Republicans want Bush out.

Science > Abortion > Republicans want Bush out.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

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: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	14 Jun 2004 11:40:48 AM

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.
.

User: "Shawn Hearn"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	17 Jun 2004 12:27:52 PM

In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>,

(Jim Austin) 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.

Ah! There we are, blaming the messenger for the message.
This is a typical Bush strategy.
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	18 Jun 2004 01:32:53 PM

Shawn Hearn wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406140840.760220de@posting.google.com>,
bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) 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.

Ah! There we are, blaming the messenger for the message.
This is a typical Bush strategy.

No. It's blaming the originator of the message for the message.
Significant difference, even if it does go over the heads of the
liberal contingent.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	14 Jun 2004 11:27:32 PM

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.
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	18 Jun 2004 01:30:27 PM

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.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	18 Jun 2004 09:28:06 PM

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.

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."
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 11:42:29 AM

"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.

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.
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.
Liberal refusal to acknowledge inconvenient facts does not make such
facts disappear.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 08:21:13 PM

(Jim Austin) wrote:

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.

That is the likely EFFECT of the call, but that is not what they are
calling for. Just as the EFFECT of Nader's candidacy was to cost Gore
the election, so Nader's call for votes comes across as more
anti-Democrat than anti-Republican because of its EFFECT, but in fact
those who voted for Nader probably would have preferred Gore to Bush.
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: "Matty"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	20 Jun 2004 03:14:03 AM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

bja@ix.netcom.com (Jim Austin) wrote:

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.

True, however, with that being said, had Kerry not have all the baggage,
he would have been able to bring accross disgrutled Republican voters
thus making anything Nadar said negitable to the outcome of the vote.
IMHO, John Edwards would have been the best bet, little baggage, only
one term in the sernate, thus, little amo for the Republicans to use
against the democrats. Too bad the Democrats chose the loudest wheel
instead of the one that had the best chance.
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: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 12:02:48 PM

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

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.

Wrong. It is a call to rid us of Bush. These people are Republicans.
They would like to see a Republican President. However, being,
apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is a threat to US
Security. They want him out. The Republicans can nominate someone
else, you know. You did know that, right?

Liberal refusal to acknowledge inconvenient facts does not make such
facts disappear.

Hypocrite.
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 06:25:08 PM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.
Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

At this time, electing somebody esle is the only way available. I
suppose one could consider impeachment, but not only is that unlikely,
but its success would only replace him with Chaney which, I doubt, is
their ultimate goal.

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans. As such, I disregard them.

They would like to see a Republican President.

A liberal Republican President.

However, being, apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is a
threat to US Security. They want him out.

However, being liberals first, they are largely indifferent to U.S.
security.

The Republicans can nominate someone else, you know. You did know that,
right?

Yes. If I had my way, Republicans would nominate someone to the right
of Bush, someone who would oust liberals from positions of
responsibility, even those who call themselves Republicans. However,
it's highly unlikely.

Liberal refusal to acknowledge inconvenient facts does not make such
facts disappear.

No denial here. Just invective.

Hypocrite.

*****.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 08:33:56 PM

(Jim Austin) wrote:

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.
Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

At this time, electing somebody esle is the only way available.

So elect someone else. Convince McCain to enter at the last minute,
or to run as an Independent.

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans.

I doubt it. Indeed some of the people who dislike Bush are
archconservatives, and the libertarians don't much like him either.
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: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 08:31:55 PM

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

Maybe you need to take a time out.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

We could use Kerry or a better Republican.

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans. As such, I disregard them.

Because you are a moron. Our country fares far better under the
liberals.

They would like to see a Republican President.

A liberal Republican President.

Moron. Do you just make this ***** up?

However, being, apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is a
threat to US Security. They want him out.

However, being liberals first, they are largely indifferent to U.S.
security.

Terrorism was down under Clinton, up under Bush.

The Republicans can nominate someone else, you know. You did know that,
right?

