A new Presidential Order....

[[email protected]]

So let's recap - Kerry and crew want Bush to "demand" that some 200 vets
to quit expressing their opinions (and opinions many have expressed long
prior, some since the 70s), and stop what the Kerry people call a
"smear" campaign. But so far, I've yet to see a single one of Kerry's
people, including the unfortunately-named Tad Devine, come out and say
"these vets are wrong, and here's why..." Oh, they've called them
"pawns," <generically> "liars," and worse (IOW, "smeared" them...), but
not a single "McAulif..er, "Kerry for President" (real, hired, and paid)
campaign official has refuted what they say with facts about Kerry's
service.

Of course, all the requests for Presidential demands does make one
wonder if Kerry and crew feel it's OK for Bush to "demand" that the vets
pull THEIR ads, will they feel the same way if Bush "demands" that
Moveon (or another 527) pull an ad that the Bush people don't like...

Lessee, Swiftboat vets, about $500,000.00 spent so far, Dem 527s,
$60,000,000.00 in about 6 months...as always, YMMV...

HTH,
R
....and among the interesting tidbits is that of the 20+ fellow officers
in Kerry's group, 2 are with Kerry and 17 are with the Swiftboat vets,
and Kerry is taking a beating with vets...you know, those guys who know
how the military works, rather than the Ken F's, the Lord-Mayors of
Ketchem, Jr., and the Sgt. Mittys, who haven't a ****ing clue...

[Ken Fortenberry]

wrote:
> <snip>
> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many others,
> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these guys have
> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...

These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.

> Again, nope. For the most part, nothing "the vets" are saying has been
> shown to be _untrue_ . ...

Oh that's rich, "for the most part" they're not lying through their
Republican funded teeth. You're a silly man.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

wrote:
> <snip>
> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many others,
> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these guys have
> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...

These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.

> Again, nope. For the most part, nothing "the vets" are saying has been
> shown to be _untrue_ . ...

Oh that's rich, "for the most part" they're not lying through their
Republican funded teeth. You're a silly man.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Floyd L. Davidson]

wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:30:56 -0400, GregP >
>wrote:
>>>But so far, I've yet to see a single one of Kerry's
>>>people, including the unfortunately-named Tad Devine, come out and say
>>>"these vets are wrong, and here's why..."
>>
>> "Kerry's people" don't have to; others already have.
>
>Again, nope. For the most part, nothing "the vets" are saying has been
>shown to be _untrue_ . Of course, some is not provable either way as it

Have you been hiding under a rock, or what? They've been lying
through their teeth from day one, and it's been demonstrated
time after time. The funniest one was the guy who swore up and
down that there was no enemy firefight when Kerry was awarded
his Silver Star... and it turns out in the same battle that jerk
was awarded a Bronze Star in a citation that explicitly said
his boat and all others came under enemy fire. He then tried to
blame Kerry for his being awarded a Bronze Star under false
pretenses!

1) The only indication of any smarts that I've ever heard of
from GW Bush, is that he was smart enough to *not* want to
go to Vietnam.

2) The best indication of any smarts that I've heard about
John Kerry is that when he returned from Vietnam he did
realize where he'd been and worked to put a stop to it.

One can also clearly see that the entire group of vets that are
lying about Kerry are not nearly as smart as either Kerry or
Bush, and not being as smart as Bush indicates a serious
deficiency...


The happiest day of my life was being declared 4F (medically
unfit for military service) after taking three medicals for
the US Army in the 60's. I am embarassed today that I did
very little to help stop the war.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:10:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many others,
>> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these guys have
>> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...
>
>These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
>in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
>their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.

OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

So, again, it's a "pick your problem" situation: giving you your own
rope, Bush isn't and can't be behind it, so he has no right,
responsibility, or means to stop it, and Kerry (and his campaign) know
this isn't and couldn't be something cooked up by Bush or his campaign.
Yet they repeatedly and publicly say otherwise. And in the meantime,
hired, paid, and official members of the Kerry campaign serve on
multiple 527 boards and advisory committees that do "smear" ads on
Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.

HTH,
R

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:10:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many others,
>> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these guys have
>> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...
>
>These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
>in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
>their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.

OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

So, again, it's a "pick your problem" situation: giving you your own
rope, Bush isn't and can't be behind it, so he has no right,
responsibility, or means to stop it, and Kerry (and his campaign) know
this isn't and couldn't be something cooked up by Bush or his campaign.
Yet they repeatedly and publicly say otherwise. And in the meantime,
hired, paid, and official members of the Kerry campaign serve on
multiple 527 boards and advisory committees that do "smear" ads on
Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.

