OT Preemptive post

[MiNe 109]

There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
> > out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.
>
> Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
> Clark?
>
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1175471.aspx
>
> "*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
> Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
> "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
> Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
> statement by General Clark." "
>
> Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?
>
> Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
> lately than republicans.
>
> ScottW

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
> day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
> he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
> > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
> > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
>
> Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
> > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
> > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> >
> > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
>
> Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
> > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
> > > > > because
> > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> >
> > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
> > > > the
> > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >
> > > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
> >
> > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
> > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
> > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > political operative.
>
> Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
> those remarks. I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
> nature of Clarks remarks.
> Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
> prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
> for vice president. That too would be right.
>
> ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
> > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> >
> > > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >
> > > > > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > > > > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
> >
> > > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
> > > > Clark
> > > > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose
> > > > Hannity
> > > > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification
> > > > to
> > > > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> > > > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > > > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should
> > > > say
> > > > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > > > political operative.
> >
> > > *Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
> > > those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
> > > nature of Clarks remarks.
> > > Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
> > > prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
> > > for vice president. *That too would be right.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
> > qualifications for the Presidency?
>
> Very little, but then again, who said they do?
> It wasn't John McCain.
> Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
> service
> and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
> It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.
> That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
> presidency,
> does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.
> Most people feel that character is an important attribute of a
> president.
> Clark did more to reveal his own character than diminish McCains.
>
> ScottW

Do you know that statement made by a McCain advocate that directly let
to the Obama advocate's statement?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:29, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
> > > out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.
>
> > *Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
> > Clark?
>
> >http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1175471.aspx
>
> > "*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
> > Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
> > "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
> > Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
> > statement by General Clark." "
>
> > Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?
>
> > Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
> > lately than republicans.
>
> > ScottW
>
> This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
> day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
> he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.- Ascunde citatul -
>


Nor is being a State Senator and a less than one term US Senator
any decent qualification to be President.

Although I admit he has the 'best' qualification of all-
he talks a good game.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said:
>
> > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
> > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
> > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
>
> > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
>
> Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
> military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Some questions have been raised about McCain's
behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for example,
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:48, George M. Middius > wrote:


If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> political operative.

I agree, it sounded a bit 'turdy' to me.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
> > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
> > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> >
> > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >
> > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
>
> But there's a little bit of Arny's
> snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,
"Obama didn't fly in a fighter jet and wasn't shot down."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> Nor is being a State Senator and a less than one term US Senator
> any decent qualification to be President.

That's not in the same category as whether a candidate served in the armed
forces. Stop being Scottie-ish.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 3:17*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:

> > Jenn said:
>
> > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
> > > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
> > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
>
> > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
>
> > > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
>
> > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
> > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
> > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > political operative.
>
> *Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
> those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
> nature of Clarks remarks.

The "obvious" nature of them is as an answer to things like this:

"Portraying Obama as weak and highlighting his inexperience in foreign
and defense matters is central to McCain's strategy. Polls show that
McCain's military background and years of dealing with security issues
in Washington give him a clear edge when voters rate the candidates as
a future commander-in-chief."

Flying a jet and getting shot down does not prepare one for being
CinC. Clark is exactly right. It's good to bring these things up so
they can be examined by the voters.In fact, fighter pilots (and I've
known a few) tend to be egomaniacal and selfish. They typically have
no command or leadership experience at all.

Otherwise, if these things are not examined, we have imbeciles who
make assumptions or perpetuate myth and rumor (see below).

> Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
> prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
> for vice president.

Not true. Overseeing all the moving parts of an organization as large
as NATO Europe is experience in managing and leading. Flying planes is
not.

>*That too would be right.

Wrongo, 2pid. BTW, Clark was not "forced" to retire, nor did he retire
"prematurely", 2pid. After you hit four stars, you're on your way out.
There's nowhere else to go. We have not promoted anyone to five stars
since WWII.

I held three commands in my career. Two-to-three years is a standard
command tour. Clark commanded NATO Europe for three years.

"At times, he had a difficult relationship with Secretary of Defense
William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh
Shelton, which led to rumors Clark was forced into retirement, though
both he and the Department of Defense said his retirement was merely
standard personnel movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Why do you insist on perpetuating baseless rumors, 2pid?

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
> > out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.
>
> Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
> Clark?
>
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1175471.aspx
>
> "*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
> Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
> "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
> Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
> statement by General Clark." "
>
> Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?
>
> Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
> lately than republicans.

That's because one can only show strength by standing up to Democrats.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 3:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Jenn said:
>
> > > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
> > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
>
> > > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
>
> > > > > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > > > > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
>
> > > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > > > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
> > > > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
> > > > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> > > > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > > > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> > > > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > > > political operative.
>
> > > *Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
> > > those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
> > > nature of Clarks remarks.
> > > Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
> > > prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
> > > for vice president. *That too would be right.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
> > qualifications for the Presidency?
>
> Very little, *but then again, who said they do?
> It wasn't John McCain.
> Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
> service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Did he "RIP", 2pid?

LoL

> It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.

It brings an important assumption into play for review. I'm with Jenn.
Questioning McCain's service in the context of being a qualification
for office is not "dissing" his service.

Only an imbecile would think that.

> That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
> presidency, does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
> > > > didn't
> > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
> > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> > >
> > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
> > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >
> > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
>
> Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
> or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
> be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> political operative.

A fuller context explains it better:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

--

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 4:00*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 30 Iun, 15:48, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say

Why jump to that conclusion?

What is McCain had been an infantry private in Vietnam, and had been
captured? If someone said, "Being an infantry private does not qualify
one to be CinC, would you make the same assumption?

> > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > political operative.
>
> I agree, it sounded a bit 'turdy' to me.

Yet here we are discussing it.

