themselves.
>
> Folks the left has lied to you for years. They say "trust the government it
> will take care of you". Example social security, medicare, medicade,
> unemployment insurance, prescription drugs, OSHA, public schools, school
> lunch programs, agricultural price support..... Guess who pays, you the
> taxpayer. Wonder why its tough to compete with foreign labor, they don't
> have those costs to support! The left says big business is all corrupt and
> it's your enemy, hmm they provide jobs, benifits, community involvement,
> investment opportunities for people to make money, yea there really bad
> alright.
>
> tony1158 wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?" If
> > the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for Kerry.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > www.votepair.org

Uninformed, yea right, look at the results of campaign finace reform, Clinton's free
immunization program, the left's affordable healthcare is a fundamental right,
welfare... Yep we're all payin for those people that are uniformed and don't
understand economics.


Jeff Harper wrote:

> "Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most
> LIBERAL
> > Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes
> don't
> > change.
>
> Woah, you're misinformed!
>
> I'll reply to one point, the one above. Here's text copied and pasted
> directly from the publication that Bush/Cheney cited when they wrongly
> labeled Kerry as the most liberal senator:
>
> "It didn't take long after the ratings were published in February for
> Republicans and talking heads to start using Kerry's rating as a weapon
> against him. Sometimes, the people citing the ratings would note that Kerry
> was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2003. More often, the sound bite
> would be that National Journal had ranked Kerry as "the most liberal
> senator," without any reference to 2003. Occasionally, Republicans would
> assert that Kerry had been ranked the most liberal senator on the basis of
> his entire Senate career.
>
> "But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most liberal
> senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming in
> below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
> California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
> National Journal analysis published in March.
>
> "John Edwards, who was ranked the fourth-most-liberal senator in 2003 (and
> who also missed many votes that year), is the 27th-most-liberal senator
> based on votes over his career."
>
> http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

WoodMangler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> tony1158 did say:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?" If
> > the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for Kerry.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > www.votepair.org
>
> What say we go to votepair.org and start a woodworking thread...

DO NOT FALL FOR THIS!!!

READ THIS WEB PAGE:

http://www.wspd.com/bobf2.html

You will clearly see:

From News Radio 1370: http://www.wspd.com/bobf2.html

1. Set up a few bogus email accounts on Yahoo or Hotmail. Make up
names if you'd like.
2. Go to www.VotePair.org .
3. Select a swing state such as Florida or Pennsylvania where Nader is
on the ballot.
4. Select "Nader" as your first choice for President.
5. Enter your name and email address so they can pair you with a Kerry
supporter in a "safe state."
7. Confirm your agreement to vote for Kerry in your swing state via
the email they send to your account while he agrees to vote for Nader
in his safe state.
8. Print your confirmation email.
9. Take your printed email into your bathroom and use it as a
substitute for your Charmin.
10. Go to your precinct on November 2nd and vote for George W. Bush.
11. Feel proud that you helped stop voter fraud in the United States
of America!

There are other sites as well where people are admitting to signing up
with multiple user accounts. Please don't "trade" your vote because
you put your trust in a random online stranger. You wouldn't give your
absentee ballot to a stranger you just met on a bus, and trust them to
fill it in and mail it for you. Don't give your vote away to a
stranger on the internet.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most
> > > LIBERAL
> > > > Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's
stripes
> > > don't
> > > > change.
> > >
> > > Woah, you're misinformed!
> > >
> > > "But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most
> > liberal
> > > senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator,
coming
> > in
> > > below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
> > > California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
> > > National Journal analysis published in March.
> > >
> >
>
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm
> >
> > Whew! I sure am relieved that Kerry is only the *11th* most liberal
> > senator. Nipping on the heels of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy isn't
> > exactly putting you on the conservative side of the Democratic party.
Any
> > way you slice it, the guy's a BIG TIME liberal. Now, being a BIG TIME
> > liberal isn't a crime, so why not embrace it instead of pretending
you're
> > some kind of centrist?
>
> How many Democratic senators are there Todd? You know there are only 100
> senators, right? And that less than half of them are Democrats, right?
> He's not even in the most liberal 20% of Democrats. That's a far cry from
> "most liberal," and it reveals the unethical deliberate misinformation
> tactics of Cheney and Bush.

