|
|
A new Presidential Order....
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 |
A new Presidential Order....
|
A new Presidential Order....
|
A new Presidential Order....
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... |
A new Presidential Order....
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... |
A new Presidential Order....
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 |
A new Presidential Order....
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 |
A new Presidential Order....
|
A new Presidential Order....
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter