| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2004 05:24:40 PM |
| Object: |
Senor Chico, NeoCon Liar (But Then I reapeat Myself) |
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:49:08 -0400, "Senor Chico"
<SenorChico@Byetme.org> wrote:
"Mr. Nobody" <losersRus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efc9b1672bfb37040d484f1e382cbd58@news.meganetnews.com...
"Senor Chico" <SenorChico@Byetme.org> wrote in message
news:zC3Wc.14631$%n4.371@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[Kerry's 57 Sponsered Resolutions]
None passed.
That's an outright lie.
Why do you lie?
Prove it's a lie, or shut the ***** up, crybaby
You're a ***** NeoCon liar and a coward. Now go ***** yourself.
"Many of Kerry's Sponsered Bills Passed"
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -962 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: ATHEISTS & LIBERALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH CRIME |
22 Aug 2004 10:30:02 PM |
|
|
ATHEISTS & LIBERALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH CRIME
I'm sure you are aware of how violent America's and the world's
community of youths have gotten, even at very young ages. Consider the
following cases: "A 15 years old girl was strung up in a tree and a
friend clubbed her to death with a rock for threatening to reveal
plans by a group of teens to run away to Florida, police said.
"Snitches get hurt," the friend told the victim, according to
witnesses. Kimberly Jo Dotts' body was found by hikers Tuesday in a
clearing called Gallows Harbor, named after a hanging in the 19th
century. Her friend, Jessica Holtmeyer, 16, and Aaron Straw, 18, were
arrested Wednesday, 10 days after the slaying. They were charged with
homicide and are being held in the county jail. Police said more
arrests
were possible. An investigator said other teens were present during
the attack but walked away. Police did get an anonymous call a few
days before the body was found, but did not elaborate on what was
said. 11 people - the two suspects, Kimberly Jo, her 24-year-old
cousin, Tracy Lewis, and seven teenagers - were planning to run away
to Florida, but got angry at Kimberly Jo when she backed out a! nd
threatened to reveal their plans. The group toyed with Kimberly Jo by
putting the noose around her neck, then removing
it. At one point, she was dragged around the wooded clearing by her
neck." InFoBeat News 5/22/98
"Three sixth-grade boys had a "hit list" and were plotting to kill
fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during
a false fire alarm, police said. The plan was modeled after a recent
ambush at a
Jonesboro, Ark., school that left five dead, Lt. Dave Todd said.
Police learned of the plan after they responded to a fight at Becky
Davis Elementary School in rural St. Charles County Thursday. Todd
said what officers found was far more serious than a schoolyard brawl.
The boys planned to pull a fire alarm and shoot students as they fled
the school, Todd said. He said they got the idea from the March 24
incident in Jonesboro where an 11-year-old boy and his 13-year-old
friend allegedly opened fire on classmates after pulling an alarm.
Four pupils and a teacher were killed and 10 people were wounded. The
sniper attack was to be carried out June 6, the last day of school."
InFoBeat News 5/22/98
Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children
having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS and other
non-beleivers in the true God. So you may ask how can this be? The
reason why they are responsible is because they hate God and teach
their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse).
For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their
Author. In the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God commands all mankind not to kill,
not to steal, to honor our parents and so forth. Since atheists hate
God and His Commandments, they teach their children and the children
they have authority over against God and against His commandments.
There is no other morality other than God's Moral Law. God is the
Author of all morality. Since atheists teach children against God's
morality, they have to in turn be teaching them to do the very things
God says not to do.
Some of the many ways atheists are doing this are through anti-God and
anti-moral parental attitude, violence in the movie and music
industries, anti-moral attitude on the web and etc. All the anti-God
and anti-moral attitudes found in these fields come from atheists and
other non believers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Psalm110" |
|
| Title: Re: ATHEISTS & LIBERALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH CRIME |
23 Aug 2004 08:26:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:30:02 -0400, accomplice to felons Michael
Marxist Moore <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> told aided frauds by posting:
??? RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH CRIME
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: Hitlery Warns Kerry: Hands off McAuliffe |
23 Aug 2004 09:32:44 PM |
|
|
Hitlery Warns Kerry: Hands off McAuliffe
Super left-wing Sen. Hitlary Clinton is warning all-but-certain
presidential nominee John Kerry to back off if he's thinking about
replacing party chairman Terry McAuliffe before the election.
Asked about rumblings that the Kerry camp wanted to toss McAuliffe
over the side, Clinton told the New York Times on Friday, "Terry has
helped the Democratic Party move into the 21st century to compete
against the incredible interlocking institutional powers of the other
side."
"A lot of plans have been laid, a lot of infrastructure put in place,
and I want to see us follow through," she insisted.
The disagreement over McAuliffe's future could be just the tip of the
iceberg of a growing rift between the Clintons, who, through
McAuliffe, still control the party's machinery, and Sen. Kerry's
political team, which now sees itself in the driver's seat.
Sen. Clinton, for instance, reminded the Times that her husband did
not replace the party chairman when he became the nominee in 1992 - a
none-too-subtle hint that she expects Kerry to follow suit.
Still, the Kerry camp is reportedly bristling over McAuliffe's antics,
such as his decision to publicly allege that President Bush went AWOL
from the National Guard. That stunt put the spotlight on parts of
Kerry's past that he preferred not to discuss - such as his decision
to team up with Jane Fonda for anti-war protests in the 1970s.
Another sign of the growing rift between the Kerry and Clinton teams
came late Tuesday, when Sen. Clinton offered an unenthusiastic
endorsement to Kerry as the party's inevitable nominee, and did so on
Japanese TV - a venue few Americans were likely to notice.
Strategists for the Massachusetts Democrat are said to be considering
different ways to curb McAuliffe's independence - a move that would
certainly limit the influence wielded by Sen. Clinton and her husband
in
upcoming campaign decisions.
Still, Kerry strategists, aware that alienating the Clintons could
cost their candidate in more ways than one, have to be careful not to
ignite an internal civil war.
Even without McAuliffe, for example, Sen. Clinton controls the
Democratic Party's presidential media fund through her right-hand man,
Harold Ickes, who has the backing of Bush-bashing billionaire George
Soros.
And other Democratic groups that will play critical roles in the 2004
election include Americans Coming Together, founded by Hillary ally
Ellen Malcom, and the Center for American Progress, run by former
Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: SPAM (Re: Hitlery Warns ...) |
23 Aug 2004 11:53:33 PM |
|
|
"Hanoi Jane Fonda" <hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote
[---spam---]
This spamming has now achieved critical mass, with literally
hundreds of (the exact same) articles posted a day.
Send your complaints to alt.net while there's still some
actual conversations left.
Fax your complaints to: 206-367-4319
Call in your complaints at: 206-367-4320
E-mail your complaints to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nothing" |
|
| Title: JTEM SPAM: (JTEM CRIES TO MOMMY THAT HE WANTS TO PLAY NET-COP!) |
24 Aug 2004 01:40:39 AM |
|
|
It looks like JTEM & Yang have gotten their asses kicked all over
usenet and are now trying to lick thei wounds!