HTH,
R

[Ken Fortenberry]

wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
>>in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
>>their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.
>
> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

O'Neill was recruited by the Nixon Whitehouse and placed in the
employ of Charles "Dirty Tricks" Colson in the '70's. The Bush
campaign had nothing to do with it. The lies are 30 years old,
and have been disproved several times over the years. First by
then Secretary of the Navy John Warner (a Republican) and later
by The Boston Globe during Kerry's Senate campaigns.

However, the money to broadcast those same old, long since
disproved lies over and over again in West Virginia, Ohio and
Pennsylvania came from the Bush campaign, or its functional
equivalent. The New York Times did a good job of connecting
all those sleazy, little Republican dots.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
>>in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
>>their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.
>
> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

O'Neill was recruited by the Nixon Whitehouse and placed in the
employ of Charles "Dirty Tricks" Colson in the '70's. The Bush
campaign had nothing to do with it. The lies are 30 years old,
and have been disproved several times over the years. First by
then Secretary of the Navy John Warner (a Republican) and later
by The Boston Globe during Kerry's Senate campaigns.

However, the money to broadcast those same old, long since
disproved lies over and over again in West Virginia, Ohio and
Pennsylvania came from the Bush campaign, or its functional
equivalent. The New York Times did a good job of connecting
all those sleazy, little Republican dots.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
>>in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
>>their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.
>
> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

O'Neill was recruited by the Nixon Whitehouse and placed in the
employ of Charles "Dirty Tricks" Colson in the '70's. The Bush
campaign had nothing to do with it. The lies are 30 years old,
and have been disproved several times over the years. First by
then Secretary of the Navy John Warner (a Republican) and later
by The Boston Globe during Kerry's Senate campaigns.

However, the money to broadcast those same old, long since
disproved lies over and over again in West Virginia, Ohio and
Pennsylvania came from the Bush campaign, or its functional
equivalent. The New York Times did a good job of connecting
all those sleazy, little Republican dots.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:10:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many
others,
> >> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these
guys have
> >> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...
> >
> >These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
> >in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
> >their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.
>
> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is).
Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't
be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it
acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which
proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.
>
> So, again, it's a "pick your problem" situation: giving you your own
> rope, Bush isn't and can't be behind it, so he has no right,
> responsibility, or means to stop it, and Kerry (and his campaign)
know
> this isn't and couldn't be something cooked up by Bush or his
campaign.
> Yet they repeatedly and publicly say otherwise. And in the
meantime,
> hired, paid, and official members of the Kerry campaign serve on
> multiple 527 boards and advisory committees that do "smear" ads on
> Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.
>
> HTH,
> R

Hm........

So, if Curley Lambeau coached the Green bay Packer's in 1937, Vince
Lombardi couldn't possibly have done so in 1967, huh? Well, how can
you NOT love that kind of logic? :)

Have you ever considered actually working for a living or something?
I mean, you obviously ain't cut out for this ****.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:10:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> Bush didn't have a campaign in the 70s and 80s...you, like many
others,
> >> seem to ignore that much of this is not new, and some of these
guys have
> >> been saying this stuff about Kerry for decades. ...
> >
> >These guys were proven to be liars in the 70's, proven to be liars
> >in the '80's and proven to be liars just last week. They can repeat
> >their lies in perpetuity but that doesn't turn lies into truth.
>
> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is).
Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't
be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it
acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which
proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.
>
> So, again, it's a "pick your problem" situation: giving you your own
> rope, Bush isn't and can't be behind it, so he has no right,
> responsibility, or means to stop it, and Kerry (and his campaign)
know
> this isn't and couldn't be something cooked up by Bush or his
campaign.
> Yet they repeatedly and publicly say otherwise. And in the
meantime,
> hired, paid, and official members of the Kerry campaign serve on
> multiple 527 boards and advisory committees that do "smear" ads on
> Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.
>
> HTH,
> R

Hm........

So, if Curley Lambeau coached the Green bay Packer's in 1937, Vince
Lombardi couldn't possibly have done so in 1967, huh? Well, how can
you NOT love that kind of logic? :)

Have you ever considered actually working for a living or something?
I mean, you obviously ain't cut out for this ****.

