| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"David W. Barnes" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2004 10:04:12 PM |
| Object: |
Republicans want Bush out. |
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a statement
condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying that it has
harmed national security, one of the document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/index.html
.
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 04:10:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:50:07 -0700, David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <s7s9d0lui4mpjhjatgpij9qmdn78n78lrf@4ax.com>, Bob
LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Americans have NEVER ousted a war time president and I don't think they will
this time either.
LBJ.
Besides, we aren't really at "war." This was just made up by Bush for
political reasons. Who are we at war against?
Why, the "evil doers"! Heh, heh. Think no deeper than that, citizen!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 09:15:13 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.06.20.21.10.42.533844@visi.com>, SMChristenson
<smchris@visi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:50:07 -0700, David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <s7s9d0lui4mpjhjatgpij9qmdn78n78lrf@4ax.com>, Bob
LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Americans have NEVER ousted a war time president and I don't think they
will
this time either.
LBJ.
Besides, we aren't really at "war." This was just made up by Bush for
political reasons. Who are we at war against?
Why, the "evil doers"! Heh, heh. Think no deeper than that, citizen!
Exactly. And there are actually people out there who believe we are at
war - true war, but couldn't name who it was if they had to do so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 10:43:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:50:07 -0500, David W. Barnes wrote
(in article <200620040850072696%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>):
In article <s7s9d0lui4mpjhjatgpij9qmdn78n78lrf@4ax.com>, Bob
LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Americans have NEVER ousted a war time president and I don't think they
will
this time either.
LBJ.
Besides, we aren't really at "war." This was just made up by Bush for
political reasons. Who are we at war against?
Apparently, people who don't own part of the petroleum industry.
Or have parts of it we don't (for now anyway).
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
- Jubal Harshaw
(Channeled through RAH)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 04:19:37 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
The real world is subject to change. After all, prior to 1964, the
Republican party WAS dominated by relative liberals of the Rockefeller
school.
The Republican Party was born as a third party (actually more like a
fourth or fifth party), and elected its first president in a 4-way
race.
In 1912, the Republican party split, and Roosevelt on the Progressive
party ticket outpolled the Republican candidate, 27% to 23%. Faced
with that sort of split with McCain as the splinter candidate, and the
prospect of Republicans losing the White House, it is quite plausible
that Bush could drop out at the last minute and throw his support to
McCain. We've seen speculation on the other side that Kerry could
take McCain as VP (if McCain would take the job) on a national unity
ticket, in which case they would almost certainly win, perhaps by a
landslide. I could imagine a McCain/Dean team being equally hard on
Kerry and Bush.
A McCain and Edwards team would have been better. Both have pretty good
senate records; a secure ship of which the Republicans can peal nothing
off to throw at the democrats.
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 11:30:44 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
The real world is subject to change. After all, prior to 1964, the
Republican party WAS dominated by relative liberals of the Rockefeller
school.
True enough.
The Republican Party was born as a third party (actually more like a
fourth or fifth party), and elected its first president in a 4-way
race.
Again, true. However, in those days, the legal atmosphere was more
amenable to third parties. The Whig Party had appeared and declined as
Republicans rose.
In 1912, the Republican party split, and Roosevelt on the Progressive
party ticket outpolled the Republican candidate, 27% to 23%. Faced
with that sort of split with McCain as the splinter candidate, and the
prospect of Republicans losing the White House, it is quite plausible
that Bush could drop out at the last minute and throw his support to
McCain.
Extremely doubtful.
We've seen speculation on the other side that Kerry could
take McCain as VP (if McCain would take the job) on a national unity
ticket, in which case they would almost certainly win, perhaps by a
landslide.
Only if Americans succumb to a massive suicidal frenzy.
I could imagine a McCain/Dean team being equally hard on Kerry and Bush.
Doubtful. Such a team would draw votes mainly from Kerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 11:53:47 PM |
|
|
(Jim Austin) wrote:
Again, true. However, in those days, the legal atmosphere was more
amenable to third parties. The Whig Party had appeared and declined as
Republicans rose.
Actually I think that the LEGAL world is much more amenable to third
parties now; it is probably easier to get on the ballot these days
than a hundred years ago because mass communication makes it easier to
conduct petition drives, etc.
It is the political world, wherein people will refuse to vote for a
third party because of the belief that they can't win that makes it
somewhat harder.
In 1912, the Republican party split, and Roosevelt on the Progressive
party ticket outpolled the Republican candidate, 27% to 23%. Faced
with that sort of split with McCain as the splinter candidate, and the
prospect of Republicans losing the White House, it is quite plausible
that Bush could drop out at the last minute and throw his support to
McCain.
Extremely doubtful.