So now they are crying about wanting to turn people in to their ISPs.
HOW PATHETIC THESE STUPID LIBERALS GET!
If JTEM & Yang can't play nice, then they should expect to be picked
on by the other children.
And sinse JTEM & Yang are giving out free DNS info about other
people's servers, then we should also be able to send their spam back
to their ISP also. So if you need to know where to complain about
these two children, then look no further than below:
OrgName: Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc
OrgID: CCCH-3
Address: 1800 Bishops Gate Blvd
City: Mt Laurel
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08054
Country: US
NetRange: 24.60.0.0 - 24.63.255.255
CIDR: 24.60.0.0/14
NetName: RW2-NORTHEAST-1
NetHandle: NET-24-60-0-0-1
Parent: NET-24-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS4.ATTBB.NET
NameServer: NS5.ATTBB.NET
NameServer: NS6.ATTBB.NET
Comment:
RegDate:
Updated: 2004-02-18
OrgAbuseHandle: NAPO-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Network Abuse and Policy Observance
OrgAbusePhone: +1-856-317-7272
OrgAbuseEmail:
OrgTechHandle: IC161-ARIN
OrgTechName: Comcast Cable Communications Inc
OrgTechPhone: +1-856-317-7200
OrgTechEmail:
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: SPAM (was Re: JTEM...) |
24 Aug 2004 05:31:46 PM |
|
|
"Nothing" <nothing@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote
[---nothing---]
Because this isn't person isn't just spamming, but often
posting copyrighted materials (and sometimes even
altering the text without notice) send those complaints to:
Cais Internet.
6861 Elm Street, Third Floor
McLean, VA
22101
Phone: 703-448-4470
404-222-9911 (usenetserver.com)
404-523-1018 (ditto)
E-mail:
Specific copyright infringement complaints:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: JTEM playing NET-COP!! Another dullard liberal idiot! |
24 Aug 2004 07:01:36 PM |
|
|
It looks like JTEM & Yang have gotten their asses kicked all over
usenet and are now trying to lick thei wounds!
So now they are crying about wanting to turn people in to their ISPs.
HOW PATHETIC THESE STUPID LIBERALS GET!
If JTEM & Yang can't play nice, then they should expect to be picked
on by the other children.
And sinse JTEM & Yang are giving out free DNS info about other
people's servers, then we should also be able to send their spam back
to their ISP also. So if you need to know where to complain about
these two children, then look no further than below:
OrgName: Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc
OrgID: CCCH-3
Address: 1800 Bishops Gate Blvd
City: Mt Laurel
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08054
Country: US
NetRange: 24.60.0.0 - 24.63.255.255
CIDR: 24.60.0.0/14
NetName: RW2-NORTHEAST-1
NetHandle: NET-24-60-0-0-1
Parent: NET-24-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS4.ATTBB.NET
NameServer: NS5.ATTBB.NET
NameServer: NS6.ATTBB.NET
Comment:
RegDate:
Updated: 2004-02-18
OrgAbuseHandle: NAPO-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Network Abuse and Policy Observance
OrgAbusePhone: +1-856-317-7272
OrgAbuseEmail:
OrgTechHandle: IC161-ARIN
OrgTechName: Comcast Cable Communications Inc
OrgTechPhone: +1-856-317-7200
OrgTechEmail:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 01:17:59 AM |
|
|
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star
was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely
described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small
arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.
To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other
accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at
my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.
I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action
report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the
only officer who filed a report describing his version of the
incidents that occurred on the river that day.
It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after
I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a
citation for my actions on that day.
I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my
efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and
to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat
and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat
sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided
immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking
and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.
After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water,
John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled
the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on
Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water.
Kerry's boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy
gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before
another boat was going to pick him up.
Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this
incident-the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only
briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr.
Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day
reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The
only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the
underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from
enemy gunfire.
And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally
acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the
other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a
direct
contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the
Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left
Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.
These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry
campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left
the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left
behind?
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smearboat Veterans For Bush" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 05:26:20 PM |
|
|
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
| But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
| yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of
| Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms
| and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the
| five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day,
| and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a
| damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printer
And yet smearboat "veteran" Larry Thurlow says that Kerry
is lying and that there was no enemy fire that day.
Well we know that Larry Thurlow *IS* lying. He was either
lying when he took the bronze star for bravery under fire,
or he's lying now. They can't both be true.
So a confirmed liar is attacking Kerry, and Bush supporters
think this is good.
Hmmm.... how sleazy do you have to be to support Bush?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 06:56:39 PM |
|
|
"Smearboat Veterans For Bush" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> wrote in
news:rL-dnTqhmZaoIrbcRVn-tA@comcast.com:
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
| But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
| yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of
| Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms
| and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the
| five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day,
| and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a
| damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?
language=prin
ter
And yet smearboat "veteran" Larry Thurlow says that Kerry
is lying and that there was no enemy fire that day.
Well we know that Larry Thurlow *IS* lying. He was either
lying when he took the bronze star for bravery under fire,
or he's lying now. They can't both be true.
He didn't write the citation for his Bronze Star; there's every reason
to suspect that Kerry did write his own and the incident was copied to
cite the others.
So a confirmed liar is attacking Kerry, and Bush supporters
think this is good.
Current "confirmed lie" score: Kerry 3, SBV's 1.
Kerry: Christmas in Cambodia. Purple Heart #1. Purple Heart #3.
Hmmm.... how sleazy do you have to be to support Bush?
How sleazy do you have to be to ask that question?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 08:54:14 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
He didn't write the citation for his Bronze Star; there's
every reason to suspect that Kerry did write his own
and the incident was copied to cite the others.
...and nobody noticed for 35 years.
Nope. Even with the President of the United States -- Richard
Nixon -- targeting John Kerry and mentioning him by name
(several references on the famous Nixon Whitehouse tapes),
even with an organized effort to discredit John Kerry by
the Nixon Whitehouse, not one human being on the face of
the planet thought to make the accusations being made by the
exact same people who smeared John McCain & Max Cleland.
Facts are facts. The facts are that Bush is worse than Nixon.
The Republicans have slid down-hill since Nixon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 09:20:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:54:14 -0400, "JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk>
wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
He didn't write the citation for his Bronze Star; there's
every reason to suspect that Kerry did write his own
and the incident was copied to cite the others.
...and nobody noticed for 35 years.
Nope. Even with the President of the United States -- Richard
Nixon -- targeting John Kerry and mentioning him by name
(several references on the famous Nixon Whitehouse tapes),
even with an organized effort to discredit John Kerry by
the Nixon Whitehouse, not one human being on the face of
the planet thought to make the accusations being made by the
exact same people who smeared John McCain & Max Cleland.
Facts are facts. The facts are that Bush is worse than Nixon.
The Republicans have slid down-hill since Nixon.
They were in free fall after Reagan desperate to win lured the white
trash out of our part and into theirs.
No take back guys they are all yours.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 09:19:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:56:39 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Smearboat Veterans For Bush" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> wrote in
news:rL-dnTqhmZaoIrbcRVn-tA@comcast.com:
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
| But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
| yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of
| Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms
| and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the
| five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day,
| and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a
| damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?
language=prin
ter
And yet smearboat "veteran" Larry Thurlow says that Kerry
is lying and that there was no enemy fire that day.
Well we know that Larry Thurlow *IS* lying. He was either
lying when he took the bronze star for bravery under fire,
or he's lying now. They can't both be true.
He didn't write the citation for his Bronze Star; there's every reason
to suspect that Kerry did write his own and the incident was copied to
cite the others.
Where did these reasons to suspect that Kerry wrote his own?
Happened 35 years ago and all of the fundamentalist Republican hacks
remember it in perfect detail.
Eye witness are notoriously undependable. What does that say for the
SwiftBoatVets who are relying on hearsay?
Like the guy said "Do you sir have no shame?"
Oh course not don't even adress that I was only kidding.
Keep attack the Viet Vets and see what happens 11/2/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
25 Aug 2004 07:47:28 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2itni09uts0btcvadtplmfmdo86ejln9e3@4ax.com:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:56:39 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Smearboat Veterans For Bush" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> wrote in
news:rL-dnTqhmZaoIrbcRVn-tA@comcast.com:
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
| But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
| yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of
| Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms
| and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the
| five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day,
| and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a
| damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?
language=prin
ter
And yet smearboat "veteran" Larry Thurlow says that Kerry
is lying and that there was no enemy fire that day.
Well we know that Larry Thurlow *IS* lying. He was either
lying when he took the bronze star for bravery under fire,
or he's lying now. They can't both be true.
He didn't write the citation for his Bronze Star; there's every reason
to suspect that Kerry did write his own and the incident was copied to
cite the others.
Where did these reasons to suspect that Kerry wrote his own?
Happened 35 years ago and all of the fundamentalist Republican hacks
remember it in perfect detail.
Eye witness are notoriously undependable. What does that say for the
SwiftBoatVets who are relying on hearsay?
They're not relying on hearsay. Each and every one of them attests to
something he witnessed personally.
Like the guy said "Do you sir have no shame?"
Oh course not don't even adress that I was only kidding.
Keep attack the Viet Vets and see what happens 11/2/04
You mean Kerry's attacks on Viet Vets in 1971?
http://www.swiftvets.com/
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040823224946169
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
25 Aug 2004 05:14:29 PM |
|
|
"Smearboat Veterans For Bush" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> wrote in
news:rL-dnTqhmZaoIrbcRVn-tA@comcast.com:
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
| But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
| yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of
| Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms
| and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the
| five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day,
| and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a
| damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?
language=prin
ter
And yet smearboat "veteran" Larry Thurlow says that Kerry
is lying and that there was no enemy fire that day.
Well we know that Larry Thurlow *IS* lying. He was either
lying when he took the bronze star for bravery under fire,
or he's lying now. They can't both be true.
The answer is simple: Thurlow's award was for a whole other incident:
http://qando.net/archives/003894.htm
So a confirmed liar is attacking Kerry, and Bush supporters
think this is good.
Hmmm.... how sleazy do you have to be to support Bush?
Not as sleazy as whoever has been spinning the stories to support
Kerry's position.
Current score: Kerry's lies 4, SBV 0.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
25 Aug 2004 09:48:33 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
The answer is simple: Thurlow's award was for a whole other incident:
http://qando.net/archives/003894.htm
Yeah. And now that a totally biased blogger has "Figured it out,"
he can tell the smearboat veterans how to respond the next time
they're confronted with the documentation that disproves them.
THANK GOODNESS A BLOGGER WHO DOESN'T EVEN PRETEND
HE WAS THERE IS AROUND NOW TO TELL THE SUPPOSED
EYEWITNESSES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!
Do you honestly believe for one moment that Nixon would have
passed on using this stuff against John Kerry?
Obviously you're pretending that you do. You're pretending that
the previous all-time sleaziest politician in American history,
Mr. Watergate himself, refused to use this information against
John Kerry.
Not that he didn't try to discredit John Kerry -- he did, and a number
of references to John Kerry are found on the Nixon Whitehouse
tapes -- but you're saying that Nixon refused to attack Kerry with
the (imaginary) "Truth," because it's just so much more honorable
to lie about a man than to attack his war record.
All the players were around 35 years ago, include O'Neill, Nixon's
hand-picked man to go after Kerry in the 1970s, and Bush's
hand-picked man to front the smearboat veterans for Bush campaign.
Why didn't O'Neill bring this up when he was, oh, I dunno,
DEBATING JOHN KERRY ON TELEVISION!
You're arguing, what? That O'Neill, the lowest piece of filth
on this Earth, disagreed with Everything John Kerry stood for
but didn't want to embarrass him?
That's why O'Neill waited 35 years before inventing...errr... "bringing
this up"?
You're low. You're a worthless pile of *****, "Fred."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 10:34:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue 24 Aug 2004 01:17:59a, Michael Marxist Moore <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up
a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow
I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star
was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely
described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small
arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.
To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other
accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at
my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.
I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action
report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the
only officer who filed a report describing his version of the
incidents that occurred on the river that day.
It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after
I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a
citation for my actions on that day.
I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my
efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and
to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat
and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat
sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided
immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking
and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.
After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water,
John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled
the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on
Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water.
Kerry's boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy
gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before
another boat was going to pick him up.
Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this
incident-the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only
briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr.
Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day
reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The
only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the
underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from
enemy gunfire.
And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally
acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the
other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a
direct
contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the
Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left
Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.
These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry
campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left
the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left
behind?
All that is great, but it merely serves to illustrate something I've
noticed about politics in general and American politics in particular -- on
both sides, liberal and conservative. That is, they act like a bunch of
schoolyard kids yelling at each other.
"Hey weenie, *I* was a hero and *you* weren't!"
"Nuh-uh, you weren't a hero! You weren't *really* a hero! You ran away!"
"Uh-huh, I was, and you're a yellow-bellied nicker-nacker, neener, neener!"
"Meanie! Shut up! Your wife is a spoiled heiress and she's probably a
criminal too naaaaa-naaaaa!"
"Yeah, well, Jack Ryan asked his wife to screw him in front of strangers!
Eeeeewww cooties!"
.... and so on. Don't you guys ever grow the ***** up? And doesn't it
frighten anyone that the people running our country make a regular practice
of behaving like children having a temper tantrum?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 05:29:36 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
All that is great, but it merely serves to illustrate something
I've noticed about politics in general and American politics
in particular -- on both sides, liberal and conservative.
