lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<chkes4$h47$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>...

In article <Xns955CA645372F6fstone69@207.69.154.205>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

They try, but they do so only by being hugely hypocritical.

That's a lie. Bush has *never* questioned Kerry's patriotism. He has
rightly and properly raised questions about Kerry's voting record
and his stance on issues which Kerry refuses to discuss in any
detail.

You mean like jobs? Taxes? Social Security? Health care? It seems
Bush is reluctant to run on his record.

People who know how the government works realize what a sham
the claims of kerry's flip flopping are. Yes Kerry voted to
give Jr. the power to wage war on Iraq. The White House spin
at the time however was that no decision has been made and
Jr. needed the threat of war to get Saddam to allow inspectors.
The result were: we inspected, found nadda, and wagged war
anyway.

Congress is all abour politics, people tack on crap
to good legislation and we are forced to vote aginst
it to get rid of the crap, and then elections
come along, the rivals say ohhhh, he voted against
this or that. Its an easy game to play but Democrates
have suffered because they are loath to play the same game,
they foolishly stick to honesty and princible.

allegedly supported the war. That is an inconsistency and is
speaks to his cowardice and lack of honesty.

And another shameless double standard.

<rest of your nonsense snipped>

Kerry's constant whine of "you can't question my patriotism"
has worn thin and there's quite simply *nothing* for him to fall
back on but more mudslinging. The relentlessly negative Democratic
campaign and their media pets are losing market share to FOX for
goodness sakes.

The National Enquirer is a big seller too.

What Kerry has to fall back on is lifetime of public
service and the discipline not to cave under pressure.

His ideals are the same as mine,

that the time has come
to end the nightmare of war in this world. Saddam was
contained and posed no threat. We have seen South Africa,
and the USSR end there repressive ways without bloodshed,

yet to get rid of little Saddam, the United States
killed 10,000 innocent Iraqs and saw thousands of there
own citizens die.

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ba68cac69835b20989928@news.individual.net:

In article <Xns955CA645372F6fstone69@207.69.154.205>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ba66a227600ca24989926@news.individual.net:

In article <Xns955C96EB31178fstone69@207.69.154.203>,
fstone69@earthling.com says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ba653cb497f1b95989925@news.individual.net:

In article <lp1pj0lsn2nofjee87mlgbciokq6d5uhac@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:03:20 -0600, quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bush surges to 11-point lead over Kerry

BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This poll now says the difference is 1.2% (yes, one point two
percent) between Bush and Kerry.

Not the one on Labor day, which is still holding at 11%.

No, you stupid, lying ***** the rasmussen poll today shows 47.6
to 46.5 which is 1.1% not 11%. You apparently don't understand
what a decimal point is. Go learn what that is, dumb *****. Now
perhaps your moronic observation is that the poll numbers taken
by time haven't changed, but that's just because a new one
hasn't been done yet. It's still just the old and flawed
numbers which didn't account for likely voters and included
about 60% republicans, clearly skewing the results..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Other polls, such as the that from the economist magazine, zogby
and the american research group confirm that spread is only a
few points. Bush and Kerry internal polling also suggest only
about a 3 or 4 point bounce. But, as usually, you've bought
only the discredited misinformation purveyed by FUX sNews.

Rasmussen isn't the only polling service out there.

I never pretended it was otherwise.

None of the
particularly "discredit" any of the others

Actually Rasmussen has particularly addressed the Time magazine
polling data. He pointed out, as others have, that they selected
way too many probable repug voters that over-represented the
right-wing view out of proportion to its demographics. When
corrected, Rasmussen says their data only suggests a 3% bump, which
is consistent with most other polls.

, since they all have different
selection criteria and their own particular methodological biases.
Others have the spread anywhere from zero to 11 points in favor of
Bush. This compares to previous reports from the *same* services
showing as much as a sixteen point "bounce" from the week prior to
the Convention.

http://realclearpolitics.com

Neither this nor pollingreports.com are particularly quick about
updating their info. Neither one of them are listing the Economist
poll and they don't update very quickly when the rasmussen data
comes out either.

And of course a focus on polling numbers obscures the obvious
meltdown in Kerry's campaign.

No, lying shitbag.

When you're caught, start out with the namecalling.

You caught nothing and calling you a lying shitbag is merely telling
the truth.

Don't ever admit it when your own tactics are exposed, q.

It was in response to an event called the RNC and
the fact that some of them tried to overspin and lie about poll
numbers for bush.

Lie shamelessly, make claims in direct opposition to the facts.

You might be tipping your hand about your own game plan, but nothing
more.

You're as transparent as glass, quibbler. Right by the book, Propaganda
101, case study by The Quibbler.

It's clear that they tried to distort their
lackluster convention performance and they have been called on it.

Pretend your weaknesses belong to your opponent.

People were not impressed by Zell. They were not impressed by Cheney.
They were not impressed by the Bush bimbos. They were not impressed
by Bush himself. Others like Arnie and Laura have been discredited
due to their distortions. Bush stepped on his own crank in the middle
of the convention with the Matt Lauer interview. Bush declared war on
social security and now seniors are wondering if he knew he would be
raising premiums as he was cynically promising to protect them in his
speech.

Keep on pretending in the face of overwhelming evidence.

There were many miscalculations at the RNC and it's
culminated in rather weak poll numbers for Bush. Gallup is now
predicting that Bush will lose this election because he didn't get
enough of a bounce.

Multiple "shakeups" of his campaign staff,

They've hired some new folks, but Bush has had some shakeups in his
staff too.

More pretending.

No pretending is involved here. Lockhart joined Kerry. Swift boat
liars associated with the bush admin were forced to leave. Both sides
see turnover. For you to label non-controversial facts "more
pretending" shows how out of touch you are with reality.

Kerry's own campaign has had to acknowledge the truth of the Swiftee's
allegations. Now the Navy is investigating the veracity of some of the
paperwork that Kerry claims as supporting documentation.

conferring
with Bill Clinton on his sickbed, the "midnight ramble" speech

His speech kicked Bush and Cheney *****. It appropriately addressed
lies from the convention and it apparently helped Kerry.

It ignored everything said in the convention and hurt Kerry terribly.

It addressed many criticism levelled by the convention, address
specific issues they raised and it helped Kerry considerably. Again,
you can't even deal with reality any more.

When do you plan to introduce some reality into this, quibbler?

all are
major indicators. His constant whine of "you can't question my
patriotism"

They try, but they do so only by being hugely hypocritical.

That's a lie.

It certainly is not. Many repugs have attacked Kerry's patriotism and
you know it.

More namecalling and denial of the facts.

Yet people like Bush and Cheney have very question
patriotic credentials themselves and repugs don't challenge them.
Certainly if Cheney or Bush were liberals then their records would be
more tightly scrutinized and criticized by the right. Therefore,
repugs definitely are being hypocritical.

Bush has *never* questioned Kerry's patriotism. He has
rightly and properly raised questions about Kerry's voting record and
his stance on issues which Kerry refuses to discuss in any detail.

Kerry discusses it in great detail, particularly on his website, your
argument from ignorance notwithstanding.

Bush
insists that what he did in his irresponsible 20's and 30's
shouldn't be a campaign issue, but what Kerry did in his 20's and
30's is very important.

Another shameless lie.

It's not a lie. Bush has declared his own military record out-of-
bounds, but there are abundant links between his campaign and the
smearboat liars.

Bush's record has been on the table for four years now.

*KERRY* has insisted that his Vietnam service is
all we need to know about for his qualifications. Bush has called
that service *honorable* and Kerry *still* insists that he's being
attacked.

Kerry rightly claims credit for his honorable actions and he is also
right to claim that he's still being attacked and smeared by the Bush
campaign. This was clearly planned from the get go, with O'Neill and
had nothing to do with Kerry "making a big deal" out of his service.
O'Neill's book was already written and the attack ads were already
made before Kerry's convention. Furthermore, Bush still refuses to
actually repudiate these smears and lies because he knows that he paid
Karl Rove and his operatives good money to do them.

They're none of Bush's business to affirm or deny. That would be in
violation of the 527 rules.

In particular Bush has applied a double standard about his
own service (or lack there of) in the "champaign unit" of the texas
air guard. Bush intentionally dodged fighting in vietnam even
though he allegedly supported the war. That is an inconsistency
and is speaks to his cowardice and lack of honesty.

And another shameless double standard.

Yes, it certainly is a double standard that Bush is applying. Many
repugs have attacked Kerry's courage and heroism in combat, yet they
ignore the fact that Bush displayed zero heroism in combat during
vietnam. They forget the fact that Bush specifically joined a unit
for rich kids who wanted to hide from combat. George continued to
hide behind deferments even after he ceased performing his guard duty
in time of war.

Bush's record as Commander in Chief is far more important than ancient
history anyway. But since Kerry hasn't *got* that sort of record he has
to dredge up the past, and it's not going to be kind to him.

<rest of your nonsense snipped>

Kerry's constant whine of "you can't question my patriotism"

They can't, without massive hypocrisy on their own side. Bush says
that he was for the vietnam war. But he voted against it with is
cowardly feet when he intentionally wrangled an appointment to the
"champaign unit" in the texas air guard, where he knew no fighting
would occur. He checked the box that said he chose not to serve in
combat overseas. That was not an act of patriotism. Neither were
Cheney's five deferments and "other priorities".

has worn thin and there's quite simply *nothing* for him to fall back
on but more mudslinging. The relentlessly negative Democratic
campaign

Aww you ain't seen nothing yet you crybaby little *****. Kerry hasn't
made a smearboat commercial about Bush yet, but the gloves are off
now. Bush crossed the line and payback is a *****.

Yeah, right "Bring it on" said Kerry, in parody of Bush, and when it was
brought he ran away crying.

Turn about is
fair play and I've got plenty more cliches where that comes from to
explain why it's extremely appropriate for Kerry to defend himself.
Besides, mudslinging repugs goggle up that kind of red meat. They
might as well choke on some from Kerry.

Bush has been quite properly ignoring that sort of thing for four years
now. He hasn't once let it get under his skin the way Kerry did for the
Midnight Meltdown.

and
their media pets are losing market share to FOX for goodness sakes.
Expect the pets to rebel to save their own hides.

Fox has only been successful in the short term because there are
advantages to theft over honest toil and their fiction tends to sell
better than the boring truth. But their number is pretty much up as
well. They are not journalists and in a just world they wouldn't have
a broadcast license for much longer. I suspect that this day is
coming and the right-wing hysteria that ensues will be too priceless
for mere words.

And it comes down to the leftist declaration of totalitarian "justice"
at the end. Sure, q, go ahead and tell us who else you'll deny their
freedom of speech in a "just leftists" world.

Kerry's own campaign has had to acknowledge the truth of the Swiftee's
allegations.

Now the Navy is investigating the veracity of some of the
paperwork that Kerry claims as supporting documentation.

Bush's record has been on the table for four years now.

*KERRY* has insisted that his Vietnam service is
all we need to know about for his qualifications. Bush has called
that service *honorable* and Kerry *still* insists that he's being
attacked.

Kerry rightly claims credit for his honorable actions and he is also
right to claim that he's still being attacked and smeared by the Bush
campaign. This was clearly planned from the get go, with O'Neill and