So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:22:56 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

No matter how many times the Swiftboating of Kerry is proven
to be a pack of despicable lies some wingnuts will repeat it
as truth anyway.


Who said anything about Swiftboats?

Swiftboating is now a verb in American English defined as
repeating despicable lies about someone, usually a politician,
over and over again.

I am talking about the lies he
*testified* to, under oath, before Congress. I am talking about his
trip to Paris to secretly meet with the deligation from North Vie Nam
*while in uniform*. I am talking about his medals that he threw over
the fence. All of these are acts of a traitorous pig, and you praise
him simply because he is a liberal Democrat.

No, I praise him because he's a true patriot, not some sort
of blind jingo.

If he was a Republican,
you would be on him like white on rice.

"I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate.
I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the
doctors."
-- John McCain's signed confession given while a POW

So in Louie's world McCain is a traitor ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
Which
brings us back to a paraphrasing of my question: just what kind of pol
is this sumbitch, what did that piece of **** Kennedy get out of the
deal, and just bad is it gonna wind up ****ing _me_?

Rick, can I put out the possibility that you are overanalyzing this? From a
purely partisan politics standpoint, perhaps old Teddy calculated that
Hillary can cause the Republicans to suddenly get united, in a way Obama
can't. Knowing it will take a wave of support to keep the party from
nominating Hillary, he may have gambled on the path most likely to sweep
more Dems into office, without any big-time tradeoffs. Certainly, his
political goals don't differ so much from Obamas as to necessitate a 'deal
with the devil', and in recent years, Kennedy has been a rare example of
trying to work deals between GOP and Dem groups.
Tom

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:13:37 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

wrote in message
If had been just Caroline with a little jungle fever

Racist.

Oooo-kay....how is that "racist?" It's a pretty well accepted term,
made pretty much mainstream by a black guy, that pretty much precisely
fits the people in question.

R

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

oh, sure, Scott....jump on the easy exampleg!
Tom
p.s. Why is it that that event hasn't been questioned more?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in news:fy_tj.21643$s33.3609
@trndny06:


p.s. Why is it that that event hasn't been questioned more?


The first chapter of one of Michael Moore's books deals extensively with
this. The "his family had no involvement with bin Laden" just holds zero
water.

It hasn't been investigated, as NOTHING (aside from the Plame leak, where a
convenient scapegoat was hung out to dry) has been investigated, including
whether the launching of a war thats killed tens of thousands was built on
a pack of systematic lies (you'd think we'd start there, wouldn't you) or
what citizens has the US been spying on without court approval, or have
signing statements violated separation of powers, etc.




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:45:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

funny, the Fox link doesn't work, and there is an obvious disclaimer that
the office pictured is not affiliated with the campaign of Obama. Sounds
like the BS machine is trying to start up anew against Obama from the right,
but I think they might find his people ready to deal with it better than
Kerry did......
Tom


It's much ado about nothing. Some freelancer street-level vol - not at
an actual Obama HQ - at some sideshow office not actually connected with
the campaign - had a Cuban flag with "the" Che pic on it over her desk.
A newscrew was there. Of course they got a shot of it. She was a
dumbass, but it is about as relevant to Obama (and newsworthy with real
regard to Obama) as the fact that someone, somewhere in his campaign
once got a speeding ticket. Anyone who makes more out of it is an idiot
- IOW, if I listened to Mush Limpdick or Crazy Coulter, I'd expect to
hear him babbling and her shrieking about it for about a week...

TC,
R

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:51:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

So in Louie's world McCain is a traitor ?

No. Because we know it was given under duress, probably after a
torture session.

Kerry *LIED*, *under oath* before Congress. He lied continuously
during that period. To hell with the Swiftboat thingy. I am talking
about behavior that gave comfort to our enemy. Regardless how you
felt about that war, to pull a Jane Fonda only put more of our men in
danger. Why can't you see that, Ken?

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:45:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

unny, the Fox link doesn't work, and there is an obvious disclaimer that
the office pictured is not affiliated with the campaign of Obama. Sounds
like the BS machine is trying to start up anew against Obama from the right,
but I think they might find his people ready to deal with it better than
Kerry did....

Funny, I just looked at it and it worked fine.

The speaker says that the office will be full of paid workers within a
week. One would hope they take down the Che poster, wot?

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:40:59 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.


Bush received a larger percentage of the vote in 94 than Clinton ever
did. He beat Kerry. He is the president. Live with it for a few
more months. Then you can begin bitching about McCain. d;o)

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On 17 Feb 2008 17:44:31 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

Bush *did* carry Florida. After a recount and a recount, followed by
recount, recount, recount, he won. Florida law stated that the
results of an election had to be tallied by such and such a date.
That date came and the Florida Supremes wanted to *make* law by
entending the date. No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it. Bush *won* Floriduh and he did it
legally after many recounts. Live with it instead of crying about it.