Wolfgang

[Scott Seidman]

wrote in news:8h0ni01omag7tm1cdscva5aib54eg8n2j2@
4ax.com:

> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

There was a Bush campaign worker with a position on Swift Boat Vets who
resigned last week, probably because of the clear implications about
complicity with the Bush campaign.

Just because the campaign didn't start the lie, it really is quite a jump
in logic to assert that they have nothing to do with spreading the lie or
keeping it alive. By that reasoning, promulgators of the Blood Libel bear
no responsibility for spreading a millenium old lie.

Scott

[Scott Seidman]

wrote in news:8h0ni01omag7tm1cdscva5aib54eg8n2j2@
4ax.com:

> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.

There was a Bush campaign worker with a position on Swift Boat Vets who
resigned last week, probably because of the clear implications about
complicity with the Bush campaign.

Just because the campaign didn't start the lie, it really is quite a jump
in logic to assert that they have nothing to do with spreading the lie or
keeping it alive. By that reasoning, promulgators of the Blood Libel bear
no responsibility for spreading a millenium old lie.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:58:35 -0500, "Wolfgang" > wrote:

>So, if Curley Lambeau coached the Green bay Packer's in 1937, Vince
>Lombardi couldn't possibly have done so in 1967, huh?

EXACTLY! I'm glad Bert and Ernie were finally able to explain it all to
you...

>Well, how can you NOT love that kind of logic? :)

Yeah, I know...it seems SO simple on the face of it...but with Big Bird
and the gang there helping you, you ARE sort of cheating...
>
>Have you ever considered actually working for a living or something?

Naw...I mean, it's just easier to overbill the Government for pickles
and oil...or something like that...

>I mean, you obviously ain't cut out for this ****.

So true, so true, what with me being a sensitive young lad and all...and
thanks ever so for your concern...

Dickie
Ya know, you'd think you and Ken would be bestest pals, what with
sharing having been beaten up in school every day and all...

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:58:35 -0500, "Wolfgang" > wrote:

>So, if Curley Lambeau coached the Green bay Packer's in 1937, Vince
>Lombardi couldn't possibly have done so in 1967, huh?

EXACTLY! I'm glad Bert and Ernie were finally able to explain it all to
you...

>Well, how can you NOT love that kind of logic? :)

Yeah, I know...it seems SO simple on the face of it...but with Big Bird
and the gang there helping you, you ARE sort of cheating...
>
>Have you ever considered actually working for a living or something?

Naw...I mean, it's just easier to overbill the Government for pickles
and oil...or something like that...

>I mean, you obviously ain't cut out for this ****.

So true, so true, what with me being a sensitive young lad and all...and
thanks ever so for your concern...

Dickie
Ya know, you'd think you and Ken would be bestest pals, what with
sharing having been beaten up in school every day and all...

[[email protected]]

On 24 Aug 2004 19:22:15 GMT, Scott Seidman >
wrote:

wrote in news:8h0ni01omag7tm1cdscva5aib54eg8n2j2@
>4ax.com:
>
>> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
>> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
>> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
>> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
>> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.
>
>There was a Bush campaign worker with a position on Swift Boat Vets who
>resigned last week, probably because of the clear implications about
>complicity with the Bush campaign.

Well, "campaign worker" covers a lot of ground - he was a volunteer, and
assuming that the Bush campaign is behind the ads, doncha think someone
mighta guessed that he'd get noticed? All jokes aside, do you really
think the Bush campaign would have put or knowingly allowed a staffer in
the ads, whether they were behind them or not? I gotta tell you, while
some of it is pretty thin, some of it has some real legs, and at least
some of the people talking are sincere and telling it as they truly
believe (or know) it.

>Just because the campaign didn't start the lie, it really is quite a jump
>in logic to assert that they have nothing to do with spreading the lie or
>keeping it alive.

I didn't comment directly on "spreading it," I simply addressed the
Greg's assertion (and hired, paid, and "titled" Kerry staffers):

"What they're "expressing" is cute stories _that Bush's campaign is
helping them make up_ and publicize." (emp add.).

Since it's public record and in print that they've been saying these
things, true or false, since the 70s, the assertion that Bush or his
campaign is behind those stories is simply nonsense. Yet Kerry staffers
have repeatedly made similar charges.