Yes. If I had my way, Republicans would nominate someone to the right
of Bush,

Hitler is dead and Saddam Hussein is in prison. Who were you thinking
of?

someone who would oust liberals from positions of
responsibility, even those who call themselves Republicans. However,
it's highly unlikely.

You mean because our troops won't goose step?
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	20 Jun 2004 11:23:55 PM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

Maybe you need to take a time out.

No challenge here.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

We could use Kerry...

Someone with a record of siding with America's enemies.

...or a better Republican.

That would be someone to the right of Bush.

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans. As such, I disregard them.

Because you are a moron.

No. Because liberals like Barnes are assholes.

Our country fares far better under the liberals.

Like Jimmy Carter where America faced national humiliation, double
digit inflation and interest rates?

They would like to see a Republican President.

A liberal Republican President.

Moron.

*****.

Do you just make this ***** up?

Barnes now projects his culinary proclivities.

However, being, apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is a
threat to US Security. They want him out.

However, being liberals first, they are largely indifferent to U.S.
security.

Terrorism was down under Clinton, up under Bush.

Clinton benefitted from America's reputation for firmness gained
during the Clinton-Bush Sr. years. The younger Bush suffered from the
stigma of wimpiness garnered during the Clinton years.

The Republicans can nominate someone else, you know. You did know that,
right?

Yes. If I had my way, Republicans would nominate someone to the right
of Bush,

Hitler is dead and Saddam Hussein is in prison. Who were you thinking
of?

Interesting, considering that Barnes has joined with today's
self-described Nazis, Ku Kluxers and Aryan Brotherhood types in
opposing Bush's policies.

someone who would oust liberals from positions of
responsibility, even those who call themselves Republicans. However,
it's highly unlikely.

You mean because our troops won't goose step?

Actually, Barnes' sympathies are for today's countries where their
troops do the goose step.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	21 Jun 2004 12:32:05 AM

In article <bc3dd28f.0406202023.147e4980@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

Of course. A war hero would be far worse than a war coward.
Republicans have no honor.

Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

Maybe you need to take a time out.

No challenge here.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

We could use Kerry...

Someone with a record of siding with America's enemies.

Kerry fought in a war he didn't believe in because he loved his
country. Bush went AWOL in a war he claimed he believed in because he
is a coward. But you choose Bush. That says something about YOU.

...or a better Republican.

That would be someone to the right of Bush.

Hitler? Hussein?

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans. As such, I disregard them.

Because you are a moron.

No. Because liberals like Barnes are assholes.

I don't see you disregarding me.

Our country fares far better under the liberals.

Like Jimmy Carter where America faced national humiliation, double
digit inflation and interest rates?

What humiliation was that? And whatever happened to this theory you
Republicans try to sell where the economy runs four years behind?

They would like to see a Republican President.

A liberal Republican President.

Moron.

*****.

Do you just make this ***** up?

Barnes now projects his culinary proclivities.

I take it that was yes.

However, being, apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is
a
threat to US Security. They want him out.

However, being liberals first, they are largely indifferent to U.S.
security.

Terrorism was down under Clinton, up under Bush.

Clinton benefitted from America's reputation for firmness gained
during the Clinton-Bush Sr. years.

But that doesn't work under Carter, right?

The younger Bush suffered from the
stigma of wimpiness garnered during the Clinton years.

ROFL!!! Well, at least you came up with a NEW excuse.

The Republicans can nominate someone else, you know. You did know
that,
right?

Yes. If I had my way, Republicans would nominate someone to the right
of Bush,

Hitler is dead and Saddam Hussein is in prison. Who were you thinking
of?

Interesting, considering that Barnes has joined with today's
self-described Nazis, Ku Kluxers and Aryan Brotherhood types in
opposing Bush's policies.

I see. If you oppose Bush, you are in the KKK. I guess you represent
the mentality required to support Bush.

someone who would oust liberals from positions of
responsibility, even those who call themselves Republicans. However,
it's highly unlikely.

You mean because our troops won't goose step?

Actually, Barnes' sympathies are for today's countries where their
troops do the goose step.

Great support, *****.
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	27 Jun 2004 08:41:37 PM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406202023.147e4980@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

Of course. A war hero would be far worse than a war coward.
Republicans have no honor.

Barnes supports the sort of hero who turns against his fellow veterans
by falsely accusing them of massive war crimes.

Maybe thinks Kerry is a nobody.

Maybe you need to take a time out.

No challenge here.

It is a call to rid us of Bush.

We could use Kerry...

Someone with a record of siding with America's enemies.

Kerry fought in a war he didn't believe in because he loved his
country.

Kerry then turned against his country be propagandizing on behalf of
the enemy.

Bush went AWOL in a war he claimed he believed in because he
is a coward. But you choose Bush. That says something about YOU.

That assumes that I believe Barnes' accusations.

...or a better Republican.

That would be someone to the right of Bush.

Hitler? Hussein?

No. I war referring to someone who believes in opposing terrorism.
Hussein and today's followers of Hitler oppose the war against
terrorism, just like liberals like Barnes.

These people are Republicans.

Liberal Republicans. As such, I disregard them.

Because you are a moron.

No. Because liberals like Barnes are assholes.

I don't see you disregarding me.

I don't notice Barnes contesting my characterization of liberals.

Our country fares far better under the liberals.

Like Jimmy Carter where America faced national humiliation, double
digit inflation and interest rates?

What humiliation was that?

That would be the 444 days the Iran held U.S. embassy personnel as
hostages. During that time, Carter would just thrash about helplessly
and wring his hands.

And whatever happened to this theory you Republicans try to sell where the
economy runs four years behind?

This would be the notion that economic policy has long term
consequences. But then, liberals don't believe in considering long
term consequences. They don't look ahead any further than the
impending split second.

They would like to see a Republican President.

A liberal Republican President.

Moron.

*****.

Do you just make this ***** up?

Barnes now projects his culinary proclivities.

I take it that was yes.

What? Barnes' culinary proclivities?

However, being, apparently, Americans first, they realize that Bush is
a threat to US Security. They want him out.

However, being liberals first, they are largely indifferent to U.S.
security.

Terrorism was down under Clinton, up under Bush.

Clinton benefitted from America's reputation for firmness gained
during the Clinton-Bush Sr. years.

But that doesn't work under Carter, right?

Carter did follow the weakened presidency of Nixon and Ford. But then,
his policy was to further weaken America.

The younger Bush suffered from the stigma of wimpiness garnered during the
Clinton years.

No challenge here.

ROFL!!! Well, at least you came up with a NEW excuse.

Policies do have long term consequences, even if liberal don't care to
look that far ahead.

The Republicans can nominate someone else, you know. You did know
that,
right?

Yes. If I had my way, Republicans would nominate someone to the right
of Bush,

Hitler is dead and Saddam Hussein is in prison. Who were you thinking
of?

Interesting, considering that Barnes has joined with today's
self-described Nazis, Ku Kluxers and Aryan Brotherhood types in
opposing Bush's policies.

I see. If you oppose Bush, you are in the KKK.

Well. People who oppose Bush have joined with Nazis and the KKK.
People should be known by the company they keep.

I guess you represent the mentality required to support Bush.

This would be the mentality of those who legitimize defense and
condemn aggression, unlike liberals, lefties, commies, pinkos,
pacifists, fascists, Nazis, KKK, etc. who do the exact opposite.

someone who would oust liberals from positions of
responsibility, even those who call themselves Republicans. However,
it's highly unlikely.

You mean because our troops won't goose step?

Actually, Barnes' sympathies are for today's countries where their
troops do the goose step.

No challenge here.

Great support, *****.

Barnes supports his own *****?
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	27 Jun 2004 10:21:24 PM

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:41:37 -0500, Jim Austin wrote:

I see. If you oppose Bush, you are in the KKK.

