| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daniel Kolle" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2004 11:48:33 AM |
| Object: |
OT: John Kerry |
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 05:11:08 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry
did to make him so popular in just these past few
weeks?
Mostly, he got a new campaign staff. He hired a new
national campaign manager who insisted on a complete
shake-up.
Secondly, he was in the right place at the right time.
Howard Dean was self-destructing, and the self-defeating
attacks from Gephardt, though killing Gephardt, were
also beginning to stick. Voters in Iowa were looking for
an alternative right when Kerry had the money & the
campaign staff to offer them an alternative.
Mostly though, looking at where Kerry's New Hampshire
votes came from, it was veterans.
Seriously.
Dean's vote in New Hampshire actually was above where
his support was a week earlier. Kerry's lead didn't come
from Dean, it came from Clark, mostly.
Clark was the most obvious alternative to Bush, the draft-
dodger-turned-deserter who thought nothing of sending
troops into battle, and even less about taking away their
pay & benefits. Kerry made a strong play for these voters
and their supporters. He used his advantage in money and
base of support (Massachusetts is right next door to New
Hampshire, and 5 to 6 times the population of Vermont)
to portray himself as one of them, and to organize these
people as volunteers.
Another thing is, Republicans want Kerry. They have since
at least 2000. They view a "Massachusetts Liberal" as a
free ticket to the Whitehouse in 2004.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 04:46:16 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7614cd74.0401280948.43191a18@posting.google.com...
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
I have a political theory which seems to apply to most elections. It
applies equally to both parties nominating processes and to general
elections. When the populace doesn't know much about a candidate, he seems
more appealing than he is.
Kerry was the best known at first, therefore the least popular. As long as
people knew nothing about Clark and Dean they were popular. As soon as
people got to know them better, they sank like stones. Edwards is fairly
popular right now, but he rarely says anything. He leads cheers, but where
does he stand on anything? As long as he's able to get by without actually
taking any positions, I predict he'll have a decent following. Woe to him,
though, when the people get to know something about him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 06:34:37 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7614cd74.0401280948.43191a18@posting.google.com...
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
The voters are voting for candidates on their ability to beat Bush, instead
of voting for candidates who reflect their political ideology. This is a
smart choice, because Bush the Theocrat needs to be removed from office.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 10:53:07 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:34:37 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7614cd74.0401280948.43191a18@posting.google.com...
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
The voters are voting for candidates on their ability to beat Bush, instead
of voting for candidates who reflect their political ideology. This is a
smart choice, because Bush the Theocrat needs to be removed from office.
It seems that New Hampshire Republicans agree.
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?pid=1221
"One in seven Republican primary voters cast ballots for candidates
other than Bush, holding the president to just 85 percent of the
62,927 ballots cast. In some parts of the state, such as southwest New
Hampshire's Monadnock Region, a historic bastion of moderate
Republicanism, Bush did even worse. In Swanzey, for instance, 37
percent of GOP primary voters rejected Bush. In nearby Surry, almost
29 percent of the people who took Republican ballots voted against the
Republican president, while a number of other towns across the region
saw anti-Bush votes of more than 20 percent in the GOP primary.
Few of the anti-Bush votes went to the 13 unknown Republicans whose
names appeared on GOP ballots along with the president's. Instead, top
Democratic contenders reaped write-in votes. "
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 09:58:40 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:53:07 +0000 didst Douglas Berry speak
thusly:
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:34:37 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7614cd74.0401280948.43191a18@posting.google.com...
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
The voters are voting for candidates on their ability to beat Bush, instead
of voting for candidates who reflect their political ideology. This is a
smart choice, because Bush the Theocrat needs to be removed from office.
It seems that New Hampshire Republicans agree.