He could. I never said that he would.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 01:37:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:30:44 -0500, Jim Austin wrote
(in article <bc3dd28f.0406202030.74d14796@posting.google.com>):
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
The real world is subject to change. After all, prior to 1964, the
Republican party WAS dominated by relative liberals of the Rockefeller
school.
True enough.
Yeah. Right. Sure.
President Eisenhower and his Vice-President, Richard Nixon, were
certainly "relative liberals of the Rockefeller school".
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
In an alternative universe.
The Republican Party was born as a third party (actually more like a
fourth or fifth party), and elected its first president in a 4-way
race.
Again, true. However, in those days, the legal atmosphere was more
amenable to third parties. The Whig Party had appeared and declined as
Republicans rose.
In 1912, the Republican party split, and Roosevelt on the Progressive
party ticket outpolled the Republican candidate, 27% to 23%. Faced
with that sort of split with McCain as the splinter candidate, and the
prospect of Republicans losing the White House, it is quite plausible
that Bush could drop out at the last minute and throw his support to
McCain.
Extremely doubtful.
We've seen speculation on the other side that Kerry could
take McCain as VP (if McCain would take the job) on a national unity
ticket, in which case they would almost certainly win, perhaps by a
landslide.
Only if Americans succumb to a massive suicidal frenzy.
I could imagine a McCain/Dean team being equally hard on Kerry and Bush.
Doubtful. Such a team would draw votes mainly from Kerry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
19 Jun 2004 08:31:56 PM |
|
|
In article <bc3dd28f.0406191530.5dd255c1@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<180620041928068803%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bc3dd28f.0406181030.409ddf92@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's
signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Only liberals offer third parties. Then they suffer for it.
One cannot defeat somebody with nobody. The call for the "defeat of
the Bush administration" is a call for its replacement by the most
likely Democratic nominee.
There are more than just two parties, moron.
Yes there are, *****. However, in the real world, third parties
have no chance to elect a president. But then, liberals don't like to
look at the real world. They believe inconvenient facts disappear when
they refuse to acknowledge them.
Republicans work hard to ensure no other parties emerge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 12:06:40 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
Only liberals offer third parties. Then they suffer for it.
Hah! There are political parties that make the Republicans look like
free-love hippies! Nobody takes them seriously because they are so
wacked out, but they do exist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
In article <cb360v$fkq$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
Only liberals offer third parties. Then they suffer for it.
Hah! There are political parties that make the Republicans look like
free-love hippies! Nobody takes them seriously because they are so
wacked out, but they do exist.
The only off shoot of Republicans that I am aware of are "Libertarians"
and "Federalists." Both seem to feel that the Republicans are just too
nice to people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 12:27:10 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer
David W. Barnes <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
Only liberals offer third parties. Then they suffer for it.
Hah! There are political parties that make the Republicans look like
free-love hippies! Nobody takes them seriously because they are so
wacked out, but they do exist.
The only off shoot of Republicans that I am aware of are "Libertarians"
and "Federalists." Both seem to feel that the Republicans are just too
nice to people.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Not all of those are active, but in the California primaries there
were about a half-dozen parties represented.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 10:41:23 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406191530.5dd255c1@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<180620041928068803%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bc3dd28f.0406181030.409ddf92@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's
signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Only liberals offer third parties. Then they suffer for it.
No. There's the Libertarian Party, Amrican Independent Party, Reform
Party, Prohibitionist Party, etc., none of which were offered by
liberals.
Again, take a look at the real world now and then.
One cannot defeat somebody with nobody. The call for the "defeat of
the Bush administration" is a call for its replacement by the most
likely Democratic nominee.
There are more than just two parties, moron.
Yes there are, *****. However, in the real world, third parties
have no chance to elect a president. But then, liberals don't like to
look at the real world. They believe inconvenient facts disappear when
they refuse to acknowledge them.
Republicans work hard to ensure no other parties emerge.
No. This is one area of concensus between the two major parties:
discourage and/or co-op third parties.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 12:05:15 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the document's
signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry, and you're and
idiot.
But then, you neocon assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
20 Jun 2004 11:37:18 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/
bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 12:32:05 AM |
|
|
In article <bc3dd28f.0406202037.4ebf40fd@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign
policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/
bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned
are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration,
she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them. Hatred is big this year. Bush still has a chance with people
like you out there who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 04:52:21 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message news:<200620042232056401%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bc3dd28f.0406202037.4ebf40fd@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign
policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/
bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned
are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration,
she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them. Hatred is big this year. Bush still has a chance with people
like you out there who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
He told the truth.
How sad for Democrats that extremist liberals such as yourself refuse
to admit to the truth. Google is overloaded with dribble, lies,
denials, false accusations, and cowardness displayed by you.