You assume that there is some kind a a normal statistical distribution among
Democrats of liberal ratings. In fact, at the upper end, the scores are
skewed heavily liberal. Let's see, the most liberal senator, Mark Dayton,
received a lifetime liberal score of 90.3 (I guess nobody's perfect). Kerry
received an 85.7. That's 95% of the highest score. You can try to call
that centrist, but I won't. OK, he's not the "most liberal". How does "one
of the most liberal" work?

todd

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >OK, he's not the "most liberal". How does "one
> > of the most liberal" work?
>
> Now can you admit that Cheney/Bush have deliberately mischaracterized
Kerry
> and outright lied when they said he was the single most liberal senator
and
> to the left of Kennedy?

According to the ratings, in 2003, he was the most liberal. I notice that
the publication has been in full backpedal mode explaining why that was, but
that was what they reported, so no, it wasn't a lie. If you want to
complain that it's "selective", you have a point, but there's a lot of that
going around on both sides. Frankly, I don't care if he's the single most
liberal over his entire career or just 95% as liberal as the top guy.
Either way, he's waaaaaay left on the political spectrum.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

Hey, Todd, isn't it about time to KF "Bay Area Jeff"?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Well said....

Tony

www.votepair.org

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
> > it should be.
>
> Since I get the distinct impression Bush feels he is (or at least wants
> to be) the president of the world, the question becomes, "is the world
> better off than 4 years ago?"
>
> I believe that's the question former ambassadors, generals, etc. are
> using to determine their endorsements. They recognize and value the
> standing the US must maintain in world relations. One can't act the
> bully in the neighborhood and then be able to count on his neighbors for
> support and aid when he needs it.
>
> In my view the world is worse off, the US is worse off, my state is
> worse off, my town is worse off and my household is worse off. Other
> than that... ;)
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> ____
>
> The problem in this country is that the bar is constantly being lowered;
> we then cheer clearing the bar as a great accomplishment and achievment.

Jeff Harper wrote:

>
>> > Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
>> > it should be.
>
>> Since I get the distinct impression Bush feels he is (or at least wants
>> to be) the president of the world, the question becomes, "is the world
>> better off than 4 years ago?"
>>
>> I believe that's the question former ambassadors, generals, etc. are
>> using to determine their endorsements. They recognize and value the
>> standing the US must maintain in world relations. One can't act the
>> bully in the neighborhood and then be able to count on his neighbors for
>> support and aid when he needs it.
>
> 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
> Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today 50 former high- level
> diplomats, generals and admirals declared President Bush has made America
> less safe and called for his ouster.
>
> Members of the group are available for interview, including in Miami,
> where several are giving public presentations this week in the run up to
> the Presidential Debate on Thursday. Several are fluent in Spanish.
>
> The group released a public statement that says President Bush has
> squandered American lives and should not be trusted.
>
> "The claim that we are safer is the biggest lie of this campaign season,"
> states the group. "Now we are bogged down there in a quagmire with no
> solution in sight."
>
> http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37086

Do they trust Kerry any more than they trust Bush? In any case, Tricky Dick
was about as untrustworthy as you can get, but I'd rather have him back
than either of the current pair.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jeff Harper wrote:

>>OK, he's not the "most liberal". How does "one
>> of the most liberal" work?
>
> Now can you admit that Cheney/Bush have deliberately mischaracterized
> Kerry and outright lied when they said he was the single most liberal
> senator and to the left of Kennedy?

GROW UP. "Most liberal" is an opinion, not something that can be measured
quantititively. If it's Bush's opinion that Kerry is the most liberal
senator that's his opinion and he's entitled to hold it and to express it.
If someone else disagrees that's their opinion and they're equally
entitled. Personally I don't care how _liberal_ Kerry is, he's too
_stupid_ for my taste. Whether he's dumber than Bush or not is another
question. I'm a lifelong Republican but if Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ran right
now I'd vote for him in preference to either of them--I don't like what
he'd do but at least he wouldn't screw it up.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On the other hand we have a candidate that was analyzed as the most
> LIBERAL
> > Senator in the US Senate based on his record. Folks a Zebra's stripes
> don't
> > change.
>
> Woah, you're misinformed!
>
> "But if the standard is votes over a lifetime, Kerry isn't the most
liberal
> senator. By that measure, Kerry is the 11th-most-liberal senator, coming
in
> below such Democrats as Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of
> California, and, yes, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, according to a
> National Journal analysis published in March.
>
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

Whew! I sure am relieved that Kerry is only the *11th* most liberal
senator. Nipping on the heels of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy isn't
exactly putting you on the conservative side of the Democratic party. Any
way you slice it, the guy's a BIG TIME liberal. Now, being a BIG TIME
liberal isn't a crime, so why not embrace it instead of pretending you're
some kind of centrist?

todd

In article <[email protected]>, tm <[email protected]> wrote:
>But Ted Kennedy and GW Bush have a lot in common, they are both
>drunken fuckups from powerful political families who have
>unsuccessfully run for president.