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?pid=1221
"One in seven Republican primary voters cast ballots for candidates
other than Bush, holding the president to just 85 percent of the
62,927 ballots cast. In some parts of the state, such as southwest New
Hampshire's Monadnock Region, a historic bastion of moderate
Republicanism, Bush did even worse. In Swanzey, for instance, 37
percent of GOP primary voters rejected Bush. In nearby Surry, almost
29 percent of the people who took Republican ballots voted against the
Republican president, while a number of other towns across the region
saw anti-Bush votes of more than 20 percent in the GOP primary.
Few of the anti-Bush votes went to the 13 unknown Republicans whose
names appeared on GOP ballots along with the president's. Instead, top
Democratic contenders reaped write-in votes. "
That was such a weird one to see. When I read the very brief, very evasive
mention by the "liberal media" that manages to not talk much about bad
news for the Republicans, I went and dug up the numbers from the state
cite.
Guess who came in second in the Republican NH primary?
Kerry.
He beat Dean who came in third...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 11:22:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:34:37 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> posted in alt.atheism:
The voters are voting for candidates on their ability to beat Bush, instead
of voting for candidates who reflect their political ideology. This is a
smart choice, because Bush the Theocrat needs to be removed from office.
And anyone running against Shrub is closer to the sane voter's
political ideology than Shrub is.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry |
15 Feb 2004 10:42:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:22:32 +0000, Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:34:37 GMT, "Peacenik"
<criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net> posted in alt.atheism:
The voters are voting for candidates on their ability to beat Bush,
instead of voting for candidates who reflect their political ideology.
This is a smart choice, because Bush the Theocrat needs to be removed
from office.
And anyone running against Shrub is closer to the sane voter's political
ideology than Shrub is.
Yeah. They don't get it. Who doesn't know Kerry's rich as a skunk, but
from his wife's money? I welcome Republicans bringing Vietnam up. A lot
of people _were_ anti-war then. He has that crowd. Yet, Republicans
really want to argue that a guy with four purple hearts doesn't have the
balls to secure a strong national defense? Particularly in contrast to the
stinking fish of Dubya's Guard record and his "Mission Accomplished" (my
*****) record as President? Kerry isn't as liberal as liberals would like?
Yeah, that's the way this country works. So, we vote Nader like in 2000?
Look where that got the country.
There is nothing "conservative" about Dubya and his Neocons. They are
radical fascists. I stand by that. They are militantly un-American and a
domestic threat to the Constitution. Therefore, if he were available, I'd
vote Goldwater over Dubya. It's all about beating Bush and attempting to
steer the country back into something like sanity.
I suppose it is just as well if conservatives don't recognize that strong
kernel of solidarity in this election.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 03:57:43 PM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:48:33 -0800 didst Daniel Kolle speak
thusly:
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
From what I can tell, the Democratic party has become very, very, *very
serious lately and is looking for an electable candidate more than an
idealistic one.
Dean is perceived as an idealistic candidate. Though he's actually a very
*conservative Democrat. Still, the party members appear to be shying from
his idealism and "passion" (as it's put) and moving toward someone
perceived as "experienced" and who has credentials as a veteran (Kerry's a
Vietnam vet).
But I don't know things have changed "overnight" so much as the news media
is, well, stupid.
At the risk of sounding like an "old fart" (well, I kinda am one <g>), I'm
appalled at the quality of coverage of the campaign. It's just *bad.
I used to be fascinated by the nomination process. But that was back in
'76 and '80 on the Republican side (the '76 floor fight where Reagan
almost snatched the nomination from Ford... now *that's entertainment <g>).
Back then, there were three networks. Period. Thirty minutes of news a
day. Unless they broke in for a "special bulletin." No Internet, no cable
networks, no nothing.
I knew *more about what was going on each step of the way in the primaries
and delegate selection than I know this time around with CNN, MSNBC, and
the rest as well as Google.
The news reporting in this contest is *breathtakingly content free. For
example, how many delegates did Kerry win in Iowa?
Zero.
Dean? Zero.
They're not *finished yet. The reporting was all about the *first stage.
Who's ahead right now? Howard Dean. He has more delegates. Even though
it's very, very, very early and about another 2,000 more are needed to win.