Everytime you get your ***** kicked you have some excuse or you run to
your amigo's for support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 10:07:21 AM |
|
|
In article <8912d58d.0406210152.5bf5981a@posting.google.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<200620042232056401%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <bc3dd28f.0406202037.4ebf40fd@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>,
Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed
a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign
policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/
bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've
turned
are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they
don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and
there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it
said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration,
she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications
of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them. Hatred is big this year. Bush still has a chance with people
like you out there who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
He told the truth.
Republicans always think hatred is "the truth." If you care about the
truth so much, take a look at the tone of everything this guys says.
How sad for Democrats that extremist liberals such as yourself refuse
to admit to the truth. Google is overloaded with dribble, lies,
denials, false accusations, and cowardness displayed by you.
Everytime you get your ***** kicked you have some excuse or you run to
your amigo's for support.
Tell us where, anytime, anywhere, liberal causes in history have not
prevailed over conservative "causes." Go ahead, chump.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 01:11:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:52:21 -0500, osprey wrote
(in article <8912d58d.0406210152.5bf5981a@posting.google.com>):
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them. Hatred is big this year. Bush still has a chance with people
like you out there who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
He told the truth.
How sad for Democrats that extremist liberals such as yourself refuse
to admit to the truth. Google is overloaded with dribble, lies,
denials, false accusations, and cowardness displayed by you.
Are you having trouble with google? Has it totally stopped
working for you or just slowed down because of the other poster's
references being on it?
Everytime you get your ***** kicked you have some excuse or you run to
your amigo's for support.
That was a nice computer; I needed one that was 50/60 so I never
considered it, though.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------
Oh - A; whatever.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
27 Jun 2004 08:53:16 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406202037.4ebf40fd@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<Snip> Previous stuff.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
No challenge here.
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them.
This would be the thought that America has the right of self defense.
Hatred is big this year.
Practically all the hate is spewed by liberals.
Bush still has a chance with people like you out there...
That would be people who support America's right of self defense.
...who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
This would be the pacifist belief that denies America's right of self defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
27 Jun 2004 08:58:15 PM |
|
|
"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bc3dd28f.0406271753.590351a2@posting.google.com...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406202037.4ebf40fd@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<Snip> Previous stuff.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it.
...and you're and idiot.
And you're an *****.
But then, you neocon...
I'm not a neoconservative.
...assholes never have been real strong on honesty.
Liberals are the ones who can lie and feel righteous about it.
Liberals lie all the time.
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
No challenge here.
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them.
This would be the thought that America has the right of self defense.
Hatred is big this year.
Practically all the hate is spewed by liberals.
Look at their latest hero...Michael Moore.
What they don't realize is that it is very likely that Michael Moore's
hatred towards America...not just Republicans...
will have the opposite effect of what he is hoping.
Bush still has a chance with people like you out there...
That would be people who support America's right of self defense.
...who will believe anything rather than see the truth.
This would be the pacifist belief that denies America's right of self
defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
27 Jun 2004 09:21:11 PM |
|
|
In article <e4adnQtK5tI750LdRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Look at their latest hero...Michael Moore.
What they don't realize is that it is very likely that Michael Moore's
hatred towards America...not just Republicans...
will have the opposite effect of what he is hoping.
Opsrey, I get the sense that you consider yourself a partriotic
American. However, people can still hold differing view points and be
loyal to their country and the Constutition. I get the sense from your
comments that it is all or nothing, for me or against me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 01:22:44 AM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message news:<together-E1FE3D.22211827062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
In article <e4adnQtK5tI750LdRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Look at their latest hero...Michael Moore.
What they don't realize is that it is very likely that Michael Moore's
hatred towards America...not just Republicans...
will have the opposite effect of what he is hoping.
Opsrey, I get the sense that you consider yourself a partriotic
American. However, people can still hold differing view points and be
loyal to their country and the Constutition.
I don't believe Michael Moore is about truth or loyalty at all. And
here is why.
He did pulled senators to the side and asked them to sign a petition
to have their sons sign up for military service and go to war in Iraq
and Afganistan.
One of the senators he pulled over told him he had family going over
already.
Michael Moore snipped his comments and only put in the film what he
wanted to put in.
Michael Moore's film isn't honest at all. It is skewed and slanted,
it's sole purpose is to topple the government.
And Michael Moore has basically said that much himself.
I get the sense from your
comments that it is all or nothing, for me or against me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 02:26:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:22:44, anonymous wrote:
I don't believe Michael Moore is about truth
[chuckle] I'd suggest you're no different.
or loyalty at all.
"Loyalty" to what or to whom, please?
And here is why.
He did pulled senators to the side and asked them to sign a petition
to have their sons sign up for military service and go to war in Iraq
and Afganistan.