Well. People who oppose Bush have joined with Nazis and the KKK.
People should be known by the company they keep.

Here, in Mississippi, having followed the Klans (especially when
they were trying to kill me and otherwise ruin my plans for the
weekend) for years, the KKK - including converts to "'Christian'
Identity" and other such wack-o's - have voted - in state and
national elections - straight Republican since 1964.
[Local elections tend to have no genuine connection with
"parties" as the people are, generally, known in the community.
Here, in Vicksburg, it's traditional (and generally followed) for
the High Sheriff and the Judges to run as "Independents" rather
than having party affiliation (it's also cheaper).]
But - unless there is an outspoken racist running for President -
George W. Bush will probably get about 90% of the racist vote
(with 10% going to Yellow Dogs).
++ Gray //
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	21 Jun 2004 11:36:49 PM

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	22 Jun 2004 02:40:59 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cb8d11$m1f$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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,

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.

One cannot defeat somebody with nobody. The call for the "defeat

the Bush administration" is a call for its replacement by the

most

likely Democratic nominee.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Oh, I can see Kerry doing (or trying to do) all kinds of 'terrible' things,
such as:
Funding education, rather than creating a 'No Child
Left Behind" sham and not funding it.
Funding the military the way it should be funded
so that our young men and women in the service get
the armor, equipment and food they are supposed to get.
Treating our military people like human beings by
not reducing their health and retirement benefits.
Taxing the wealthy the way they should be and reducing
the burden on the middle class
Really creating good jobs like Clinton did, not the junk
jobs that Bush is counting while ignoring the people
who have given up trying to find a job
Putting more money into educational programs to get
people off welfare.
Funding scientific research
Funding medical research
Not cutting off medical and charitable programs that
do abortions at the expense of programs that also treat
AIDs and other patients
Stopping the attack on women's rights
Getting rid of the stupid anti-gay bigotry of the military
that has cost us the services of people who are nuclear
scientists, translators, officers and service people of all
kinds who were trained at great expense and doing
excellent jobs.
Funding the FBI & CIA so they can get their acts
together and protect the US the way they are supposed to.
Funding more police and firemen, rather than cutting off
what they already had
Not destroying the environment by opening protected
wood and forest lands to expolitation
Doing something about global warming
Protecting endangered species
Stop the attemps to destroy the US Constitution and
turn the US into a theocracy.
Stop the funding of a bunch of crooks who only care
about power and lining their own pockets at the
expense and lives of American citizens and citizens
of other countries.
I can certainly see the present day Republican Party not liking that.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	22 Jun 2004 08:54:49 AM

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:40:59 -0500, Michelle Malkin wrote
(in article <ZZqdnQ3HiNAdf0rdRVn-sA@comcast.com>):

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cb8d11$m1f$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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,

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.

One cannot defeat somebody with nobody. The call for the "defeat

the Bush administration" is a call for its replacement by the

most

likely Democratic nominee.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Oh, I can see Kerry doing (or trying to do) all kinds of 'terrible' things,
such as:

Funding education, rather than creating a 'No Child
Left Behind" sham and not funding it.
Funding the military the way it should be funded
so that our young men and women in the service get
the armor, equipment and food they are supposed to get.
Treating our military people like human beings by
not reducing their health and retirement benefits.
Taxing the wealthy the way they should be and reducing
the burden on the middle class
Really creating good jobs like Clinton did, not the junk
jobs that Bush is counting while ignoring the people
who have given up trying to find a job
Putting more money into educational programs to get
people off welfare.
Funding scientific research
Funding medical research
Not cutting off medical and charitable programs that
do abortions at the expense of programs that also treat
AIDs and other patients
Stopping the attack on women's rights
Getting rid of the stupid anti-gay bigotry of the military
that has cost us the services of people who are nuclear
scientists, translators, officers and service people of all
kinds who were trained at great expense and doing
excellent jobs.
Funding the FBI & CIA so they can get their acts
together and protect the US the way they are supposed to.
Funding more police and firemen, rather than cutting off
what they already had
Not destroying the environment by opening protected
wood and forest lands to expolitation
Doing something about global warming
Protecting endangered species
Stop the attemps to destroy the US Constitution and
turn the US into a theocracy.
Stop the funding of a bunch of crooks who only care
about power and lining their own pockets at the
expense and lives of American citizens and citizens
of other countries.