What have you been smoking? GWB has run for President only once, and obviously
was successful.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
> Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists
>


Being former, obviously disgruntled.

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, no, the question is "is the country better off ...", or at least
> it should be.

Since I get the distinct impression Bush feels he is (or at least wants
to be) the president of the world, the question becomes, "is the world
better off than 4 years ago?"

I believe that's the question former ambassadors, generals, etc. are
using to determine their endorsements. They recognize and value the
standing the US must maintain in world relations. One can't act the
bully in the neighborhood and then be able to count on his neighbors for
support and aid when he needs it.

In my view the world is worse off, the US is worse off, my state is
worse off, my town is worse off and my household is worse off. Other
than that... ;)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

The problem in this country is that the bar is constantly being lowered;
we then cheer clearing the bar as a great accomplishment and achievment.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ted Kennedy

I like Ted. I think, in the end, Senator Kennedy will be recognized for
his dedication and service. I once heard a commentary that, though he
never got to presidental office, he's accomplished far more for the
American people than many realize and far more than he could have had he
achieved the oval office.

<OBWW> I also liked Bob Vila a little better than Steve and much more
than... Kevin is it? Bob was the original. He broke the ground and made
it easier for all others to follow.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

tony1158 did say:

> Hi all,
>
> The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?" If
> the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for Kerry.
>
> Tony
>
> www.votepair.org

What say we go to votepair.org and start a woodworking thread...

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>tm wrote:

> >>But Ted Kennedy and GW Bush have a lot in common, they are both
> >>drunken fuckups from powerful political families who have
> >>unsuccessfully run for president.
> >
> > What have you been smoking? GWB has run for President only once, and
> > obviously
> > was successful.
>
> Cue "he lost popular vote and I don't understand the electoral college"
> whine,
> or "maybe the 17th rererererecount might have showed Gore on top but they
> only
> did 16 rerererererecounts" whine. Even odds as to which; any guesses?


Humourless lot, ain't you?

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > Ted Kennedy
> >
> > I like Ted. I think, in the end, Senator Kennedy will be recognized for
> > his dedication and service. I once heard a commentary that, though he
> > never got to presidental office, he's accomplished far more for the
> > American people than many realize and far more than he could have had he
> > achieved the oval office.
>
> One word comes to mind when I think of ol' Ted. Chappaquiddick. I suspect
> far more people remember Mary Jo Kopechne's name than the name of any
> legislation passed by the senior senator from Massachusetts.

Like the No Child Left Behind Act? Both dead in the water, eh?
But Ted Kennedy and GW Bush have a lot in common, they are both
drunken fuckups from powerful political families who have
unsuccessfully run for president.

tony1158 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The question is "are you better off now, then you were 4 years ago?"
> If the answer is yes, vote for Bush, if the answer is no, vote for
> Kerry.
>
> Tony
<snip>

The issues are FAR more complex than this simplistic representation.
However, since you phrase it this way my answer is yes, I'm way better off
today.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> Hey, Todd, isn't it about time to KF "Bay Area Jeff"?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Is he in the new troll filter? ;-) Honestly, my attention level on this is
waning. There are only so many hours in the day and I can spend only so
much time reading really objective news stories from salon.com. I'm close
to bowing out and letting Jeff talk to himself.

todd

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Cheney said he was the most liberal over the last 20 years. Cheney said
he
> was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Cheney said these were facts reported
in
> the National Journal.
>
> Cheney lied.

The best you can prove is he was mistaken. Perhaps he was misinformed by an
aide. That excuse seems to work for Kerry.

> He knowingly lied.

You can prove this, of course.

> He knew full well that Kerry was not the most liberal over 20 years. He
> knew the National Review had just mentioned Kerry's record in 2003 and
that
> record was very misleading. Cheney certainly knew that Kerry has never
been
> considered more liberal than Ted Kennedy by anyone with any knowledge.

That's a lie. The report was in National Journal, not National Review. I
suppose you're going to claim that you were just "mistaken". Yet here you
are claiming in black and white one thing, when if fact the truth is
different. Wait, I know, you can be "mistaken" but the vice-president
can't.

> Cheney lied.
>
> Bush lied in the debate last night when he said Ted Kennedy was the
> conservative senator from Massachusetts.

That may be Bush's opinion after working with both in the Senate.

> Now you are trying to defend and perpetuate the lies.

Seems like much ado about nothing. Whether Kerry's the most liberal in a
particular year or only 95% as liberal as the top guy, it's still the case
that he's a far lefty. Based on the facts from National Journal, can you
dispute that?

todd