HTH,
R

[[email protected]]

On 24 Aug 2004 19:22:15 GMT, Scott Seidman >
wrote:

wrote in news:8h0ni01omag7tm1cdscva5aib54eg8n2j2@
>4ax.com:
>
>> OK, let's suppose that is true (it isn't, but let's say it is). Then
>> that absolutely proves that Bush (and his campaign) absolutely can't be
>> behind the lies. But moreover, whether lies or truth, it acknowledges
>> that they've been saying these things for 30-plus years, which proves
>> Bush and his campaign aren't behind any of the assertions.
>
>There was a Bush campaign worker with a position on Swift Boat Vets who
>resigned last week, probably because of the clear implications about
>complicity with the Bush campaign.

Well, "campaign worker" covers a lot of ground - he was a volunteer, and
assuming that the Bush campaign is behind the ads, doncha think someone
mighta guessed that he'd get noticed? All jokes aside, do you really
think the Bush campaign would have put or knowingly allowed a staffer in
the ads, whether they were behind them or not? I gotta tell you, while
some of it is pretty thin, some of it has some real legs, and at least
some of the people talking are sincere and telling it as they truly
believe (or know) it.

>Just because the campaign didn't start the lie, it really is quite a jump
>in logic to assert that they have nothing to do with spreading the lie or
>keeping it alive.

I didn't comment directly on "spreading it," I simply addressed the
Greg's assertion (and hired, paid, and "titled" Kerry staffers):

"What they're "expressing" is cute stories _that Bush's campaign is
helping them make up_ and publicize." (emp add.).

Since it's public record and in print that they've been saying these
things, true or false, since the 70s, the assertion that Bush or his
campaign is behind those stories is simply nonsense. Yet Kerry staffers
have repeatedly made similar charges.

HTH,
R

[Scott Seidman]

wrote in news:6s5ni095t5k5cjt869rb8jqt54i1jn0sbj@
4ax.com:

>
> Well, "campaign worker" covers a lot of ground - he was a volunteer, and
> assuming that the Bush campaign is behind the ads, doncha think someone
> mighta guessed that he'd get noticed?

He was a member of the Bush Campaign veteran's steering committee, not some
low level volunteer canvassing for signatures, and was stupid enough to get
caught actually being in the ad. If he stayed behind the scenes and didn't
appear, then there would have been nothing linking the campaign to 527
activities. He's the guy that got caught being stupid.

I can certainly understand, based on just this one guy, how Kerry could
generate a complaint to the FEC. We'll see what they have to say about it.

As to the observation that the campaign might have noticed his involvement,
who knows? Maybe they didn't think they'd get caught, or maybe their ad
was hollow without an extra parrot

It may have legs, just like the Vince Foster "murder", but not a whole
bunch more credibility than that. It's output from the same machine. My
favorite recent development is that Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat
noisemakers who says the boats were not under fire, got his Bronze Star in
the same incident as Kerry's, and his citation says that all the boats were
under fire.

Scott

[Scott Seidman]

wrote in news:6s5ni095t5k5cjt869rb8jqt54i1jn0sbj@
4ax.com:

>
> Well, "campaign worker" covers a lot of ground - he was a volunteer, and
> assuming that the Bush campaign is behind the ads, doncha think someone
> mighta guessed that he'd get noticed?

He was a member of the Bush Campaign veteran's steering committee, not some
low level volunteer canvassing for signatures, and was stupid enough to get
caught actually being in the ad. If he stayed behind the scenes and didn't
appear, then there would have been nothing linking the campaign to 527
activities. He's the guy that got caught being stupid.

I can certainly understand, based on just this one guy, how Kerry could
generate a complaint to the FEC. We'll see what they have to say about it.

As to the observation that the campaign might have noticed his involvement,
who knows? Maybe they didn't think they'd get caught, or maybe their ad
was hollow without an extra parrot

It may have legs, just like the Vince Foster "murder", but not a whole
bunch more credibility than that. It's output from the same machine. My
favorite recent development is that Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat
noisemakers who says the boats were not under fire, got his Bronze Star in
the same incident as Kerry's, and his citation says that all the boats were
under fire.

