A new Presidential Order....
 

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...

A new Presidential Order....
 

A new Presidential Order....
 

A new Presidential Order....
 

A new Presidential Order....
 

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

A new Presidential Order....
 

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

A new Presidential Order....
 

A new Presidential Order....
 

A new Presidential Order....
 

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