Last night, the news was driving me *nuts talking about "third place" in
New Hampshire. Well, in that primary you needed a minimum percentage to
win *any delegates. Only Kerry and Dean won delegates. There is *no "third
place." Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman got zero each.
Anyway...
I think the whole phenomena is because the media is infatuated with itself
and is reporting more on what the media is reporting than paying any real
attention.
The media was fascinated with Dean's grass roots campaign and declared him
the "front runner." Because they heard each other calling him the "front
runner" probably. Then because they heard each other calling him the
"front runner," they started trying to tear him back down. Overlooking
these silly things called "voters."
Heh. And I dearly love how the talking heads of the media failed to
predict Iowa then spent the next several days explaining to us what
happened and why it happened.
If they *knew, how did they manage to be so surprised at the results?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 05:30:19 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
(snip)
At the risk of sounding like an "old fart" (well, I kinda am one <g>), I'm
appalled at the quality of coverage of the campaign. It's just *bad.
(snip)
Did you catch the opening grabber on Hardball last Friday (I think)?
It was a smirking joke about how the potential first ladies on the
Democratic side do not measure up to the attractiveness of Laura
Bush. They didn't have the nerve to include it in the program
transcript. Just a toss off insult to every president's wife but
mostly an insult for the voters who come to this program for coverage
of issues that matter in selecting a president.
Hard Ball my *****! The only thing left to do is change the name of the
show to Goof Ball. What a waste of transmitter power. The whole
electoral coverage process just seems to be going into the dumper.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 06:38:09 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:4018460B.BF2E233E@rica.net...
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
(snip)
At the risk of sounding like an "old fart" (well, I kinda am one <g>),
I'm
appalled at the quality of coverage of the campaign. It's just *bad.
(snip)
Did you catch the opening grabber on Hardball last Friday (I think)?
It was a smirking joke about how the potential first ladies on the
Democratic side do not measure up to the attractiveness of Laura
Bush.
Some of our best first ladies have been...uh...less than attractive. Just
look at Eleanor Roosevelt.
--
Peacenik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 11:39:57 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:38:09 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Peacenik" <criskity999@com999cast.removeallnines.net>
came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:4018460B.BF2E233E@rica.net...
It was a smirking joke about how the potential first ladies on the
Democratic side do not measure up to the attractiveness of Laura
Bush.
Some of our best first ladies have been...uh...less than attractive. Just
look at Eleanor Roosevelt.
My mom and I used to joke about George HW Bush and his mother,
Barbara.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 12:10:37 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
My mom and I used to joke about George HW Bush and
his mother, Barbara.
Great line from the First Bush error....era:
"Ha! I fooled you all! I'm really his mother. The one with the
cane is his wife."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 06:23:18 PM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:30:19 -0500 didst John Popelish speak
thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
(snip)
At the risk of sounding like an "old fart" (well, I kinda am one <g>), I'm
appalled at the quality of coverage of the campaign. It's just *bad.
(snip)
Did you catch the opening grabber on Hardball last Friday (I think)?
It was a smirking joke about how the potential first ladies on the
Democratic side do not measure up to the attractiveness of Laura
Bush. They didn't have the nerve to include it in the program
transcript. Just a toss off insult to every president's wife but
mostly an insult for the voters who come to this program for coverage
of issues that matter in selecting a president.
Hard Ball my *****! The only thing left to do is change the name of the
show to Goof Ball. What a waste of transmitter power. The whole
electoral coverage process just seems to be going into the dumper.
I *cannot* watch that show. The man sounds like he's in Jr. High...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 01:13:45 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.01.29.00.23.17.899200@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:30:19 -0500 didst John Popelish speak
thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
(snip)
At the risk of sounding like an "old fart" (well, I kinda am one <g>), I'm
appalled at the quality of coverage of the campaign. It's just *bad.
(snip)
Did you catch the opening grabber on Hardball last Friday (I think)?