Scott

[Osama Bin Bush]

In article >,
wrote:

> So let's recap - Kerry and crew want Bush to "demand" that some 200 vets
> to quit expressing their opinions (and opinions many have expressed long
> prior, some since the 70s), and stop what the Kerry people call a
> "smear" campaign. But so far, I've yet to see a single one of Kerry's
> people, including the unfortunately-named Tad Devine, come out and say
> "these vets are wrong, and here's why..." Oh, they've called them
> "pawns," <generically> "liars," and worse (IOW, "smeared" them...), but
> not a single "McAulif..er, "Kerry for President" (real, hired, and paid)
> campaign official has refuted what they say with facts about Kerry's
> service.
>
> Of course, all the requests for Presidential demands does make one
> wonder if Kerry and crew feel it's OK for Bush to "demand" that the vets
> pull THEIR ads, will they feel the same way if Bush "demands" that
> Moveon (or another 527) pull an ad that the Bush people don't like...
>
> Lessee, Swiftboat vets, about $500,000.00 spent so far, Dem 527s,
> $60,000,000.00 in about 6 months...as always, YMMV...

http://http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20%20Triba
l%20Sovereignty.mp3

--
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/
Bush%20%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They
never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we," President george bush (AKA president dumb dumb)

[Osama Bin Bush]

In article >,
wrote:

> So let's recap - Kerry and crew want Bush to "demand" that some 200 vets
> to quit expressing their opinions (and opinions many have expressed long
> prior, some since the 70s), and stop what the Kerry people call a
> "smear" campaign. But so far, I've yet to see a single one of Kerry's
> people, including the unfortunately-named Tad Devine, come out and say
> "these vets are wrong, and here's why..." Oh, they've called them
> "pawns," <generically> "liars," and worse (IOW, "smeared" them...), but
> not a single "McAulif..er, "Kerry for President" (real, hired, and paid)
> campaign official has refuted what they say with facts about Kerry's
> service.
>
> Of course, all the requests for Presidential demands does make one
> wonder if Kerry and crew feel it's OK for Bush to "demand" that the vets
> pull THEIR ads, will they feel the same way if Bush "demands" that
> Moveon (or another 527) pull an ad that the Bush people don't like...
>
> Lessee, Swiftboat vets, about $500,000.00 spent so far, Dem 527s,
> $60,000,000.00 in about 6 months...as always, YMMV...

http://http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20%20Triba
l%20Sovereignty.mp3

--
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/
Bush%20%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They
never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we," President george bush (AKA president dumb dumb)

[rw]

> wrote:
>>
>>Lessee, Swiftboat vets, about $500,000.00 spent so far, Dem 527s,
>>$60,000,000.00 in about 6 months...as always, YMMV...

The difference is that one sets of ads (the first you mentioned) is
lying, libelous, dishonest, dishonorable bull****, and the other set is
true. Facts are facts.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

> wrote:
>>
>>Lessee, Swiftboat vets, about $500,000.00 spent so far, Dem 527s,
>>$60,000,000.00 in about 6 months...as always, YMMV...

The difference is that one sets of ads (the first you mentioned) is
lying, libelous, dishonest, dishonorable bull****, and the other set is
true. Facts are facts.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[BJ Conner]

wrote in message

Blab-blab - blab.

> Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.
>
> HTH,
> R

Gee! have you forgot "Character Counts" - Your comparing a man who
went when when his country called to a liar, theif, coward and a
f_____g idiot.
It amazes me what some people will say or do just to sell a few more
Peter Pan Pickles to go on those $ 25 Halliburgers. If you really
believe what your writing your dummer than a three year old crowbar.

[BJ Conner]

wrote in message

Blab-blab - blab.

> Bush...face it, best case, Kerry is, again, no better than Bush.
>
> HTH,
> R

Gee! have you forgot "Character Counts" - Your comparing a man who
went when when his country called to a liar, theif, coward and a
f_____g idiot.
It amazes me what some people will say or do just to sell a few more
Peter Pan Pickles to go on those $ 25 Halliburgers. If you really
believe what your writing your dummer than a three year old crowbar.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
...


> Ya know, you'd think you and Ken would be bestest pals, what with
> sharing having been beaten up in school every day and all...

You should'a been there. :)

Wolfgang
who has many fond memories of grade school.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
...


> Ya know, you'd think you and Ken would be bestest pals, what with
> sharing having been beaten up in school every day and all...

You should'a been there. :)

Wolfgang
who has many fond memories of grade school.

[Willi]

BJ Conner wrote:


> If you really
> believe what your writing your dummer than a three year old crowbar.

What makes a three year old crowbar "dummer" than a crowbar one or five
or twenty years old?

Is it a crowbar's terrible threes?

Willi

[Willi]

BJ Conner wrote:


> If you really
> believe what your writing your dummer than a three year old crowbar.

What makes a three year old crowbar "dummer" than a crowbar one or five
or twenty years old?

Is it a crowbar's terrible threes?

Willi