So does, IYO, flying a fighter and getting shot down give one a "leg
up" in experience to be CinC?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
> > > > > because
> > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> > > >
> > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
> > > > the
> > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >
> > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
> > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
> > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
> > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
> > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
> > political operative.
>
> A fuller context explains it better:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search
>
> SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
> experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
> down. I mean --
>
> CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
> down is a qualification to be president.
>
> --
>
> Stephen

Exactly. Oh, but we must not say that or we might be accused of being
un-patriotic.

Politics sucks.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > made a gratuitous snot-attack.

> A fuller context explains it better:
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search
>
> SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
> experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
> down. I mean --
>
> CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
> down is a qualification to be president.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 1:51*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
> > > > > > > > > *Clark
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> > > > > > > > > comments.
> >
> > > > > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >
> > > > > > > Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> > > > > > > military
> > > > > > > experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being
> > > > > > > shot
> > > > > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
> >
> > > > > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
> > > > > > Clark
> > > > > > made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose
> > > > > > Hannity
> > > > > > or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a
> > > > > > qualification
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the
> > > > > > phrase
> > > > > > "not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
> > > > > > implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a
> > > > > > third-rate
> > > > > > political operative.
> >
> > > > > *Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
> > > > > those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
> > > > > nature of Clarks remarks.
> > > > > Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
> > > > > prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
> > > > > for vice president. *That too would be right.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
> > > > qualifications for the Presidency?
> >
> > > Very little, *but then again, who said they do?
> > > It wasn't John McCain.
> > > Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
> > > service
> > > and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
> > > It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.
> > > That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
> > > presidency,
> > > does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.
> > > Most people feel that character is an important attribute of a
> > > president.
> > > Clark did more to reveal his own character than diminish McCains.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Do you know that statement made by a McCain advocate that directly let
> > to the Obama advocate's statement?
>
> Dueling advocates? How cute.

So do you understand what Clark was responding to now?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
> > > made a gratuitous snot-attack.
>
> > A fuller context explains it better:
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search
> >
> > SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
> > experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
> > down. I mean --
> >
> > CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
> > down is a qualification to be president.
>
> In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
> surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

That military service mojo only works for Republicans.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another entry for the Scottie-to-Human Glossary.

> > In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
> > surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

> Clark reveals his own stupidity[sic] in getting drawn into a
> tit for tat with Scheiffer and saying something so stupid[sic].

If you were a normal person, I'd applaud your blunt condemnation of
Schieffer. However, you're just Scottie, so we now know that your
understanding of the words "stupid" and "stupidity" are up to your usual
standard.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2:00*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
> > > military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
> >
> > Some questions have been raised about McCain's
> > behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for
> > example,http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm.
>
> Some questions have been raised about your character.
> I see you doing all you can to assure us those questions are well
> founded.

Hey, that was my line for the Kerry thing.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2:36*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
> > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
> > > > Clark
> > > > made a gratuitous snot-attack.
> > > A fuller context explains it better:
> > >http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search
> >
> > > SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
> > > experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
> > > down. I mean --
> >
> > > CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
> > > down is a qualification to be president.
> >
> > In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
> > surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.
>
> Clark reveals his own stupidity in getting drawn into a
> tit for tat with Scheiffer and saying something so stupid.

What's so great about getting shot down?

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 5:45*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2:00*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
> > > > military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
> > >
> > > Some questions have been raised about McCain's
> > > behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for
> > > example,http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm.
> >
> > Some questions have been raised about your character.
> > I see you doing all you can to assure us those questions
> > are well founded.
>
> Hey, that was my line for the Kerry thing.

At least ScottW didn't tell me this time that I was being
"treasonous" :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > GMAFB.
>
> BTW, please watch your ****ing language. You wouldn't want to be
> accused of being hypocritical, would you?

****in' A no!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.

> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

> Page not found.

I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there. You're just too stupid
to find it or too ideologically twisted to understand it. In a nutshell,
the Swift Boats were a group of Navy boats that fought in the Pacific
during the war. But the morally depraved ****uplicans (you know who I mean
-- you worship them faithfully) induced a few of the Swift Boat veterans to
launch a smear campaign against Kerry in 2004. Now the real vets want their
service to be cleansed of the stink of republican dirty tricks.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > > > In article >,
> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >
> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
> >> > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
> >> >
> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >> >
> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >> >
> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >
> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,
> >>
> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >>
> >> GMAFB.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > He was advocating for McCain.
>
> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> of some political advocates position is
> now an advocate of the opposition.
> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> Please be specific.
>
> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
>
> ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >
> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >
> >> Page not found.
> >
> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
>
> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
>
> ScottW



By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 30, 2008
Years ago, when William Miller talked about being in the Vietnam War ‹
if he talked about being in the Vietnam War ‹ he would tell people he
served on a Swift boat.