It was a smirking joke about how the potential first ladies on the
Democratic side do not measure up to the attractiveness of Laura
Bush. They didn't have the nerve to include it in the program
transcript. Just a toss off insult to every president's wife but
mostly an insult for the voters who come to this program for coverage
of issues that matter in selecting a president.
Hard Ball my *****! The only thing left to do is change the name of the
show to Goof Ball. What a waste of transmitter power. The whole
electoral coverage process just seems to be going into the dumper.
I *cannot* watch that show. The man sounds like he's in Jr. High...
I agree. That show is awful. I also agree with you guys that as the
amount of news coverage increases, the quality of the content decreases.
It has reached the point wher in talking more and more about less and
less , the 'heads' are jabbering continuously about nothing.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 05:27:24 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
Week after week after week of experts insisting "Dean can't win" and
"Dean is too idealistic."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 12:40:55 AM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a820fad2558f81d98a2b3@netnews.comcast.net...
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
Week after week after week of experts insisting "Dean can't win" and
"Dean is too idealistic."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
I was getting miffed at Dean mostly because of all the endorsements and
backing he was getting from other Dems. Everyone I listened to sounded like
they were ready to hand him the nomination that day. One Conservative radio
guy said that the nom isn't decided by the primaries, it's decided before,
and Dean was the winner. Hey, don't we get to cast votes anymore. And that
same Conservative radio guy was cackling at the prospect.
Then Dean lost big in Iowa. And it was my turn to cackle.
Clark for Prez.:D
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 06:01:04 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 28 Jan 2004 09:48:33 -0800,
(Daniel Kolle) wrote:
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
I think the Democratic candidate this year is going to be as
unpredictable and illogical as the tides. Public opinion by and large
is going to be tugged every which way like the tide as Democrats this
time around attempt to pool together. The bulk of the people are
going to go towards whichever candidate they think has the best chance
of winning against Bush. And which candidate _that_ would be is
determined by a multitude of factors, all which fluctuate almost
randomly on a constant basis. I think the thrust of the Democratic
party this time around is to give Shrub the biggest message of which
they are capable.
I just hope it's enough. Now that the media has focused attention on
Kerry, I'm almost willing to bet at this point that his lead in future
campaign states is going to increase by a rapidly widening margin.
--
L8r,
Bill
/\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*/.\|`=~`\-/.|=\`~*`\|/.-~\
"What I most admire about myself is my incurable narcissism."
/\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*/.\|`=~`\-/.|=\`~*`\|/.-~\
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
28 Jan 2004 09:42:05 PM |
|
|
In article <7614cd74.0401280948.43191a18@posting.google.com>,
DKolle@hotmail.com says...
Can someone explain to me what it was that Kerry did to make him so
popular in just these past few weeks?
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires. He's JFK (John
Forbes Kerry). He's the "Real Deal" baby, unlike that service dodging
deserter George W. Bush. If Bush wants to run on national security then
Kerry has three words for him -- "Bring It On!" Bush talks tough, but
Kerry is tough. Bush can't even ride his segway without falling on his
stupid *****. Kerry rides a Harley like it ain't no thang. He ain't no
double-chinned governor squealing like a pig on stage 'cuz he only got
18% in Iowa. Kerry's told the Bush special interests and the anti-
environmentalist pollution mafia that "We're coming. You're going...and
don't let the door hit you in the ***** on the way out." Kerry is head and
shoulders above the rest of the democratic candidates, but literally and
figuratively.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 12:16:23 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, a stranger
called by some quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
If Bush wants to run on national security then
Kerry has three words for him -- "Bring It On!"
I'm dreaming about the Bush/Kerry debate with Bush desperately trying
not to give Kerry an opening to compare their Vietnam War
experiences...
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 01:31:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:16:23 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
If Bush wants to run on national security then
Kerry has three words for him -- "Bring It On!"
I'm dreaming about the Bush/Kerry debate with Bush desperately trying
not to give Kerry an opening to compare their Vietnam War
experiences...