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:53:50 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Which
brings us back to a paraphrasing of my question: just what kind of pol
is this sumbitch, what did that piece of **** Kennedy get out of the
deal, and just bad is it gonna wind up ****ing _me_?

Rick, can I put out the possibility that you are overanalyzing this? From a
purely partisan politics standpoint, perhaps old Teddy calculated that
Hillary can cause the Republicans to suddenly get united, in a way Obama
can't. Knowing it will take a wave of support to keep the party from
nominating Hillary, he may have gambled on the path most likely to sweep
more Dems into office, without any big-time tradeoffs. Certainly, his
political goals don't differ so much from Obamas as to necessitate a 'deal
with the devil', and in recent years, Kennedy has been a rare example of
trying to work deals between GOP and Dem groups.

Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't think so, _unless_ Teddy has _really_
changed in the last year or two. Heck, you seem to acknowledge that
whatever went down, Teddy calculated - and I'd offer that it was every
angle he could think of. He's the son of Joe, perhaps moreso than any
of them (certainly neck and neck w/ Bobby), and I'd bet big he's still a
scheming POS who doesn't do jack **** unless it benefits him and the
Kennedy machine. And I question the "Hillary unites the GOP..." thing -
Hillary is a longshot with a broken leg and a fat jockey; I'd offer that
the GOP could come up with Cheney/Rumsfeld '08 and about all it would do
is make it a horserace for second place.

Given the landscape right now this minute:

I suspect McCain/just about anyone except Obama beats
Hillary/_anyone_, including Bill about as bad as is possible, say,
57%-43%-ish, the unlikely McCain/Obama beats _anybody_ else _at least_
75%-25%, and the likely McCain/whoever vs Obama/anyone but Hillary
goes 51%-49% or closer, flip a coin but _probably_ McCain. If Obama
screws the pooch and picks (or gets saddled with) Hillary, it's McCain
by 5 or so and Obama can get tips on dealing with ****ing away national
aspirations from Lieberman. Hillary's done - it looks like Barack van
Helsing put a stake right through her undead heart about December and
Teddy knew it before he got anywhere near that stage...and I'm pretty
sure this one ain't gonna have a sequel where the monster wasn't really
dead...

TC,
R

Tom

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

Try not snipping away all the context from Scott's post and
then please explain to me how your commentary isn't silly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

My commentary is not silly because when he uses inane statements like " Many
recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't." to bolster his arguement, he is
either:


1. Not thinking about what he is actually writing.
or
2. Using what, to the casual reader, might at first glance appear to be a
meaningful profound statement to set the stage for, and will be reason
enough for, many to uncritically accept all the analysis that follows.

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw your own
conclusions.

Bob Weinberger

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave




Dave, there really is plenty of evidence that many of his family members
that were evacuated were/are providing financial support. Plus, one week
or so (the time between the event and the evacuation) really wasn't long
enought to determine whether all of these folks were or were not material
witnesses. They were evacuated because the Bushes, the Carlyle Group, and
the bin Laden's are tight, pure and simple. Think about it-- the WTC falls
down around our ankles, and one of the governement's first acts is to
remember to exempt a nonmilitary flight from the shutdown so the bin Ladens
could be evacuated. It stinks to high heaven, Dave. Why do you continue
to excuse it?

Let's not forget the "blame Iraq, but evacuate the bin Laden's", which is
evidence that the big lie for war was waiting in the wings.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in
news:uf%tj.4089$FK2.14@trndny08:

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw
your own conclusions.

Bob Weinberger


Yes, my words were chosen in a poor effort not to discourage recovering
alcoholics. Whatever it takes not to drink yourself into a state of misery
is what they need to do.

To back off of my wishy washy disclaimer, IMO, the presidency is not an
office for either a well-adjusted or a poorly-adjusted person in recovery.

