"CHUCK MARTIN" <res8ezqw@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:056Gg.3836$E_.3205@trnddc06...

"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:I40Gg.30059$bo6.2320@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

"zzpat" <zzpatrick@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eca0aa04sf@enews2.newsguy.com...

bob9 wrote:

"ChasNemo" <chasnemo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155956192.778543.266410@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

NeoCon Cardinal Rule: Throw away everyone's rights and kiss anyone's
***** for the almighty dollar.

NeoCon Secondary Rule: Kill or at least try to ruin everyone who gets
in your way or even appears to be different, especially if they are
of
different races or religions.

NeoCon Tertiary Rule: Justify all your evil deeds in the name of
jesus.

NeoCon answer to any objections from more reasonable people:: "The
bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Heh, this is my favorite kind of post, because it clearly demonstrates
why Republicans are in power and will remain in power. The vast voting
middle block sees this kind of nonsense for exactly what it is:
another baseless liberal whining tirade with nothing but hate and no
solutions.

Please keep it up. This is far better than any Republican speech.

One would hope the words "success" and "failure" enter into the mind of
the voter. If voters think about the facts, they know conservatives
have failed at everything they've tried to do. But, facts seldom move
elections. Elections are always about emotions. It's the ONLY reason
conservatives win.

Look at the facts. The war was based on lies.

That is either unknown or untrue. In either
case, it's certainly not a known fact.

Everyone know that.

Once again, you refer to something that
is most certainly not a fact.

Yet they still voted for Bush. Was that vote about the facts or was it
about emotions?

If you are referring to the last election,
Bush won because a majority of voters
correctly perceived Kerry as being
dangerous to the security of our great
nation.

OF COURSE the PAID ***** boat liars didnt help either did it.
you know, the paid ***** boaters who never knew or served with kerry. the
karl rove inspired plan of deception to the voters

Kerry's record speaks for itself.

"ChasNemo" <chasnemo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156093633.867771.107640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

***** for the almighty dollar.

NeoCon Secondary Rule: Kill or at least try to ruin everyone who
gets
in your way or even appears to be different, especially if they are
of
different races or religions.

NeoCon Tertiary Rule: Justify all your evil deeds in the name of
jesus.

NeoCon answer to any objections from more reasonable people:: "The
bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Heh, this is my favorite kind of post, because it clearly
demonstrates
why Republicans are in power and will remain in power. The vast
voting
middle block sees this kind of nonsense for exactly what it is:
another
baseless liberal whining tirade with nothing but hate and no
solutions.

Please keep it up. This is far better than any Republican speech.

One would hope the words "success" and "failure" enter into the mind
of
the voter. If voters think about the facts, they know conservatives
have
failed at everything they've tried to do. But, facts seldom move
elections. Elections are always about emotions. It's the ONLY reason
conservatives win.

Look at the facts. The war was based on lies.

That is either unknown or untrue. In either
case, it's certainly not a known fact.

Everyone know that.

Once again, you refer to something that
is most certainly not a fact.

Yet they still voted for Bush. Was that vote about the facts or was
it
about emotions?

If you are referring to the last election,
Bush won because a majority of voters
correctly perceived Kerry as being
dangerous to the security of our great
nation.

Bu$h has done more damage than Kerry could ever dream of doing! As one
skilled commentator noted sarcastically regarding the utter evil of the
Bu$h regime:

"I mean, think about it. Other than the war in Iraq, the Katrina
disaster, the deficit, the CIA leak, torture, stopping stem cell
research, homeland security, global warming and undercutting science,
we've yet to really feel the negative effects of the Bush
administration." -- Bill Moyers

Moyers is hardly an unbiased journalist, but
let's take these one at a time ...

Liberation of Iraq. It was a good thing to remove
Saddam from power in Iraq. Whether or not it
will be good in the overall war against radical
Islam can't be known at this time. It may turn
out to have been a mistake, but it was a good
effort at installing a free democracy in that
cesspool (middle east) of radical Muslim
terrorists.

Katrina. This was mostly mistakes by local and
state governments ... and people unprepared for
the inevitable.