Yeah but other than that?

I can certainly see the present day Republican Party not liking that.

And in answer to Sen Howard Baker's question about what did
President Bush know and when did he know it, President Bush has a
truly clean slate.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	27 Jun 2004 08:46:24 PM

Ray Fischer wrote:

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Surrender to terrorists.
.

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	27 Jun 2004 08:55:03 PM

"Jim Austin" <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bc3dd28f.0406271746.6200e210@posting.google.com...

Ray Fischer wrote:

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406191525.57b8cd49@posting.google.com>, Jim
Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <bc3dd28f.0406190842.20fd09df@posting.google.com>, 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

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.

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.

Wrong.

That means Barnes thinks it's possible to replace Bush with nobody.

No, it doesn't but I kind of like the idea. How could it be worse?

One could have Kerry as president.

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Surrender to terrorists.

Exactly!
Some of these liberals, like Ray Fischer, don't understand that with
terrorist there are no negotiations.
They only know one thing, and they are willing to die for it. They don't
care if they die.
The believe in putting fear into nations and making them surrender. They
look for people like Fischer because
Fischer would coward to them and do what they want.
He refuses to answer the questions as to why he sympathizes with Al Queda
and why he sympathizes with Saddam Hussein.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	28 Jun 2004 11:46:05 AM

Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Surrender to terrorists.

Did you not notice that terrorism has dramatically increased because
of Bush?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	27 Jun 2004 10:28:05 PM

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:46:24 -0500, Jim Austin wrote:

What could Kerry possibly do that could be worse than the screwup that
has been the Bush administration?

Surrender to terrorists.

Any President that would pick Cheney and Rumsfeld has his head so
far up his ***** that he hasn't seen sunshine since the last time
he flew a jet defending Texas from invasion by somebody or an
udder.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
- Vice-President Richard B Cheney
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 12:34:39 PM

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.

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.

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.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Jim Austin"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 06:30:41 PM

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.

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.

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.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 08:44:12 PM

(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.
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: "Osprey"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 08:52:08 PM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:rcq9d09vjhmchbbh8gom992p7qc9vf64h5@4ax.com...

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.

Your knowledge of the Republican party is impressive.
But I disagree with your theory that if Kerry and McCain shared a ticket it
would be a landslide victory.
You are going to see the polls and opinions change in the coming months.
They only time that a politician should clearly
look and be concerned at any polls is around mid September to mid October.
Meanwhile the economy is improving, jobs are being created, and I think that
as we move along people are going to
learn more about the war in Iraq that isn't going to be favorable for Kerry.
Americans have NEVER ousted a war time president and I don't think they will
this time either. Most Americans
agree that Bush handles the war on terrorism better than they think Kerry
would.
As far as the economy goes, with the economic picture out there now
Democrats are finding it harder and harder to
blame Bush for the economy.
Bush is not perfect, and I sometimes wish the Republicans would pick someone
else.
But come November, I think Bush will have another 4 years. It will not be a
landslide, it will be close.
It could be as close as it was in 2000. But when the American voter gets to
that poll booth their attitudes change.
That is when reality hits most and they ask themselves a lot of questions.
One of those questions will be, "Do I want to change
horses midstream"? And most likely the answer will be no.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	19 Jun 2004 09:06:19 PM

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Americans have NEVER ousted a war time president and I don't think they will
this time either.

LBJ.
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: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Republicans want Bush out.	20 Jun 2004 10:50:07 AM

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.