³It¹s taken on the connotation of political sport versus honoring those
that sacrificed everything.² FRED SHORT, Swift boat veteran who served
with John Kerry
At least now they have heard of it. But not in the way he would like.
³I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with,² Mr. Miller
said. ³Now somebody says ŒSwift boat¹ and it¹s a whole different
meaning. They don¹t associate it with the guys we lost. That¹s a shame.²
³Swift boat² has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears,
a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to
proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that
they will not be Swiftboated.
Swift boat veterans ‹ especially those who had nothing to do with the
group that attacked Senator John Kerry¹s military record in the 2004
election ‹ want their good name back, and the good names of the men not
lucky enough to come home alive.
³You would not hear the word ŒSwift boat¹ and think of people that
served their country and fought in Vietnam,² said Jim Newell, who spent
a year as an officer in charge on one of the small Navy vessels in An
Thoi and Qui Nhon. ³You think about someone who was involved in a
political attack on a member of a different party. It just comes across
as negative. Everyone who is associated with a Swift boat is involved in
political chicanery.²
Sure, Watergate will never be just the office complex. And the name
Willie Horton will always refer to more than just a criminal. But for
Swift boat veterans, the name theft is more personal. When they talk
about Swift boats, they recall friends and crewmates killed, countless
moments of sheer terror in their young lives, the pain of coming home to
a country that offered less than a hero¹s welcome.
³It¹s completely inappropriate,² said Michael Bernique, a highly
regarded Swift boat driver who led missions up a canal that became known
as Bernique¹s Creek. ³The word should connote service with honor, which
is what was conducted. Anything that demeans that honor is shameful.²
In an April column in Proceedings magazine of the United States Naval
Institute, Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon
consultant known as a creator of the ³shock and awe² concept, wrote: ³It
is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene
both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is
ŒSwiftboating.¹*²
This month, a group of veterans who served with Mr. Kerry took up the
challenge by Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped
finance the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, that he would give $1
million to anyone who could disprove anything in the group¹s campaign
against Mr. Kerry.
³One of the prime reasons we¹ve done this is the way it¹s taken on the
connotation of political sport versus honoring those that sacrificed
everything,² said Fred Short, who was in the gun tub of a Swift boat
during one of the firefights that the veterans group said Mr. Kerry had
exaggerated.
Before 2004, Swift boats ‹ also known as Patrol Craft Fast, or P.C.F.¹s
‹ were 50-foot aluminum boats, just big enough for an officer, five
enlisted men and a Vietnamese interpreter. There were about 110 of them
as part of the so-called brown water navy in Vietnam, boats agile enough
to patrol the shallow waters near shores where the North Vietnamese were
sending small craft filled with munitions and supplies. They conducted
some of the most harrowing missions of the war.
³The bad guys shot you on the way up the river, and they knew you had to
come back down,² said John Scholl, who served as an officer in charge
from May 1968 to May 1969.
There was no room for politics.
³What you cared about was the five guys on the boat,² Mr. Scholl said.
³You didn¹t get involved in what Johnson was doing, you all just wanted
to make sure you succeeded in the operation. I always say, ŒI was 24,
and I was much older than I am now.¹*²
The Swifties, as they call themselves, were a fairly loose fraternity
until the mid-1990s, when they gathered at the dedication of a
refurbished boat in Washington. Now, the Swift Boat Sailors Association
holds a reunion every two years.
On Swiftboats.net, Larry Wasikowski tends to a crew list, a history of
the boats and even archives of newsletters that various crews sent home
to their families from 1966 to 1969. Mr. Wasikowski and the sailors¹
association grant the designation of ³Swiftie² meticulously, requiring
extensive official documentation from anyone who claims the title.
By the association¹s count, about 3,600 men served aboard Swift boats in
Vietnam, 600 officers and 3,000 enlisted. About 200 signed the letter
that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in
2004. In advertisements, a best-selling book and extensive news media
appearances, they accused Mr. Kerry of fabricating exploits to win his
military decorations and a discharge just four months into a yearlong
tour.
Navy documents contradicted many of their accusations, but the claims
undermined what Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Kerry¹s strength.
Regardless of what they thought of Mr. Kerry, many Swift boat veterans
objected to the attacks.
³It was unconscionable,² said Stan Collier, who served as an officer in
charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon. ³I thought those boys struck a new
low.²
Mr. Collier considers himself a conservative and did not agree with Mr.
Kerry¹s politics, but he voted for him to protest the Swift boat
campaign. ³We¹ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys
assigned to Kerry,² he said. ³I think we¹ve all been demeaned.²
As Mr. Miller said, ³People don¹t know about us; they know about those
few TV advertisements.²
Mr. Wasikowski, who signed the original letter, said some Swift boat
veterans dropped out of the sailors¹ association because they thought it
was connected to the campaign against Mr. Kerry. And many former sailors
watched with dismay as the noun became a verb.
³When someone¹s Swiftboated, it¹s like being waterboarded,² said Sandy
Wilcox, who keeps a model of the Swift boat he skippered on the credenza
in his office in Wisconsin.
The new meaning of Swift boat stings worst for the men who served with
Mr. Kerry, who say that, by implication, the attacks tarnished their
military decorations. ³I don¹t have a lot in this world ‹ my service
means a whole lot to me,² Mr. Short said. ³It¹s been besmirched, I guess
would be a good word. Whether they meant it or not.²
Mr. Pickens refused to pay on his challenge, and he suggested that the
Swift boat colleagues who submitted records and other materials in
defense of Mr. Kerry take up their disagreement with the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth.
For their part, group members say they take nothing back. ³We didn¹t
back down,² Mr. Wasikowski said.
Still, even some Swift boat veterans associated with the anti-Kerry
group say they do not like what ³Swift boat² has become.
³It¹s taken on a life of its own,² Mr. Wasikowski said. ³The problem is,
it¹s on the wrong side. We would like to be remembered as the one
operation in Vietnam that succeeded, totally.²
The Swift Boat Sailors Association has attached a disclaimer to its Web
site disavowing any ³express or implied² political ties.
Signing the association¹s online guestbook in October, ³Carlo² expressed
his appreciation: ³I think it¹s disgraceful that a handful of people
have managed to turn ŒSwift boat¹ into a synonym for ŒTo smear somebody
with lies,¹*² he wrote. ³I hope you guys can take the term back to
connote bravery, courage and sacrifice, like it always has.²

copyright NYT

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> > > > In article >,
> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being
> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,
> >> >>
> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >>
> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >>
> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> Please be specific.
> >>
> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.
>
> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> Back to the ivory tower with you!
>
> ScottW

lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >> >
> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >> >
> >> >> Page not found.
> >> >
> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >>
> >> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >>
> >> ScottW
>
> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> they could not refute.
>
> ScottW

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > ,
> >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > In article >,
> >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by
> >> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> >> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> >> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
> >> >> >> > > > being
> >> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> >> >> >> > qualifications,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> >> Please be specific.
> >> >>
> >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.
> >>
> >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
>
> Jenn pulls a swiftie.
>
> ScottW

You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 said:
> >>
> >> > > Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
> >> > > Clark
> >> > > made a gratuitous snot-attack.
> >>
> >> > A fuller context explains it better:
> >> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search
> >> >
> >> > SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
> >> > experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
> >> > down. I mean --
> >> >
> >> > CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
> >> > down is a qualification to be president.
> >>
> >> In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
> >> surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.
> >
> > That military service mojo only works for Republicans.
> >
> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
>
> Page not found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >> >
> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >> >
> >> >> Page not found.
> >> >
> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >>
> >> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >>
> >> ScottW
>
> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> they could not refute.

No, it was the smearing.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > >,
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > ,
> >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > In article >,
> >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by
> >> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> >> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> >> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
> >> >> >> > > > being
> >> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> >> >> >> > qualifications,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> >> Please be specific.
> >> >>
> >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.
> >>
> >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
>
> Jenn pulls a swiftie.

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/story-of-the-da.html

KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
treatment.
--

You're right: no mention of fishing.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 9:39*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> they could not refute.

I know all about how stupid you are, 2pid.

Yet sometimes the depth of your stupidity surprises even me.

Every time you have had sex with your wife, you raped her. "Refute"
that, 2pid. BTW, don't bring your wife in to say it's not true. We
know how afraid of you she is. She'll say anything to try to stay
safe. And don't bring up the fact that you presumably haven't had any
police charges filed. We know, based on the "Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth", how easily official statements and documents can be
manipulated.

You might as well confess now, rapist.

Lol

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >> ..
> > >> .
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >> >>
> > >> >> t.
> > >> >> ..
> > >> >> > In article
> > >> >> > >,
> > >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > >> >> >> > In article
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > m>
> > >> >> >> > ,
> > >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn > wrote:
> > >> >> >> > > > In article >,
> > >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political
> > >> >> >> > > > > > climate.
> > >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> > >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> > >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand
> > >> >> >> > > > > > by
> > >> >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> >> >> > > > > > because
> > >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> > >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> > >> >> >> > > > > experience
> > >> >> >> > > > > in
> > >> >> >> > > > > the
> > >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> > >> >> >> > > > military
> > >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
> > >> >> >> > > > being
> > >> >> >> > > > shot
> > >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> > >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> > >> >> >> > qualifications,
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> GMAFB.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> ScottW
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> > >> >> of some political advocates position is
> > >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> > >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> > >> >> Please be specific.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> > >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ScottW
> > >> >
> > >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking
> > >> > head.
> > >>
> > >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> > >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> > >>
> > >> ScottW
> > >
> > > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> > > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> >
> > Jenn pulls a swiftie.
>
> http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/story-of-the-da.html
>
> KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
> with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
> Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
> Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
> spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
> says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
> Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
> treatment.
> --
>
> You're right: no mention of fishing.
>
> Stephen

I guess that I was mistaken.

But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
lives in an ivory tower.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?

I consider it such. It implies a lack of ethics and a profound intellectual
disability.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
> rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
> time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
> lives in an ivory tower.

You also crave dominance over mentally unbalanced computer repair techs.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...

<snip>

> > > > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> > > > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> > >
> > > Jenn pulls a swiftie.
> >
> > http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/story-of-the-da.html
> >
> > KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
> > with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
> > Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
> > Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
> > spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
> > says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
> > Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
> > treatment.
> > --
> >
> > You're right: no mention of fishing.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> I guess that I was mistaken.
>
> But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
> rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
> time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
> lives in an ivory tower.

So long as it's not on fire! It was strange to hear aboutthe Big Sur
fire so soon after seeing the Emile Norman documentary on PBS.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Peaches McMoron yapped:

> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html

> >> Page not found.

> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.

> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?

I just tried it and it works fine, you raving idiot. Here's the article for
you, since you're incapable of clicking on a hyperlink. I even included a
working link to the second page.



Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’

By KATE ZERNIKE

Years ago, when William Miller talked about being in the Vietnam War — if
he talked about being in the Vietnam War — he would tell people he served
on a Swift boat.

“I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with,” Mr. Miller said.
“Now somebody says ‘Swift boat’ and it’s a whole different meaning. They
don’t associate it with the guys we lost. That’s a shame.”

“Swift boat” has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a
shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim
that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not
be Swiftboated.

Swift boat veterans — especially those who had nothing to do with the group
that attacked Senator John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 election —
want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough
to come home alive.

“You would not hear the word ‘Swift boat’ and think of people that served
their country and fought in Vietnam,” said Jim Newell, who spent a year as
an officer in charge on one of the small Navy vessels in An Thoi and Qui
Nhon. “You think about someone who was involved in a political attack on a
member of a different party. It just comes across as negative. Everyone who
is associated with a Swift boat is involved in political chicanery.”

Sure, Watergate will never be just the office complex. And the name Willie
Horton will always refer to more than just a criminal. But for Swift boat
veterans, the name theft is more personal. When they talk about Swift
boats, they recall friends and crewmates killed, countless moments of sheer
terror in their young lives, the pain of coming home to a country that
offered less than a hero’s welcome.

“It’s completely inappropriate,” said Michael Bernique, a highly regarded
Swift boat driver who led missions up a canal that became known as
Bernique’s Creek. “The word should connote service with honor, which is
what was conducted. Anything that demeans that honor is shameful.”

In an April column in Proceedings magazine of the United States Naval
Institute, Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon
consultant known as a creator of the “shock and awe” concept, wrote: “It is
time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to
and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is
‘Swiftboating.’ ”

This month, a group of veterans who served with Mr. Kerry took up the
challenge by Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance
the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, that he would give $1 million to
anyone who could disprove anything in the group’s campaign against Mr.
Kerry.

“One of the prime reasons we’ve done this is the way it’s taken on the
connotation of political sport versus honoring those that sacrificed
everything,” said Fred Short, who was in the gun tub of a Swift boat during
one of the firefights that the veterans group said Mr. Kerry had
exaggerated.

Before 2004, Swift boats — also known as Patrol Craft Fast, or P.C.F.’s —
were 50-foot aluminum boats, just big enough for an officer, five enlisted
men and a Vietnamese interpreter. There were about 110 of them as part of
the so-called brown water navy in Vietnam, boats agile enough to patrol the
shallow waters near shores where the North Vietnamese were sending small
craft filled with munitions and supplies. They conducted some of the most
harrowing missions of the war.

“The bad guys shot you on the way up the river, and they knew you had to
come back down,” said John Scholl, who served as an officer in charge from
May 1968 to May 1969.

There was no room for politics.

“What you cared about was the five guys on the boat,” Mr. Scholl said. “You
didn’t get involved in what Johnson was doing, you all just wanted to make
sure you succeeded in the operation. I always say, ‘I was 24, and I was
much older than I am now.’ ”

The Swifties, as they call themselves, were a fairly loose fraternity until
the mid-1990s, when they gathered at the dedication of a refurbished boat
in Washington. Now, the Swift Boat Sailors Association holds a reunion
every two years.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html?pagewanted=2>

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > .
> > > > ..
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> > > > > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> > > >
> > > > Jenn pulls a swiftie.
> > >
> > > http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/story-of-the-da.html
> > >
> > > KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
> > > with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
> > > Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
> > > Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
> > > spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
> > > says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
> > > Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
> > > treatment.
> > > --
> > >
> > > You're right: no mention of fishing.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > I guess that I was mistaken.
> >
> > But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
> > rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
> > time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
> > lives in an ivory tower.
>
> So long as it's not on fire! It was strange to hear aboutthe Big Sur
> fire so soon after seeing the Emile Norman documentary on PBS.
>
> Stephen

It's bad up there, we hear. Hwy 1 is closed. Such a beautiful area.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > >,
> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > om>
> >> >> >> >> > ,
> >> >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn >
> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > In article >,
> >> >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > climate.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > by
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
> >> >> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss
> >> >> >> >> > > > > something?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
> >> >> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
> >> >> >> >> > > > being
> >> >> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> >> >> >> >> > qualifications,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> >> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> >> >> Please be specific.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking
> >> >> > head.
> >> >>
> >> >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> >> >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> >> > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> >>
> >> Jenn pulls a swiftie.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?
>
> No, but you do.
>
> ScottW

No, I don't. You shouldn't make things up.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> l.n
> >> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > s.c
> >> >> >> >> >> > om>
> >> >> >> >> >> > ,
> >> >> >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > In article >,
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > climate.
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > stand
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > by
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark's
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > his
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > something?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > McCain's
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > being
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > right.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> >> >> >> >> >> > qualifications,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> >> >> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> >> >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> >> >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> >> >> >> Please be specific.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> >> >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking
> >> >> >> > head.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> >> >> >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> >> >> > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jenn pulls a swiftie.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?
> >>
> >> No, but you do.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > No, I don't. You shouldn't make things up.
>
> So you often toss out irrelevant comments like that?
> Actually, I suppose you do.
>
> ScottW

Just follow the above conversation, Scott.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot stammered:

> > I just tried it and it works fine, you raving idiot.
>
> Maybe the little ' after HTML on his original link is
> not ignored by some readers.

If you knew what the problem was, why did you keep whining about it?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > >> >> > He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

> > >> >> Jenn pulls a swiftie.

> > >> > You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?

> > >> No, but you do.

> > > No, I don't. You shouldn't make things up.

> > So you often toss out irrelevant comments like that?

> Just follow the above conversation, Scott.

This is another aspect of the phenomenon Stephen calls "guess what
Scottie's thinking". As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
understood him to say. Now he's telling you what you meant even though your
actual words don't support it.

I would really enjoy hearing a recording of one of Yapper's job interviews.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 23:45, "ScottW" > wrote:

his original link is
> not ignored by some readers.
>
> I would think any decent IT guy would have been to
> figure out the problem. Do you know any?
>
> ScottW

Krazy Krooger the Komputer Konsultant Klearly Kan Korrect
Krippled Konnections

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 23:58, George M. Middius > wrote:

As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
> understood him to say.


Then he DEMANDS that you wade through his 10,000 OT posts to find the
right ones

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> ..
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> l.n
> >> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> oba
> >> >> >> >> >> l.n
> >> >> >> >> >> et.
> >> >> >> >> >> ..
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > .co
> >> >> >> >> >> > m>,
> >> >> >> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > oup
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > s.c
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > om>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > In article
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Jenn said:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > This is exactly what is wrong about our political
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > climate.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > didn't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > day anything that needed an apology. Clark should
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > stand
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > by
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > because
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Clark's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > comments.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > his
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > experience
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > something?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > McCain's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > military
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > being
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > shot
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > right.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > But there's a little bit of Arny's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > snot factor attached to that.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > qualifications,
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> GMAFB.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > He was advocating for McCain.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
> >> >> >> >> >> of some political advocates position is
> >> >> >> >> >> now an advocate of the opposition.
> >> >> >> >> >> Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
> >> >> >> >> >> Please be specific.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
> >> >> >> >> >> advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing
> >> >> >> >> > talking
> >> >> >> >> > head.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
> >> >> >> >> Back to the ivory tower with you!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
> >> >> >> > talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jenn pulls a swiftie.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, but you do.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > No, I don't. You shouldn't make things up.
> >>
> >> So you often toss out irrelevant comments like that?
> >> Actually, I suppose you do.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Just follow the above conversation, Scott.
>
> as it spirals from the high point of false premise
> to the dumpers? I'll pass.
>
> So now that you realize Clark was not responding to
> a McCain advocate, WTH do you suppose he was thinking
> when he so ineffectively contrasted McCain military experience
> with Obamas lack thereof?
> Clark was a Clinton supporter...could this have been a bit
> of subterfuge?
> Obama was far quicker than usual to reject the comments.
>
> ScottW

Dumb move politically, but what he said was absolutely correct. Flying
a fighter jet and being shot down has nothing to do with presidential
qualifications.

Of course Murdoch's rag the Wall Street Journal showed its usual bias:
McCain Supporter Defends Swift Boat Attacks

Laura Meckler reports on the presidential race from Harrisburg, Pa.
A group of John McCain¹s supporters came together today to defend McCain
against charges that he was overstating the importance of his military
service. Many remember how Democrat John Kerry was wounded by attacks in
2004 on his military record, and the McCain campaign does not want to
let any charge go unanswered. More important, the spat gives the McCain
campaign a reason to talk about his military service, a topic that
serves him well.
The conference call with reporters took an odd turn when the supporters
were asked if the anti-McCain comments, including one issued Sunday by
retired Gen. Wesley Clark, were analogous to charges issued by Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Kerry in 2004. The
group was condemned in many quarters, and today its very name ‹ swift
boat ‹ is used as a synonym for a slimy political attack. Even McCain
condemned the Swift Boat group in 2004.
But one McCain supporter, retired Col. Bud Day, who was held prisoner
with McCain in Vietnam, said the attacks on McCain were nothing like the
swift boat attacks. He helped produce those attacks against Kerry, which
were true, he said. The attacks against McCain are not, he added.
³The swift boat, quote, attacks were simply a revelation of the truth,²
he said. ³The similarity does not exist here because basically what the
Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry¹s record.²

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot yapped:

> > The Idiot stammered:
> >
> >> > I just tried it and it works fine, you raving idiot.
> >>
> >> Maybe the little ' after HTML on his original link is
> >> not ignored by some readers.
> >
> > If you knew what the problem was, why did you keep whining about it?
>
> I didn't know until he posted a new link without the '

duh.

> For an IT guy, you aren't very tech savvy.

Bwahahaha! What a maroon!

Scottie, you blithering idiot, I am not "an IT guy". And since when does
one need to be "an IT guy" to spot an extraneous character at the very end
of a URL?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yappity-yappity-yap.

> > Scottie, you blithering idiot, I am not "an IT guy".
>
> Ok, another career bites the dust.

No, another of your deluded misapprehensions is laid to rest.

BTW, when was the last time you stopped yapping before one of your
antagonists stopped posting?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 12:02*am, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Maybe he can figure out he's full of ****
> before he opens his big mouth for a change.

LoL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 12:13*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > Dumb move politically, but what he said was absolutely correct.
>
> *Not really. Most people take his snide comment about flying a
> plane or being shot down as demeaning to his military service
> and his war heroics.

snide (snd)
adj. snid·er, snid·est
Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.

Or you could say,

truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.

> Literally true, but a really dumb thing to say.

"True" or "snide"?

> Even dumber than the McCain aid saying a terrorist attack helps
> the McCain campaign. True, but unspeakably dumb to say so.

"Even dumber"?

No.

> > *Flying
> > a fighter jet and being shot down has nothing to do with presidential
> > qualifications.
>
> *Most people won't take the literal interpretation nor do I think
> they should.

So a literal response to a literal statement should be read in to.

I disagree.

> Given that Clark also tried to diminish his role as squadron
> commander he seemed to be attacking McCains entire military
> service. Most people find that ridiculous and certainly consider
> service a solid resume point for president.
> That's why Scheiffer responded with "Really?" in a
> flabbergasted tone of voice.

McCain served his country honorably. That was not, and is not the
point.

> The bigger question to me is, why would Clark open this
> line in which Obama clearly cannot prevail?

About whether McCain's service makes him "more qualified" to run the
country?

Why couldn't Obama "prevail"?

> I suspect dirty tricks and I don't think anyone can claim Clark
> is working for the republicans.

I wouldn't compare this to the Swift Boat debacle.

> > Of course Murdoch's rag the Wall Street Journal showed its usual bias:
>
> I'm really not interested in debating your perception of bias.

Lol

> Until you can sort the hosts from the advocates you will
> be easily led astray.

LoL

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 9:28 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >At least ScottW didn't tell me this time that I was being
> >"treasonous" :-)
>
> Alright, out with it! Which side of the Revolutionary War
> were you on?

The English, of course, Bob. And now I am here to
finish the job. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 10:27 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:6u4j649lbmkmp7kdnsa5nka0g7q60kgska@4ax .com...
> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >>
> >> Page not found.
> >
> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
>
> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?

You need to delete the apostrophe that appended
itself to "html"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 30 Iun, 23:58, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
> >> understood him to say.
>
> > Then he DEMANDS that you wade through his 10,000 OT posts to find the
> > right ones
>
> *Somebody give Art a search engine lesson.
> Maybe he can figure out he's full of ****
> before he opens his big mouth for a change.
>
>

that 'is' wading through 10,000 posts., yes, with a search engine
the search engine gets plenty of none relevant posts
one has to read through, while missing a relevant one because
you may have used different wording.

There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
search looking for gems amid your haystacks of hot air.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation
> >> >> >> > back:
> >> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Page not found.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >>
> >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> >> they could not refute.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
>
> Still Kerry refuses to release the info he claims
> will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.

Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.

> Even Huffington post can't hide that he has released
> nothing new.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071116/kerry-swift-boat/
>
> "In May 2005, he began allowing reporters access to his full Navy personnel
> and
> medical records _ something he refused to do during the campaign.Those
> records
> mostly duplicated documents Kerry released during the 2004 campaign."
>
> While much of the swiftboat claims are purely subjective
> and can't ever be "proven" one way or another, Kerry
> provided enough ridiculous lies (Xmas in Cambodia)
> to make his own credibility suspect.

Your views on credibility are unfailingly partisan.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
> >> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Page not found.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >>
> >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> >> they could not refute.
> >
> > No, it was the smearing.
>
> They could have called it something else.

By your standards, the people who named the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth created the issue.

Stephen

[Bill[_16_]]

In article <4a4a8eee-a695-4025-80be-315255689d55
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Jun 30, 9:28 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> >
> > Alright, out with it! Which side of the Revolutionary War
> > were you on?
>
> The English, of course, Bob. And now I am here to
> finish the job. :-)
>

LOL!

--
Bill

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > .
> > > >>..
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> >
> > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >
> > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation
> > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >
> > > >> >> >> Page not found.
> >
> > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >
> > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >
> > > >> >> ScottW
> >
> > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> > > >> they could not refute.
> >
> > > >> ScottW
> >
> > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
> >
> > > Still Kerry refuses to release the info he claims
> > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
> >
> > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
>
> Because no one has proven anything false
> and the blame for that lies with Kerry.

Wrong.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062608d
nnatpickens.3a6c2d1b.html

Couldn't access the original. Shield your eyes from Hamsher to notice
the moving goalposts.

http://firedoglake.com/2007/11/16/john-kerry-to-swift-boat-funder-t-boone
-pickens-wheres-my-million-dollars/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john-kerrys-swi.html

Stephen

[Doug Reese]

On Jul 1, 11:36*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
>
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ....
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
>
> > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
>
> > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation
> > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
>
> > > >> >> >> Page not found.
>
> > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
>
> > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
>
> > > >> >> ScottW
>
> > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > >> It was theKerrycampaign trying to counter charges
> > > >> they could not refute.
>
> > > >> ScottW
>
> > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
>
> > > StillKerryrefuses to release the info he claims
> > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
>
> > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
>
> * *Because no one has proven anything false
> and the blame for that lies withKerry.

Would you care to make a little wager on that?

Nothing much. It would go to the Veteran's charity of your choice.

Doug Reese

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 11:36*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
>
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
>
> > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
>
> > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation
> > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
>
> > > >> >> >> Page not found.
>
> > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
>
> > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
>
> > > >> >> ScottW
>
> > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> > > >> they could not refute.
>
> > > >> ScottW
>
> > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
>
> > > Still Kerry refuses to release the info he claims
> > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
>
> > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
>
> * *Because no one has proven anything false
> and the blame for that lies with Kerry.

Shoulodn't the burden of proof lie with the accusers? It seems to me
there's a double standard here.

Rapist.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 12:07*pm, Doug Reese > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:36*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > * *Because no one has proven anything false
> > and the blame for that lies withKerry.
>
> Would you care to make a little wager on that?
>
> Nothing much. It would go to the Veteran's charity of your choice.

2pid's goalposts will move as fast and as far as Pickens' did. 2pid,
like a good republican lapdog, claims that he has integrity when he
has none.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 11:41*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > search looking for gems amid *your haystacks of hot air.
>
> *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.

Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
be far behind? Lol

> The motto of Art:
> "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."

Isn't that *exactly* what you are saying Kerry must do regarding the
Swift Boaters? "The Swift Boaters can say what they want to and Kerry
must prove them wrong." Didn't you just say that IN THIS VERY THREAD,
you moron? LoL

> *Pathetic.

Yes, 2pid, Hypocrisy and extreme stupidity always are. This is why
people of normal intelligence call you "pathetic".

As usual, your 'standards' apply to everybody but you.

Imbecile.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> be far behind?


Witless is almost the George W. Bush of RAO, except of course that no one
would ever vote for him.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 1, 9:48*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > .
> > > > > >>net.
> > > > > >>..
> > > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > > > >> ...
> >
> > > > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their
> > > > > >> >> >> > reputation
> > > > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
> >
> > > > > >> >> >> Page not found.
> >
> > > > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> >
> > > > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> >
> > > > > >> >> ScottW
> >
> > > > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > > > >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> > > > > >> they could not refute.
> >
> > > > > >> ScottW
> >
> > > > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
> >
> > > > > Still Kerry refuses to release the info he claims
> > > > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
> >
> > > > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
> >
> > > * *Because no one has proven anything false
> > > and the blame for that lies with Kerry.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062...
> > nnatpickens.3a6c2d1b.html
>
> "In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide
> speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads."
>
> Conservative blogs reporting on his offer last fall described it as
> applying to anything Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said, not just the
> group's TV ads.
>
> "I guess now we know the 'T' in T. Boone doesn't stand for 'truth,' "
> said Del Sandusky, one of the crewmen. "I really hoped we could've
> taken him at his word. ... We won't rest until he admits the truth
> that he bankrolled a big lie."
>
> The ads focused on Mr. Kerry's anti-war activities after his tour of
> duty and the merits of his medals for heroism. They were considered a
> key factor in his loss to President Bush. "
>
> Conclusion: None of the information in the adds is refuted.
>
> >
> > http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john-kerrys-swi.html
>
> Interesting...
> "He told fellow journalists at The Times that many swift boat veterans
> were furious at Kerry for returning from Vietnam and testifying before
> Congress about atrocities the young Navy lieutenant said had been
> committed there. The veterans felt Kerry's statements unfairly sullied
> all their reputations."
>
> So Kerry was unfair. Ok.
>
> and finally, "A spokesman said Friday that Pickens was not prepared to
> respond because he had not yet seen the letter."
>
> So nothing conclusive aside from Vets disputing Kerry's assertions on
> atrocities in his speech.
>
> Sadly, the concept of proof is eluding you. First thing that must be
> determined is proof of what?
> It wasn't what someone says someone said. We all see everyday how
> those stories get
> circulated. The bet was on the adds. It's clear that people who put
> forward a good effort cannot refute the adds. If they could, they
> would. They can't.

You missed the moving goalposts.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 1:44*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:35*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 11:41*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 5:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > search looking for gems amid *your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> > be far behind? Lol
>
> > > The motto of Art:
> > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > Isn't that *exactly* what you are saying Kerry must do regarding the
> > Swift Boaters? "
>
> *No. Those guys were there, they have a valid first hand account
> of events and there is no google record to easily resort to.