And?
And so?
One of the senators he pulled over told him he had family going over
already.
And?
And so?
But you sorta forgot your citation.
Michael Moore snipped his comments and only put in the film what he
wanted to put in.
Curious that so many motion picture directors do that. John Wayne
had that trouble, also. His directors and film editors and, yea,
even to the financial backers of the films put in what they
wanted to put in.
Michael Moore's film isn't honest at all. It is skewed and slanted,
And? You forgot to explain why this is a concern of yours. Were
you a financial contributor to the movie? Does it remind you of a
certain President's heroic entrance to an aircraft carrier and
their spontaneous sign that was actually the creation of Bush's
handlers.
it's sole purpose is to topple the government.
Wow! My old _American Heritage Dictionary_ only lists one
definition for "topple:
--------------------------------------------------------
To push or throw over; overturn or overthrow
--------------------------------------------------------
Are you a relation of Chicken Little?
We do have to watch out, though. There is a story - probably
ficticious - about a candidate that lost an election but his
brother was governor of the really important state that held the
balance and, so, was finally elected with a 5-4 vote.
And Michael Moore has basically said that much himself.
Uh, you forgot your citation.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
27 Jun 2004 10:54:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:58, anonymous wrote:
Look at their latest hero...Michael Moore.
What they don't realize is that it is very likely that Michael Moore's
hatred towards America...not just Republicans...
will have the opposite effect of what he is hoping.
Have you seen it?
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 11:47:43 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
How sad for the Republicans party that your thinking is what drives
them.
This would be the thought that America has the right of self defense.
And how did invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent
people have anything to do with self defense?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
27 Jun 2004 10:30:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:53:16 -0500, Jim Austin wrote:
Liberals lie brazonly, consistently, continuously.
No challenge here.
That's easy for /you/ to say because you've got a Gibber/English
Dictionary and know what "brazonly" means.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
- Jubal Harshaw
(Channeled through RAH)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
21 Jun 2004 11:38:27 PM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Republican diplomatic and military officials have signed a
statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy,
saying that it has harmed national security, one of the
document's signers said Sunday.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush
administration..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/
bush.criticism/index.html
Opinions of liberal Republicans and Republicans who've turned are
not dispositive.
If they were liberal, they would endorse Kerry - which they don't.
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration..."
That would mean Bush's replacement by the prospective Democratic
nominee John Kerry. It is in fact an endorsement of Kerry, and there
is no reason whatever for deferring to those who prefer Kerry.
As usual, the dishonest Republicans lie again. Here is what it said:
"The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she
said, although it does not endorse any candidate."
As usual, liberals evade responsibility for the clear implications of
their statements.
There are more than just two candidates, cretin.
True enough, *****. However, in tracing implications, one looks at
the real world where third party candidates have no chance.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance.
Irrelevant
But then,
where third party candidates have next to no chance.liberals believe
THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT!
Repeating your dishonest ***** doesn't alter that fact, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 11:34:49 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<Snip> Previous stuff.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance.
Irrelevant
Only to people who refuse to take responsibility for what their
statements imply. But then liberals like Fischer aren't into taking
responsibility.
But then, where third party candidates have next to no chance.liberals
believe
To insert the full quote:
"Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it."
THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT!
This liberal's continued refusal to so acknowledge doesn't make the
facts go away.
Repeating your dishonest ***** doesn't alter that fact, moron.
Neither does his petulant malice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 11:48:39 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<Snip> Previous stuff.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance.
Irrelevant
Only to people who refuse to take responsibility for what their
You claimed an endorsement where there was none.
Maybe you should take responsibility for your screwup and stop trying
to blame everybody else.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out. |
28 Jun 2004 08:08:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:34:49 -0500, Jim Austin wrote
(in article <bc3dd28f.0406280834.4b5723e2@posting.google.com>):
Ray Fischer wrote:
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
<Snip> Previous stuff.
Since there are more than two candidates, a call for the removal of
Bush does NOT have to be an endorsement of Kerry,...
Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance.
Irrelevant
Only to people who refuse to take responsibility for what their
statements imply. But then liberals like Fischer aren't into taking
responsibility.
But then, where third party candidates have next to no chance.liberals
believe
To insert the full quote:
"Like I said, one traces implications in the context of a real world
where third party candidates have next to no chance. But then,
liberals believe they can change the real world by refusing to
acknowledging it."
Why would you re-insert a quotation in which
your Gibber to English translation was so poor?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Where's your grammar? With my grandda.
THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT!
This liberal's continued refusal to so acknowledge doesn't make the
facts go away.
Repeating your dishonest ***** doesn't alter that fact, moron.
Neither does his petulant malice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