To drift even more off topic, I think its a pity that Ethics committees
have more of a problem with a closeted gay guy in a restroom committing a
misdemeanor than a drunken drugged up Kennedy offspring driving down the
street.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

wrote in message
...
I'd bet big he's still a
scheming POS who doesn't do jack **** unless it benefits him and the
Kennedy machine.
I'm not too sure there really is a "Kennedy machine", in any real sense, at
this point in time. Their time has come and gone.
Given the landscape right now this minute:

I suspect McCain/just about anyone except Obama beats
Hillary/_anyone_, including Bill about as bad as is possible, say,
57%-43%-ish, the unlikely McCain/Obama beats _anybody_ else _at least_
75%-25%, and the likely McCain/whoever vs Obama/anyone but Hillary
goes 51%-49% or closer, flip a coin but _probably_ McCain. If Obama
screws the pooch and picks (or gets saddled with) Hillary, it's McCain
by 5 or so and Obama can get tips on dealing with ****ing away national
aspirations from Lieberman. Hillary's done - it looks like Barack van
Helsing put a stake right through her undead heart about December and
Teddy knew it before he got anywhere near that stage...and I'm pretty
sure this one ain't gonna have a sequel where the monster wasn't really
dead...
I think you are saying what I was trying to here. Teddy can do the math, and
was more jumping on the safest ship rather than extracting much in the way
of future favors.
Tom
p.s. Given the numbers Dems are turning out to primary elections, and that
most polled seem to be happy with either Hillary or Obama, my handicapping
of the fall race would put any Dem in front of McCain by a good 5 percent.
Obama could use McCain's weaknesses to stretch that to 15. And remember, who
told you Hillary was in more trouble than people thought several months
ago......g?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
To hell with the Swiftboat thingy. I am talking
about behavior that gave comfort to our enemy.

....such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.
Tom



Regardless how you
felt about that war, to pull a Jane Fonda only put more of our men in
danger. Why can't you see that, Ken?

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...

snip
To drift even more off topic, I think its a pity that Ethics committees
have more of a problem with a closeted gay guy in a restroom committing a
misdemeanor than a drunken drugged up Kennedy offspring driving down the
street.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott,
Ethics committees did not go after Craig because he was a "closeted gay guy
in a restroom committing a misdemeanor ", or after Clinton because he got a
blow job in the oval office, or after Packwood because he gropped women;
they went after them because in each case they lied under oath (either in a
court proceeding and/or to Congress) about what had happened. The fact that
this is not a meaningless distinction is lost on too many people.

Bob Weinberger

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Try not snipping away all the context from Scott's post and
then please explain to me how your commentary isn't silly.

My commentary is not silly because when he uses inane statements like " Many
recovering alcoholics are not normal happy
people. Many are, but many aren't." to bolster his arguement, he is
either:


1. Not thinking about what he is actually writing.
or
2. Using what, to the casual reader, might at first glance appear to be a
meaningful profound statement to set the stage for, and will be reason
enough for, many to uncritically accept all the analysis that follows.

Scott is no dummy and usually chooses his words carefully, so draw your own
conclusions.

Scott's argument as I read it was that mental health professionals
have identified several personality and behavioral attributes which
many recovering alcoholics have in common. So let's look at the
behaviors and personality of a specific recovering alcoholic over
the last seven years and notice the similarities.

Now out of all that you picked one sentence, presented it totally
out of context and then jumped on it with both feet. My conclusion,
as I've already implied, is that your commentary is silly.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it.




uh...ever heard of the "common law"?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Kerry *LIED*, *under oath* before Congress. He lied continuously
during that period.

No, he didn't.

To hell with the Swiftboat thingy. I am talking
about behavior that gave comfort to our enemy.

At that time "the enemy" was the US government. Any true patriot
could see that clearly and John Kerry was, and is, a true patriot.

Regardless how you
felt about that war, to pull a Jane Fonda only put more of our men in
danger. Why can't you see that, Ken?

Jane Fonda didn't put anyone in danger other than Jane Fonda.

What this country needs is true patriots, not blind, toadie jingoes.
John Kerry and Jane Fonda are true patriots. And I'm not even going
to ask why you can't see that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.

Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On 17 Feb 2008 18:47:15 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Why do you continue
to excuse it?

I don't excuse it, Scott, I just think it is not that big a deal.

You excuse my feelings about the shame of Clinton in the WH. No
difference.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.


Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?



Aside from the fact that there's been a Republican majority in both
houses of Congress for most of Bush's term, there's another problem. If
Bush were successfully impeached then we'd be stuck with Cheney, who's
even worse.

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

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:04:18 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..such as ignoring the role Saudi money plays in terrorist
activity? Such as removing one of the few checks on Iranian influence(a
strong Iraq)? Such as allowing videotaped sexual abuse of detained
'suspects' to destroy our credibility in the Middle East, thanks to an
ill-planned strategy? Hell, the past 8 years have been nothing but aid and
comfort to those who would kill us, when you look at it realistically.

Then why, pray tell, has no one been impeached? Why?