Unfortunately, it isn't happening on both sides.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to John McCain in 2000.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to Max Cleland in 2002.
One side -- and only one side -- is doing this to John Kerry now.
This ain't a two-way street. There's a pattern, but it's in the shape
of a neo-con.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
24 Aug 2004 06:55:16 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> wrote in news:17ydnbaZu_lkIrbcRVn-
pQ@comcast.com:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
All that is great, but it merely serves to illustrate something
I've noticed about politics in general and American politics
in particular -- on both sides, liberal and conservative.
Unfortunately, it isn't happening on both sides.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to John McCain in 2000.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to Max Cleland in 2002.
One side -- and only one side -- is doing this to John Kerry now.
This ain't a two-way street. There's a pattern, but it's in the shape
of a neo-con.
And apparently, one side (and only one) did this to Ann Richards in the
90's.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
The Fundamentalist
== Knows no greater joy than the sound of his own voice.
== Knows no greater terror than the god he creates in his own image.
== Knows no greater evil than an unfettered mind.
== Knows no greater blasphemy than being told "NO."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
25 Aug 2004 01:57:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue 24 Aug 2004 05:29:36p, "JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> kicked back with
a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
All that is great, but it merely serves to illustrate something
I've noticed about politics in general and American politics
in particular -- on both sides, liberal and conservative.
Unfortunately, it isn't happening on both sides.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to John McCain in 2000.
One side -- and only one side -- did this to Max Cleland in 2002.
One side -- and only one side -- is doing this to John Kerry now.
This ain't a two-way street. There's a pattern, but it's in the shape
of a neo-con.
Oh, it's a two-way street all right. The neo-cons seem to be worse than
the liberals (although that may just be my bias talking), but we still have
our Michael Moores and our Chicago Tribunes and our democrat.coms.
(Hoo boy, am I gonna get flak for saying that -- but folks, shameless
propaganda is still shameless propaganda, even when the propagandist
happens to have the same goals you do)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
25 Aug 2004 03:14:42 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Oh, it's a two-way street all right.
Pure fantasy.
The neo-cons seem to be worse than the liberals (although that
may just be my bias talking), but we still have our Michael
Moores and our Chicago Tribunes and our democrat.coms.
Could you give us some examples that you believe are at all
similar to what Bush is now doing to Kerry?
For an historical perspective: Nixon hated John Kerry. Nixon
did all he could to discredit John Kerry. John Kerry actually
found his way on the famous Nixon Whitehouse tapes, as Nixon
and others discussed John Kerry and his anti-war movement.
Nixon didn't stoop this law. He was a liar, a criminal and a
paranoid loon, but even he never lowered himself to the level
of Bush and his people.
Do you honestly believe that if a single word from Bush's
smear campaign was true Nixon wouldn't have used it?
Please.
So Michael Moore has opinions? And this compares to a
multi-million dollar smear campaign... how?
I saw Michael Moore's movie. Aside from his overt pacifism,
there was no "Propaganda." There was far more being said
about the Bush family's connection to the Saudi "royals" and
the Bin Ladens going back *Years* before 9/11 then what
Michael Moore put into his film. If anything, Michael Moore
SCALED BACK his claims for the film, using only what he
could document.
Again, please show us what you're comparing to Bush's
smears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
26 Aug 2004 01:15:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed 25 Aug 2004 03:14:42p, "JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> kicked back with
a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Oh, it's a two-way street all right.
Pure fantasy.
The neo-cons seem to be worse than the liberals (although that
may just be my bias talking), but we still have our Michael
Moores and our Chicago Tribunes and our democrat.coms.
Could you give us some examples that you believe are at all
similar to what Bush is now doing to Kerry?
For an historical perspective: Nixon hated John Kerry. Nixon
did all he could to discredit John Kerry. John Kerry actually
found his way on the famous Nixon Whitehouse tapes, as Nixon
and others discussed John Kerry and his anti-war movement.
Nixon didn't stoop this law. He was a liar, a criminal and a
paranoid loon, but even he never lowered himself to the level
of Bush and his people.
Do you honestly believe that if a single word from Bush's
smear campaign was true Nixon wouldn't have used it?
Please.
So Michael Moore has opinions? And this compares to a
multi-million dollar smear campaign... how?
I saw Michael Moore's movie. Aside from his overt pacifism,
there was no "Propaganda." There was far more being said
about the Bush family's connection to the Saudi "royals" and
the Bin Ladens going back *Years* before 9/11 then what
Michael Moore put into his film. If anything, Michael Moore
SCALED BACK his claims for the film, using only what he
could document.
Again, please show us what you're comparing to Bush's
smears.
As I said, JTEM (but you evidently didn't notice when I said it), it does
seem to me that the neo-cons are worse than the liberals. Nevertheless,
the American liberal crowd is by no means innocent. If you need examples
-- well, a perfect one is the whole issue about Bush's National Guard
service. That is completely equivalent to the "smear Kerry" campaign, if
not quite so bad.
Yes, yes, I know what you will say; military service is an important
qualification in a President. But that, of course, is not the real reason.
If it were Kerry who had not served in active military duty, I'd wager
every penny I have that it would suddenly be not so important an issue to
the Democrats after all. Yes, it's a reason; but it wouldn't be *enough*
reason to attack Bush if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats want
some mud to sling, too.
You're getting quite upset (as I expected many to be when I said this)
because you feel slighted and insulted, being a liberal yourself (and
please remember that I am also a liberal, or very near to it). But you are
not being realistic. JTEM, the entire world knows what I'm talking about.
Go to, say, France or Holland or Germany and ask people whether they think
American politics are childish. I doubt you'll meet many who distinguish
between the Republican mudslingers and the Democratic mudslingers. You
would just prefer to believe that your side has no mudslingers -- but if
you pride yourself on your objectivity (and I know you do), you should open
your eyes and watch how our political races are conducted.
Childish, immature, whiny mud- and insult-slinging is the norm. I don't
believe we in this country have the slightest clue how to pick our elected
officials if someone doesn't first tell us why the candidates are
particularly despicable dregs of humanity. And why are we told that the
various candidates are such despicable dregs of humanity? Why, because
they did something not quite "respectable" in their sex lives, or they
weren't quite as brave as the next guy, or they don't pray enough, or they
told a lie or changed their mind once, or this or that or the other petty,
ridiculous, idiotic reason. God forbid that we would ever pick our leaders
based on ability rather than on whether they've committed a "sin" that the
mudslingers can dig up.
And then, of course, the decent folks stay out of politics since it turns
their stomachs to wallow in the manure-pit throwing glops of dripping *****
at each other. So we get the *****-chunkers in office, and the decent but
stupid masses kind of stand around peering at the candidates trying to
figure out which one has less ***** smeared all over his face so they can
decide who to vote for.
Come on, JTEM, you *know* the Democrats aren't innocent. They may be less
guilty than the Republicans -- I like to think they are, but I could just
be not seeing things I don't want to see -- but they aren't innocent.
