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...

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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