I'm dreaming about a Bush/botox debate with botox desperately trying not to give
Bush an opening to compare their presidential experiences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 06:52:12 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:31:23 -0600, a stranger
called by some duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:16:23 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
If Bush wants to run on national security then
Kerry has three words for him -- "Bring It On!"
I'm dreaming about the Bush/Kerry debate with Bush desperately trying
not to give Kerry an opening to compare their Vietnam War
experiences...
I'm dreaming about a Bush/botox debate with botox desperately trying not to give
Bush an opening to compare their presidential experiences.
Sort of like the Bush/Gore debate?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
01 Feb 2004 09:14:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:52:12 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
I'm dreaming about a Bush/botox debate with botox desperately trying not to give
Bush an opening to compare their presidential experiences.
Sort of like the Bush/Gore debate?
Hey, my man is **President** George Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
01 Feb 2004 05:28:36 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:52:12 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
I'm dreaming about a Bush/botox debate with botox desperately trying not
to give Bush an opening to compare their presidential experiences.
Sort of like the Bush/Gore debate?
Hey, my man is **President** George Bush.
he's not exactly a man.
AWOL Bush, what a hero, shaking his ugly ***** in a borrowed flight suit
while still lying about his AWOL record.
Lying us into a war, running this nation economically into the ground.
--
"Socialist!" A name thrown at a moderate by a
reactionary who has run out of relevant argumemnts
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
31 Jan 2004 05:28:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:16:23 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>, Message ID:
<8eji105qdfeni5shcgtt24kehlutbtqjjf@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, a stranger
called by some quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
If Bush wants to run on national security then
Kerry has three words for him -- "Bring It On!"
I'm dreaming about the Bush/Kerry debate with Bush desperately trying
not to give Kerry an opening to compare their Vietnam War
experiences...
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 04:24:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and said:
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires.
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay more in income
tax than you do in five or ten years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 04:44:49 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay
more in income tax than you do in five or ten years.
They also pay a far smaller percentage of their income
in taxes than do the poor & middle class, even though
all of their tax burden is paid out of discretionary income.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 10:30:24 AM |
|
|
And so upon Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:24:47 -0600 didst Daniel Kolle speak
thusly:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and said:
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires.
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay more in income
tax than you do in five or ten years.
Except the large numbers of them who don't pay anything remotely
resembling what a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's pays.
You'd be amazed at how many ways there are for the very rich to get out of
taxes...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jojo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 10:22:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:30:24 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:24:47 -0600 didst Daniel Kolle speak
thusly:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and said:
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires.
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay more in income
tax than you do in five or ten years.
Except the large numbers of them who don't pay anything remotely
resembling what a guy flipping burgers at McDonald's pays.
You'd be amazed at how many ways there are for the very rich to get out of
taxes...
Examples please? Loopholes so big that millionaires pay less taxes than
burger flippers? I've seen movies too, but those don't count.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
29 Jan 2004 11:43:56 PM |
|
|
In article <is1j101mgf6630ms2tekedgrequp8gnj83@4ax.com>,
DKolle@hotmail.com says...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and said:
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires.
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay more in income
tax than you do in five or ten years.
I'm aware that many of them can pay less in taxes than I do. However,
nobody ever said that all income tax payments had to be equal.
Millionaires consume more services from the government and receive more
benefits. Therefore it is proper that they should pay a larger share
(though many still evade this with a variety of loopholes).
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: John Kerry |
30 Jan 2004 09:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:43:56 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <is1j101mgf6630ms2tekedgrequp8gnj83@4ax.com>,
DKolle@hotmail.com says...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
thought hard and said:
Did you hear his victory speech in New Hampshire? He wants to give real
taxcuts to millions, rather than just to millionaires.
And you are aware, I am sure, that the millionaires pay more in income
tax than you do in five or ten years.
I'm aware that many of them can pay less in taxes than I do. However,
nobody ever said that all income tax payments had to be equal.
Millionaires consume more services from the government and receive more
benefits. Therefore it is proper that they should pay a larger share
Not that I disagree - but could you come up with some examples?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