Neither are the Republicans, of course. Our nation is ruled by a bunch of
squalling toddlers. Lovely, ain't it?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
26 Aug 2004 03:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
As I said, JTEM
If you like, you may call me "Master of the universe."
(but you evidently didn't notice when I said it), it does
seem to me that the neo-cons are worse than the liberals.
I hear that a lot, but nobody every produces a single example
of "Liberals" doing this.
Besides the fact that a lot of these "Liberals" aren't named,
they don't compare at all to the efforts of card-carrying
Republicans. "Liberal" is an undefined word, or a word
with as many definitions as the people who use it. "Liberal"
does not translate to "Democrat."
And, no, I don't believe it's the least bit "fair" or "honest"
to introduce the likes of Michael Moore when speaking of
the actions undertaken by card-carrying Republicans. If for
no other reason (besides the fact that Michael Moore isn't
a Democrat), he was amongst those attacking Bill Clinton.
If you need examples --
That I do.
well, a perfect one is the whole issue about Bush's National
Guard service.
Nope.
Sorry, but Bush himself released "Evidence" that established
a totally unaccounted for lapse in his "Service."
You're comparing lies to actual gaps in the records.
That's hardly objective of you.
That is completely equivalent to the "smear Kerry" campaign,
if not quite so bad.
It's nothing even approaching similar.
You're not being the least bit objective here.
Seriously. Apply the very same standards you are now
employing to the arguments for/against creationsim or
"Intelligent Design."
Going by your example, the argument on each side carries
equal weight. The idea that the facts used to support one
side should be granted more weight than the wishful thinking
on the other would have to be totally dismissed. That is, by
your current standards.
Yes, yes, I know what you will say; military service is an
important qualification in a President. But that, of course,
is not the real reason.
Incorrect on the first point, correct on the second( though
hardly telling).
If it were Kerry who had not served in active military duty,
I'd wager every penny I have that it would suddenly be not
so important an issue to the Democrats after all.
Pretty safe bet, as I have on many occasions -- right here on
alt.atheism -- argued that the issue *Is* *Not* that he didn't
serve, or even that he avoided the draft.
There's a lot of issues here -- a whole heaping bunch -- and
the idea that you have to serve in the military to hold elective
office is not one of them.
Bush lied, and continues to lie. That's one issue.
Bush supported the war, yet, because he took a spot in the
national guard, someone who did not support the war was
forced to either fight or break the law. There was only so
many places, and Bush took one of them. Bush supported
the war, but because of his actions someone else was
forced to go.
Bush used all the influence his family's power & money
could muster. He was lavished with unheard of privileges
and escaped any consequences for his actions. Yet, Bush
is busily constructing this fantasy world where he (unlike
John Kerry) is the "Common Man," filled with disdain for
*Elitism*.
Records have been destroyed, many appear to be altered
and/or contradict official records.
We're not talking about the past here. We're talking about
what is happening right now, today, streaming out of the
Whitehouse itself.
Lies are being told. Power is being abused ("the records").
Literally, Bush's actions are disproving Bush's word, and
everything Bush claims to stand for. Not 30 years ago but
today. Right now.
You're getting quite upset (as I expected many to be when
I said this) because you feel slighted and insulted, being a
liberal yourself (and please remember that I am also a
liberal, or very near to it).
No, I'm upset because you're an example of what Michael
Moore calls "Whimpy Democrats," bending over backwards
to not be too mean to the other side as they pee down your
leg and kick your dog.
Example: Your very own standards.
Genuine issues involving Bush's records, Bush's actions and
Bush's statement -- during the campaign -- are supposed to be
exactly equal to a bunch of charges some professional partisans
invented over a few beers and some nachos.
Your argument, simply put, does not hold water. Place your
very own standards elsewhere -- in the previous example of
science verses creation -- and even you would be the first to
denounce such lopsided, unobjective standards.
Come on, JTEM, you *know* the Democrats aren't innocent.
Put the cards on the table. That's all I ask...
They may be less guilty than the Republicans
I'd be happy if they were "Less Guilty." Unfortunately, they're
not the least bit guilty. I truly believe the Republicans won't
stop until they believe that everything they pull will be returned
to them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
27 Aug 2004 09:25:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu 26 Aug 2004 03:38:29p, "JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> kicked back with
a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Ok, you're still missing the point, man. Whether or not it's a lie is NOT
THE ISSUE. I DON'T CARE whether the Republicans are telling the dirtiest
lies of the century and the Democrats and spouting the God-honest truth. I
don't even care if it's the other way around.
You seem to think that I'm attacking the Democrats for lying. I'm not.
I'm not even attacking the Democrats per se, really -- just some Democrats
who happen to be active these days, as well as many Republicans who are
active these days.
Note, also, that I am most definitely not a Democrat, so it's a bit
disingenuous to call me a "Whimpy Democrat", isn't it? I like more
Democratic candidates than I do Republican -- but I think that Nixon, for
example, was quite a skilled President.
But the point here is that whether or not these accusations are true,
they're not important. They are accusations I would expect children to
hurl at each other, not grown men. The criteria that are important for
choosing an elected official are leadership ability, positions on issues,
business ethics (yes, these apply in politics as well), and so on. If you
could show that the other guy is lacking in one of those areas, then you
would have a good case. But showing that the other guy is lacking in
matters of his personal life is NOT a good argument against him -- it's
immature mudslinging, pure and simple.
Bush chickened out and used his daddy's pull to get out of Vietnam? That
may be true, or it may be a lie, but... so what?
Kerry ran away and left a damaged boat? That may be true, or it may be a
lie, but... so what?
Bush snorted coke when he was younger? That may be true, or it may be a
lie, but... so what?
Kerry got fake Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam early? That may be
true, or it may be a lie, but... so FUCKING WHAT?!
Each side is pointing fingers and accusing the other side of lying while
making their own accusations, and each side thinks that if they can prove
that they are telling the truth and the other side is lying, then they will
be vindicated and the other side will be proved evil.
What everyone seems to lose sight of is that it doesn't matter who is
lying. If you're trying to win an election by doing the political
equivalent of calling the other guy's mom fat, then whether she's actually
fat or not, you're immature and childish.
Your objection to my posts is the equivalent of, "How can you say that it's
childish to call his mom fat?! She IS fat! I can prove it!"
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
27 Aug 2004 11:53:54 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Ok, you're still missing the point, man.
"Man"? So we're not going with the "Master of the universe"?
Now I'm sad.
Whether or not it's a lie is NOT
THE ISSUE.
It is PRECISELY the issue.
I DON'T CARE whether the Republicans are telling
the dirtiest lies of the century and the Democrats and
spouting the God-honest truth.
You should.
Note, also, that I am most definitely not a Democrat,
so it's a bit disingenuous to call me a "Whimpy
Democrat", isn't it?
The analogy holds. I said you were an example of what
Michael Moore calls "Whimpy Democrats," more worried
about "seeing the other side" than the solution.
But the point here is that whether or not these accusations
are true, they're not important.
But they are important, and I've addressed the reasons why
they are important on numerous occasions.
Bush's military "service" disproves Bush the "President." It
disproves his sincerity, the fantsy imagine of himself that he
has concocted.
The lies, the "issues" surrounding missing & altered records
disprove Bush's claims of integrety.
The extensive privileges heaped on him -- heck, just the fact
that he was able to leap ahead of a huge waiting list to get
in the national guard -- reeks of "Elitism," though Bush himself
has constructed a fantasy of Bush as the "common man."
Bush is lying RIGHT NOW. Bush is abusing power RIGHT
NOW. Bush is misrepresenting himself RIGHT NOW.
They are accusations I would expect children to hurl at each
other, not grown men.
I see, you're a literalist?
It's not what he did back then, it's how it relates to, and
directly impacts today.
It's not "Don't vote for him because he dodged the draft."
It's: "Don't vote for him because everything he is saying,
and everything he pretends to stand for is a lie."
The criteria that are important for choosing an elected
official are leadership ability,
So a life-long history of successfully dodging responsibility
isn't relevant here?
positions on issues,
So absolute proof that he isn't the man he claims he is, he
doesn't stand for the things he says he stands for isn't
relevant here?
business ethics (yes, these apply in politics as well),
Well, certainly the blatent lies & abuse of power wouldn't
be relevant in that regard...
and so on.
Like... oh... like spotting an error before 58,000 Americans
die, or at least admitting to the error when it does finally
dawn on you?
Or, I dunno, maybe standing up for what you believe in...
like the necessity of fighting in Vietnam. Is Bush the kind
of man who'll only make those "Tough Choices" if he
knows his own candy-coated ***** is safe, or is he a man
of convictions?
Bush chickened out and used his daddy's pull to get
out of Vietnam? That may be true, or it may be a lie,
but... so what?
I already addressed this, and instead of responding to what
I said you're merely pretending I never said it.
Kerry ran away and left a damaged boat? That may be
true, or it may be a lie, but... so what?
I "may be true"?
Please.
That's *****, and you know it.
As I said (and you ignored), you would be amongst the first
to denounce your very own standards here, if they were
applied towards an argument on evolution verses creationism.
You're not being the least bit objective. Instead, you're behaving
exactly like those "Whimpy Democrats" that Michael Moore
likes to beat up on.
Each side is pointing fingers and accusing the other side
of lying while making their own accusations,
As I pointed out, that's not true.
You threw aside your objectivity.
Your objection to my posts is the equivalent of, "How can
you say that it's childish to call his mom fat?! She IS fat!
I can prove it!"
No, your argument is the equivalent of pointing towards a
5'4" tall, 350 pound woman and saying, "Maybe she is fat,
maybe she's skinny...."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
30 Aug 2004 01:31:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri 27 Aug 2004 11:53:54p, "JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> kicked back with
a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Ok, you're still missing the point, man.
"Man"? So we're not going with the "Master of the universe"?
Ok, ok. You're still missing the point, Master of the Universe.
Now I'm sad.
*comforts JTEM*
*feels gay and fidgets unconfortably*
Whether or not it's a lie is NOT
THE ISSUE.
It is PRECISELY the issue.
I disagree. While I understand that it is an issue for people all over the
country, I think it shouldn't be.
I DON'T CARE whether the Republicans are telling
the dirtiest lies of the century and the Democrats and
spouting the God-honest truth.
You should.
Why should I? Oh, I care if they lie to me about issues that relate to
Bush's plans for the Presidency, but not if they lie to me about what he
does in his personal life.
Note, also, that I am most definitely not a Democrat,
so it's a bit disingenuous to call me a "Whimpy
Democrat", isn't it?
The analogy holds. I said you were an example of what
Michael Moore calls "Whimpy Democrats," more worried
about "seeing the other side" than the solution.
I don't understand why you think this is all about being nice to the
Republicans. I'm not nice, JTEM. Haven't you noticed? Do you really
think that I, given my posting history here, am going to go out of my way
to be "nice"? I mean, really, man. We're talking about ME here.
No, the issue isn't about being nice. The issue is about hearing coverage
of important issues, rather than seeing nothing but mudslinging every time
I turn on my TV. Neither side even seems interested in discussing
important issues, except in passing, because they've both decided that this
issue is going to be a how-much-*****-is-on-your-face election, and so
they're trying to smear that ***** from dusk till dawn for fear the other
guy will get more *****-smearing done.
I don't care about the feelings of the Republicans. I care that the
American public cannot focus on the important things rather than the egg on
the other guy's face.
But the point here is that whether or not these accusations
are true, they're not important.
But they are important, and I've addressed the reasons why
they are important on numerous occasions.
Bush's military "service" disproves Bush the "President." It
disproves his sincerity, the fantsy imagine of himself that he
has concocted.
Ultimately, though, if Bush's military service were exemplary, would it
tell us anything about his ability to be President? No. He could still be
a terrible President if he were a brilliant military man -- and even if he
never touched a gun in his life, he could still be a great President (if he
had the stuff for it, which he obviously doesn't) despite that. If you
look at the past Presidents of our country, you'll see that there is no
significant correlation between exemplary military service and ability as
President.
There's not even a significant correlation between Presidents who lie and
Presidents who do badly. It is not difficult to prove that any given
President has lied on multiple occasions.
So how did we, the electorate, determine that the issue of whether Bush
lied about his military records is important? After all, we like to think
that it doesn't matter that Clinton lied about his involvement with
Lewinsky. Truthfully, I think it does not matter. However, when we
discover that Bush lied about something, the witch hunt is on. Why is it
unimportant whether Clinton lied, but desperately important whether Bush
did?
It seems that the electorate determined that this is an important issue by
mulling it over and deciding, "Hmm, yes, it does seem that the question of
whether Bush lied about his military record is an issue that might affect
his performance in office." But I submit that the reason it was so easy
for us (liberals, that is) to see this importance was that we wanted it to
be important. Further, I suggest that the electorate will accept any issue
as an important one, if the man they are voting for tells them it is
important. Thus, Democrats consider the issue of Bush's military record to
be important, since the Democratic Party says it is, while the issue of
Clinton's affair is entirely unimportant, because the Democratic Party says
it is not important. Similarly, the Republicans consider Bush's military
record trivial, while they consider Clinton's infidelity a fundamental
measure of the man's competence -- and these just happen to be precisely
the positions recommended by their political party.
I believe somebody even argued with me that the Jack Ryan case was
"different" from the Clinton case. Jack Ryan didn't even lie -- just kept
records confidential that were nobody else's business -- but it was somehow
entirely right and proper for us to utterly destroy him on the basis of his
PRIVATE sex life, while the actions of the Republicans in attacking
Clinton's sex life (which, please note, destroyed neither his political
career nor his personal career, as it did with Jack Ryan) constituted
reprehensible mudslinging.
The lies, the "issues" surrounding missing & altered records
disprove Bush's claims of integrety.
Then don't the lies and "issues" surrounding the Monica Lewinsky affair
disprove Clinton's claims of integrity? Was Clinton a bad President? I
hardly think so, and neither, I think, do you, but if you used the same
judgements on him that you use on Bush, you would have no choice but to
conclude that he should never have been President.
The extensive privileges heaped on him -- heck, just the fact
that he was able to leap ahead of a huge waiting list to get
in the national guard -- reeks of "Elitism," though Bush himself
has constructed a fantasy of Bush as the "common man."
Bush's military record reeks of elitism no more than Kerry's does. It may
be the case that Bush actually behaved in an elitist way, while Kerry did
not, but again, JTEM, where is the statistical correlation between using
"pull" to get out of military service, and being a bad President? There is
none. Historically, no one factor of a President's personal life has shown
any causal relationship with his performance as President. This is as it
should be -- ad hominem replies show no relationship to the actual validity
of the original argument, and this principle should apply to Presidents as
well as to anyone else.
Instead, the only way to determine a person's ability to lead is to examine
his or her actions as a leader. We might find a wealth of useful
information about a cadidate if we examined his past political record, yet
instead, we examine his past personal life, as if that should have anything
to do with his qualifications.
Bush is lying RIGHT NOW. Bush is abusing power RIGHT
NOW. Bush is misrepresenting himself RIGHT NOW.
Wonderful. At the time of the Lewinsky trials, Clinton was lying RIGHT
THEN. He was abusing power RIGHT THEN. He was misrepresenting himself
RIGHT THEN.
Now, I think that the above doesn't matter, because his opposition had no
right to level those accusations to begin with. However, there is no
denying that he did those things. Why, then, was it acceptable for
Clinton, but not for Bush? As I said, I don't care about the feelings of
the Republicans; but I do care for straightforward integrity and
objectivity, and it is neither ethical nor objective to hurl ad hominem
attacks at one's opponent while chiding him for his own ad hominem attacks.
It lowers us to a level we should not be content with.
They are accusations I would expect children to hurl at each
other, not grown men.
I see, you're a literalist?
It's not what he did back then, it's how it relates to, and
directly impacts today.
It's not "Don't vote for him because he dodged the draft."
It's: "Don't vote for him because everything he is saying,
and everything he pretends to stand for is a lie."
Again, how does that argument apply to Bush, if it does not apply to
Clinton?
The criteria that are important for choosing an elected
official are leadership ability,
So a life-long history of successfully dodging *personal* responsibility
isn't relevant here?
(The word "personal" above is my own addition)
No sir, it is not. A life-long history of dodging *leadership*
responsibilities that one has accepted responsibility for is most certainly
relevant, and if we could see past the personal issues for a moment, I
think we could easily demonstrate that Bush has dodged his leadership
responsibilities as President and in his past political career. Why do we
not do this? Why can't we look at his political career and demonstrate how
he has dodged his accepted responsibilities under relevant circumstances?
Why do we, instead, look at his personal life and attempt to discredit the
man by attacking not his relevant abilities, but his irrelevant personal
actions?
positions on issues,
So absolute proof that he isn't the man he claims he is, he
doesn't stand for the things he says he stands for isn't
relevant here?
No sir, it is not. A man's personal life is not relevant to his political
and leadership ability. This is perfectly well borne-out by observation of
past political leaders. John F. Kennedy's personal life was rife with lies
and concealment from beginning to end -- yet he was arguably the most
brilliant President of the last century. Jimmy Carter had an almost
impeccable personal life, and his performance as President was simply
miserable. If today the American public had to choose between Carter and
Kennedy, Carter would likely win in a landslide. Would that be the right
decision?
business ethics (yes, these apply in politics as well),
Well, certainly the blatent lies & abuse of power wouldn't
be relevant in that regard...
You are correct, sir, in that as long as those lies and abuse of power are
related to his personal life and not his political life, they are
completely irrelevant.
and so on.
Like... oh... like spotting an error before 58,000 Americans
die, or at least admitting to the error when it does finally
dawn on you?
Failure to spot the error is, perhaps, a valid argument to make against
Bush. It is an argument that I might make. However, the argument would
address the question of whether Bush responsibly used the power at his
command, not whether Bush is owning up to it. If Bush did not responsibly
use his power, then whether he owns up matters not; he is obviously a poor
President. If Bush did in fact use his power responsibly, then he is right
to refuse to "own up". Either way, his personal conduct is irrelevant.
What is relevant are his actions as a leader.
Or, I dunno, maybe standing up for what you believe in...
like the necessity of fighting in Vietnam. Is Bush the kind
of man who'll only make those "Tough Choices" if he
knows his own candy-coated ***** is safe, or is he a man
of convictions?
It doesn't matter if he is willing to make the same choices for himself.
Ultimately, it makes no difference who the individual making the decisions
is, as long as they are good decisions. This is what American politics
seems to completely miss -- the person making decisions is irrelevant. If
the decisions are good, then the person is good to have in that place. If
the decisions are bad, then the person is bad to have in that place. As
soon as the attacks move from accusations of bad policy to accusations of
bad conduct, they have ceased to be rational or objective and have become
fallacious mudslinging.
Bush chickened out and used his daddy's pull to get
out of Vietnam? That may be true, or it may be a lie,
but... so what?
I already addressed this, and instead of responding to what
I said you're merely pretending I never said it.
I did not, JTEM. It seems to you that I have avoided your argument because
I did not argue the point of whether Bush is lying or not. However, as
I've pointed out, I am arguing against the very concept of making that
argument, rather than over whether the accusations are true.
Kerry ran away and left a damaged boat? That may be
true, or it may be a lie, but... so what?
I "may be true"?
Please.
That's *****, and you know it.
I seriously doubt it's true, but after all it is at least slightly
possible. But let us grant that it is *not* true, and see where that gets
us. Let's see -- we've proven that Kerry did not act badly, at least in
that area. But... why were we arguing that to begin with? Are we under
the impression that a man's personal life is at all related to his
performance as a leader? Evidently -- and yet all the data we have tells
us that this is not the case. Ultimately, we fought a long, hard battle to
settle a question whose answer tells us nothing we did not already know.
Is that a productive political campaign? Yes, it is! It's a productive
campaign because the public doesn't know that it doesn't matter whether
Kerry lied. All the public knows is that lots of smart people are telling
them that it matters whether Kerry lied, and so they are going to vote
based on the answer to that question. I have a real problem with that
arrangement.
As I said (and you ignored), you would be amongst the first
to denounce your very own standards here, if they were
applied towards an argument on evolution verses creationism.