Because by the time all the lies and the perfidy became so
obvious as to be impeachable the clock had run out. It would
serve no good purpose to impeach Bush and replace him with
Cheney so both would need to be impeached and there's simply
not enough time to do that before their terms expire. For the
good of the country it is more important that the Democrats
win in 2008 than it is to bring Bush/Cheney to justice. "For
the good of the country" Louie, is a phrase the Democrats know
far, far better than the Republican scum who have sold us out
to the oil interests over the last 7 years.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:11 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

uh...ever heard of the "common law"?

Of course, but the Florida Supreme's were not ruling on "common law",
but were changing an existing law to suit their political party -- all
of them were appointed by Democrats, and all *except* the Chief
Justice realized they could not do that. Fortunately the Fed Supremes
ruled against them, otherwise they would still be counting votes in
Floriduh.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

Kerry *LIED*, *under oath* before Congress. He lied continuously
during that period.

No, he didn't.

snip

Ken Fortenberry

He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Bob Weinberger
- who was in Viet Nam in the Navy at the same time as Kerry and who in
retrospect is inclined to think that a comment he overheard Admiral
Zumwalt make after recieving an action report (don't know if it was
Swift Boats) "Get that loose cannon out of my command." could possibly have
been directed towards Kerry.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:16:49 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Hopefully Ken will believe you. I remember his testimony and they
were lies. I'm not a lawyer (thank you very much), but I do believe
that is perjury. He *did* meet secretly with the North Viet Namese in
Paris while he was in uniform. He did NOT receive an honorable
discharge. To hell with what the Swifties said. The above
disqualifies him as far as I am concerned.

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
"Bob Weinberger" wrote:
He in fact did. He testified before Congress that he had first hand
knowledge of atrocities committed by US troops. While while some or all of
those atrocities may have occured. He did not, and in most caseses, could
not, have had first hand knowledge of them.

Hopefully Ken will believe you.

To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:59:42 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

*EXACTLY*

Probably for the same reason Clinton wasn't prosecuted for perjury,
although he was disbarred.

Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy. His
discharge read "committee of officers" and was dated during the Carter
administration (all on Kerry's website when running for potus). Does
not that make you just a little curious about his character.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

wrote in message
Oooo-kay....how is that "racist?" It's a pretty well accepted term,

Accepted by you and your ilk, perhaps; but that speaks volumes in itself.
In that you've now used this "jungle" reference twice recently in clear
reference to a well educated and respected black candidate for the
Presidency cannot be interpreted as anything other than an intentional
disparagement of his race and himself personally. You knew exactly what you
were writing, you know exactly what it implies, and you know damned well
it's racist. Spare me the bull**** spin.

Joe F.

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

*EXACTLY*

Huh ? Exactly what ?

snip
Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy. His
discharge read "committee of officers" and was dated during the Carter
administration (all on Kerry's website when running for potus). Does
not that make you just a little curious about his character.

The fact that he was in the Navy would be reason enough for me
to question his character but if he was eventually kicked out
of the Navy that would be a mitigating factor in his favor.

(By the way, what are we to think about all those medals the
Navy gave to Kerry ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...

To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Dave's arguement, of course, not mine, but to answer your question:
At the time he made those lies before Congress, he was just a puny-assed ex
LTjg (in the video clip wherein I saw him lying to Congress, he was not in
uniform) representing some anti-war group (Viet Nam Vets Against the War,
IIRC). Congress would have time for little else if they went after everyone
who lied to them under oath. They reserve that action for cases where the
pols can gain political traction from doing so. Going after (at the time) a
nobody like Kerry for the lies he told certainly didn't fit that agenda.

Bob Weinberger

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:04:01 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

wrote in message
Oooo-kay....how is that "racist?" It's a pretty well accepted term,

Accepted by you and your ilk, perhaps; but that speaks volumes in itself.
In that you've now used this "jungle" reference twice recently in clear
reference to a well educated and respected black candidate for the
Presidency cannot be interpreted as anything other than an intentional
disparagement of his race and himself personally. You knew exactly what you
were writing, you know exactly what it implies, and you know damned well
it's racist. Spare me the bull**** spin.

Joe F.

ahahahahahahaha!
That last line cuts to the core of Richard's being.
He's *always* been *all* about bull**** spin. Sheesh...

/daytripper (and he's been a first-rate troll on this group for years...)

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg,"and...
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

Dave's arguement, of course, not mine, but to answer your question:
At the time he made those lies before Congress, he was just a puny-assed ex
LTjg (in the video clip wherein I saw him lying to Congress, he was not in
uniform) representing some anti-war group (Viet Nam Vets Against the War,
IIRC). Congress would have time for little else if they went after everyone
who lied to them under oath. They reserve that action for cases where the
pols can gain political traction from doing so. Going after (at the time) a
nobody like Kerry for the lies he told certainly didn't fit that agenda.