Deficit. I agree that this administration has an
irresponsible fiscal policy.

CIA leak. Which one?

Torture. Torture is not a policy of the Bush
administration, and never has been.

Stopping stem cell research. I agree this was
a bad decision, but it was a principled one.

Homeland security. This administration is more
aggressive than a democrat administration would
ever dream of being ...

Global warming. I'll hold off until I hear what
solutions are being proposed by Mr. Moyers.

Undercutting science. This needs to be explained
instead of just spouting left wing talking points.

I'm not happy with the job Bush has done,
but Kerry is a political opportunist who is
dangerous to the security of our great nation.
If an election were held tomorrow, and I had
to choose between Bush and Kerry, I would
still hold my nose and choose Bush.

Liberation of Iraq. It was a good thing to remove
Saddam from power in Iraq.

<governorswill@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pa2ie2do882p0lrpk82tbfn4vlusoea966@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:28:36 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:

Look at the facts. The war was based on lies.

That is either unknown or untrue. In either
case, it's certainly not a known fact.

Yes, it is. The fact that there were no WMDs is proof of that.

It most certainly is not.

The
fact that the administration depended for a lot of their information
on Iraqi exiles, many of whom had been out of the country for decades
is another example.

List the countries whose official position
before the liberation began, was that Iraq
had no WMD.

Everyone know that.

Once again, you refer to something that
is most certainly not a fact.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Cute, but hardly worth the effort
it took to type it.

Yet they still voted for Bush. Was that vote about the facts or was it
about emotions?

If you are referring to the last election,
Bush won because a majority of voters
correctly perceived Kerry as being
dangerous to the security of our great
nation.

The number one reason Bush voters gave for voting for him in 2004 was
they thought it a bad idea to change Presidents during a war.

Why did they say it was a bad idea, and where
did you find that information?

I
daresay there are enough such people who now know better that the
right is going to take quite a beating at the polls over the next 2 or
3 election cycles.

I agree that in a few years the Republicans
will be in trouble. The number of those who
tend to vote Democratic (poor, stupid, immigrants,
welfare mentality) are increasing faster than those
who tend to vote Republican.

<governorswill@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pa2ie2do882p0lrpk82tbfn4vlusoea966@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:28:36 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:

Look at the facts. The war was based on lies.

That is either unknown or untrue. In either
case, it's certainly not a known fact.

Yes, it is. The fact that there were no WMDs is proof of that.

It most certainly is not.

The
fact that the administration depended for a lot of their information
on Iraqi exiles, many of whom had been out of the country for decades
is another example.

List the countries whose official position
before the liberation began, was that Iraq
had no WMD.

Everyone know that.

Once again, you refer to something that
is most certainly not a fact.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Cute, but hardly worth the effort
it took to type it.

Yet they still voted for Bush. Was that vote about the facts or was it
about emotions?

If you are referring to the last election,
Bush won because a majority of voters
correctly perceived Kerry as being
dangerous to the security of our great
nation.

The number one reason Bush voters gave for voting for him in 2004 was
they thought it a bad idea to change Presidents during a war.

Why did they say it was a bad idea, and where
did you find that information?

I
daresay there are enough such people who now know better that the
right is going to take quite a beating at the polls over the next 2 or
3 election cycles.

I agree that in a few years the Republicans
will be in trouble. The number of those who
tend to vote Democratic (poor, stupid, immigrants,
welfare mentality) are increasing faster than those
who tend to vote Republican.

<governorswill@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pa2ie2do882p0lrpk82tbfn4vlusoea966@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:28:36 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:

Look at the facts. The war was based on lies.

That is either unknown or untrue. In either
case, it's certainly not a known fact.

Yes, it is. The fact that there were no WMDs is proof of that.

It most certainly is not.

I agree that in a few years the Republicans
will be in trouble. The number of those who
tend to vote Democratic (poor, stupid, immigrants,
welfare mentality) are increasing faster than those
who tend to vote Republican.

List the countries whose official position
before the liberation began, was that Iraq
had no WMD.