Bull-fucking-*****. How many times have I criticized both sides for using
rampant ad hominem? In the evolution/creation debate, I value scientific
data and solid experimental evidence, not character assassination and
mudslinging. For Christ's sake (to turn a phrase ;) ), JTEM, you've seen
me around here. You KNOW that I wouldn't condone using ad hominem to win
an argument! Why, then, the disingenuous accusations?
I have very little personal respect for Kent Hovind, for example, due to
his personal tactics, as is obvious from my posts to date. However, I have
never attacked the arguments the man makes by pointing out a lie he has
told in another area, and if someone else did so, I would voice my
disapproval. If I argue against a Hovindism, I present the evidence I
have, explain the situation, and demonstrate why the argument is invalid.
Granted, there are times that I will simply refuse to address the point,
saying that "Hovind is an idiot, and his arguments aren't worth
addressing," but I make it clear that I am *not* addressing it -- not using
"Hovind is an idiot" as some kind of opposing argument.
You're not being the least bit objective. Instead, you're behaving
exactly like those "Whimpy Democrats" that Michael Moore
likes to beat up on.
No, I think it's the other way around, JTEM. You're equating a person who
is willing to disagree with his political allies when they violate a
principle he believes in with a "Whimpy Democrat". That is, the ability to
forego personal ethics and lose oneself in the mindless voice of the masses
is somehow a testimony to one's fortitude and confidence in one's values?
If you disagree that calling me a "Whimpy Democrat" is disingenuous because
I'm neither a Democrat nor a "whimp", then at least try to avoid falling
into the trap of ad hominem.
Each side is pointing fingers and accusing the other side
of lying while making their own accusations,
As I pointed out, that's not true.
You threw aside your objectivity.
No, JTEM, *you* did. You threw it away when you decided that mudslinging
tactics -- attacks on the individual rather than the policy -- are
acceptable when used by Democrats, but unacceptable when used by
Republicans.
Your objection to my posts is the equivalent of, "How can
you say that it's childish to call his mom fat?! She IS fat!
I can prove it!"
No, your argument is the equivalent of pointing towards a
5'4" tall, 350 pound woman and saying, "Maybe she is fat,
maybe she's skinny...."
Rather, it's the equivalent of pointing to the 5'4" tall, 350-lb woman and
saying, "Please, tell me how her weight has anything to do with whether her
son wasted the company money?"
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow |
30 Aug 2004 04:30:17 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
"JTEM" <jaytem@gaydar.co.uk> kicked back with
a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Ok, you're still missing the point, man.
"Man"? So we're not going with the "Master of the universe"?
Ok, ok. You're still missing the point, Master of the Universe.
*Much* *Glee*
Now I'm sad.
*comforts JTEM*
*feels gay and fidgets unconfortably*
Relax, that's a bottle in my pocket... or at least that's the story
I'm going to stick to.
Oh, I care if they lie to me about issues that relate to
Bush's plans for the Presidency, but not if they lie to
me about what he does in his personal life.
But it does relate to the Presidentcy. That is the point.
Bush's military "service" disproves Bush the "President." It
disproves his sincerity, the fantsy imagine of himself that he
has concocted.
Ultimately, though, if Bush's military service were exemplary,
would it tell us anything about his ability to be President?
You want to know if Bush's record didn't disqualify him from
being President, would that tell us anything different?
Yes it would. *Not* telling us that he's unqualified to be President
would be different than a record that proves he is unqualified.
He could still be a terrible President if he were a brilliant
military man -- and even if he never touched a gun in his
life,
It is still different.
No, it wouldn't mean that he has the making of a great President
(and has been hiding his competence these last four years), but
it would mean that he isn't a proven scum bag.
So how did we, the electorate, determine that the issue
of whether Bush lied about his military records is
important?
I've already answered this question. What makes it relevant
is how it relates to the here & now.
Bush is lying & abusing power RIGHT NOW. Not 30 years
ago but RIGHT NOW.
I'm not speaking hypothetically here. I'm not "Guessing." I'm
pointing to the very real inconsistantcies & missing/altered
records TODAY.
After all, we like to think that it doesn't matter that Clinton
lied about his involvement with Lewinsky. Truthfully, I
think it does not matter. However, when we discover that
Bush lied about something, the witch hunt is on.
You must be living in an alternative universe.
Here in this universe, Clinton was subject to a witch hunt AND
an impeachment over the Lewinsky matter, while Bush has been
subjected to FAR LESS for his draft-dodging-turned-desertion
than Kerry has for his VALIANT SERVICE in uniform.
Why is it unimportant whether Clinton lied, but desperately
important whether Bush did?
Here in reality, the exact opposite was true. While stories of
Clinton & Lewinsky filled the front pages & the air waves, and
Clinton's IMPEACHMENT over the matter became the single
greatest priority of our government, Bush received hardly any
notice at all over his lies & crimes in 2000, and far less than
Kerry has received for HEROIC SERVICE this year.
Al Gore got more press for lies he never told in 20000 than
Bush received over this.
The lies, the "issues" surrounding missing & altered records
disprove Bush's claims of integrety.
Then don't the lies and "issues" surrounding the Monica
Lewinsky affair disprove Clinton's claims of integrity?
I don't recall Clinton running on "Integrity," on "Returning"
integrity to the Whitehouse.
Was Clinton a bad President?
You know, I like ham. Honest. I'll eat a ham sandwich. But,
if I pay for roast beef I'm going to be annoyed if you give
me ham instead. And if I bring your error to your attention,
if you get angry with me and insist that it's roast beef I'm
going to get angry myself.
The extensive privileges heaped on him -- heck, just the fact
that he was able to leap ahead of a huge waiting list to get
in the national guard -- reeks of "Elitism," though Bush himself
has constructed a fantasy of Bush as the "common man."
Bush's military record reeks of elitism no more than Kerry's does.
*****.
Bush is lying RIGHT NOW. Bush is abusing power RIGHT
NOW. Bush is misrepresenting himself RIGHT NOW.
Wonderful. At the time of the Lewinsky trials, Clinton was lying
RIGHT THEN.
Great. There's absolutely no comparison -- it's Kerry who is
taken fire for his service rather than Bush for his desertion -- but
that's just great.
It's not "Don't vote for him because he dodged the draft."
It's: "Don't vote for him because everything he is saying,
and everything he pretends to stand for is a lie."
Again, how does that argument apply to Bush, if it does not
apply to Clinton?
Besides the fact that there are absolutely no parallels?
Clinton did run on being a faithful husband. Clinton not base
his campaign on the idea that he never has and never will
cheat on his wife.
Bush IS basing his campaign on the fantasy that he is the
"common man" and Kerry is some rich guy. Bush did, as
a cornerstone of his 2000 campaign, push "Integrity" and
"Honesty" starting as early as the Iowa caucuses.
So a life-long history of successfully dodging *personal*
responsibility isn't relevant here?
(The word "personal" above is my own addition)
Run with it...
No sir, it is not.
It is, and it is reflected RIGHT NOW in the actual workings
(not) of the U.S. government.
Who was responsible | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