Yeah, there's that but perhaps he wasn't lying in the first place.
One thing we do know for a fact is that the Swiftboating of Kerry
was a pack of despicable lies so you'll have to excuse me if I don't
place a whole lot of credence in your Swiftboat redux.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in
news:Rg2uj.21991$s33.19543@trndny06:

Congress would have time for little else if they went after everyone
who lied to them under oath. They reserve that action for cases where
the pols can gain political traction from doing so.

Timing, too. Don't forget GHWB and his Iran Contra testimony. Reagan is
in the clear, though. It's all to believable that he didn't remember
anything about it.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:05:31 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
To borrow your argument, if Kerry did indeed lie under oath
before Congress why wasn't he ever prosecuted for perjury ?

*EXACTLY*

Huh ? Exactly what ?

Exactly why hasn't he been prosecuted? Why hasn't Clinton been
prosecuted.

snip
Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy. His
discharge read "committee of officers" and was dated during the Carter
administration (all on Kerry's website when running for potus). Does
not that make you just a little curious about his character.

The fact that he was in the Navy would be reason enough for me
to question his character but if he was eventually kicked out
of the Navy that would be a mitigating factor in his favor.

Har, har, har. Just let the Communist Hordes come knockin' on your
door and you'd be callin' for the U.S.Na...........uh, no, maybe you
wouldn't at that. Feel right at home then, eh? d;o)



(By the way, what are we to think about all those medals the
Navy gave to Kerry ? ;-)

As Zoomwalt said, "Get that loose cannon out of my command!"

He won the Silver Star for action that normally wouldn't even win the
Bronze Star. And he won the Bronze Star for saving a Green Beret
officer the HE (Kerry) knocked overboard fleeing from a fight. All of
his PHs are in question. Rice in the buttocks? Only one way to get
that one - not knowing how to throw a grenade into a native vessel's
hold full of ........ wait for it..... wait..... ta da, *rice*. d;o)

Yer hero is like all of yer heroes, Ken -- another phony.

Dave

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphis leg," and...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:11 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:


uh...ever heard of the "common law"?


Of course, but the Florida Supreme's were not ruling on "common law",
but were changing an existing law to suit their political party -- all
of them were appointed by Democrats, and all *except* the Chief
Justice realized they could not do that. Fortunately the Fed Supremes
ruled against them, otherwise they would still be counting votes in
Floriduh.



this was your statement:

No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it.

it was an incorrect statement...but one heard frequently as part of
republican sloganeering...usually in conjunction with the pejorative use
of "liberal" in reference to a judge's or judicial nominee's
decision-making.

and...uh...you do know that the supremes were "making" law just as much
as, if not more than, the florida court, don't you? it was a political
act as much as a judicial act, and reconfirmed the insightful comment
that "No matter whether th' Constitution follows th' flag or not, th'
Supreme Coort follows th' illection returns."

jeff

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

Yeah, there's that but perhaps he wasn't lying in the first place.
One thing we do know for a fact is that the Swiftboating of Kerry
was a pack of despicable lies so you'll have to excuse me if I don't
place a whole lot of credence in your Swiftboat redux.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No perhaps about it. Based on my knowledge of situation in Viet Nam at the
time he and I were there, there is no way in Hell that he witnessed all he
said under oath that he had. Also though we know for a fact that some of
the SwiftBoaters allegations were outright lies, based my own experiences
and on conversations I've had with fellow Naval officers who were in Nam at
the same time, and have no axe to grind Kerry, there is no way I can
accept as fact that all the allegations were lies.

BTW I was not and am not a Bush supporter. I was unable to hold my nose long
enough to vote for him even though based on my perceptionof Kerry's
character (actually his lack thereof) there was no way I would vote for him.
So I cast a futile protest vote for some non-viable 3rd party candidate
(can't even remember who at this point).

So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "uphisleg," and...
 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:16:45 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Yeah, there's that but perhaps he wasn't lying in the first place.
One thing we do know for a fact is that the Swiftboating of Kerry
was a pack of despicable lies so you'll have to excuse me if I don't
place a whole lot of credence in your Swiftboat redux.

You keep on going back to the Swiftboat thingy. Neither Bob nor I
have mentioned it. That had nothing to do with his perjury before
Congress. HE LIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS! Throwing his medals
over the fence had NOTHING TO DO WITH SWIFTBOATS. Going to Paris
while in uniform had NOTHING TO DO WITH SWIFTBOATS. Kapeesh?
Comprendre? Comprendee?

You keep it up, buddy, and I'll get Wolfgang to give you reading
lessons.

Dave