Instead, they stated that official records were wrong, that others who
were there (like the guy that Kerry saved) were lying, etc.

> How silly of me to think you would not be confused by these
> huge differences in the situations.

Officer evaluations, citations for medals, combat records, etc. are
all available, yet you choose to believe otherwise. And you shift the
burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

There is no difference, 2pid.

Imbecile.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 9:48*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > >
> > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > >et
> > > > > >...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>l.
> > > > > > >>net.
> > > > > > >>..
> > > > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> > > > > > >> >> message
> > > > > > >> ...
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their
> > > > > > >> >> >> > reputation
> > > > > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > > > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html
> > > > > > >> >> >> >'
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >> Page not found.
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
> > >
> > > > > > >> >> ScottW
> > >
> > > > > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > > > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > > > > >> It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
> > > > > > >> they could not refute.
> > >
> > > > > > >> ScottW
> > >
> > > > > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
> > >
> > > > > > Still Kerry refuses to release the info he claims
> > > > > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
> > >
> > > > > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
> > >
> > > > * *Because no one has proven anything false
> > > > and the blame for that lies with Kerry.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062...
> > > nnatpickens.3a6c2d1b.html
> >
> > "In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide
> > speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads."
> >
> > Conservative blogs reporting on his offer last fall described it as
> > applying to anything Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said, not just the
> > group's TV ads.
> >
> > "I guess now we know the 'T' in T. Boone doesn't stand for 'truth,' "
> > said Del Sandusky, one of the crewmen. "I really hoped we could've
> > taken him at his word. ... We won't rest until he admits the truth
> > that he bankrolled a big lie."
> >
> > The ads focused on Mr. Kerry's anti-war activities after his tour of
> > duty and the merits of his medals for heroism. They were considered a
> > key factor in his loss to President Bush. "
> >
> > Conclusion: None of the information in the adds is refuted.
> >
> > >
> > > http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john-kerrys-swi.html
> >
> > Interesting...
> > "He told fellow journalists at The Times that many swift boat veterans
> > were furious at Kerry for returning from Vietnam and testifying before
> > Congress about atrocities the young Navy lieutenant said had been
> > committed there. The veterans felt Kerry's statements unfairly sullied
> > all their reputations."
> >
> > So Kerry was unfair. Ok.
> >
> > and finally, "A spokesman said Friday that Pickens was not prepared to
> > respond because he had not yet seen the letter."
> >
> > So nothing conclusive aside from Vets disputing Kerry's assertions on
> > atrocities in his speech.
> >
> > Sadly, the concept of proof is eluding you. First thing that must be
> > determined is proof of what?
> > It wasn't what someone says someone said. We all see everyday how
> > those stories get
> > circulated. The bet was on the adds. It's clear that people who put
> > forward a good effort cannot refute the adds. If they could, they
> > would. They can't.
>
> You missed the moving goalposts.

And snipped the story linked by Firedoglake.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> The adds presented a point of view supported by facts.
>
> For example:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
>
> What part of this add is factually in error?
> There are only a few facts and they are easily
> confirmed so this should be easy for you.

Here's one: "accused all veterans of unspeakable horrors".

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot barked:

> What part of this add

Why do you even bother, Witless?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 2:19*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:44*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 11:35*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 11:41*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 1, 5:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > > > search looking for gems amid *your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > > > *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > > > Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> > > > be far behind? Lol
>
> > > > > The motto of Art:
> > > > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > > > Isn't that *exactly* what you are saying Kerry must do regarding the
> > > > Swift Boaters? "
>
> > > *No. Those guys were there, they have a valid first hand account
> > > of events and there is no google record to easily resort to.
>
> > Instead, they stated that official records were wrong, that others who
> > were there (like the guy that Kerry saved) were lying, etc.
>
> *I don't recall them saying he was lying.
> Like many eyewitness accounts, people can offer different
> perspectives.
>
>
>
> > > How silly of me to think you would not be confused by these
> > > huge differences in the situations.
>
> > Officer evaluations, citations for medals, combat records, etc. are
> > all available, yet you choose to believe otherwise.
>
> Lol. * Please point out exactly where I told you my beliefs?

"Because no one has proven anything false
and the blame for that lies with Kerry."

> Here, I'll give you one. Kerry is a lying scumbag for his
> gengis khan speech to congress. *I do believe that.

You believe a lot of really stupid things. Blaze new trails, 2pid!
Tell us things we don't already know! Lol

> > And you shift the
> > burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
>
> *The adds presented a point of view supported by facts.

Helpful hint: "Advertising" does not contain two Ds.

Anyway,

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

> What part of this add is factually in error?

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

> There are only a few facts and they are easily
> confirmed so this should be easy for you.

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

It was easy. It should have been for you, too.

BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army Officer Candidate
School during ROE and the laws of warfare was on William Calley, who
was at the time I was there a revered jeweler in Columbus, GA, the
adjoining town.

Have you ever heard of him?

(Don't worry, 2oid. I already know that you're too partisan to accept
the truth that the lying scumbags were the "Swift Boaters".

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
> Officer Candidate School during ROE and the laws of
> warfare was on William Calley, who was at the time I was
> there a revered jeweler in Columbus, GA, the adjoining
> town.

Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg thrashes about in sheer agony.

> > BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
> > Officer Candidate School

> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.

Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you enjoy being punished by
Mistress Jenn. Is that what you want?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in
message
> The Krooborg thrashes about in sheer agony.
>
>>> BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
>>> Officer Candidate School
>
>> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.
>
> Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you enjoy
> being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you want?

If you call her recent self-immolation punishment for me, well I guess.

Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death card over such a small
thing.

I guess Middiot, you showed her how!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arnii the Undead croaked:

> > Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you enjoy
> > being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you want?

> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death card over such a small
> thing.

Arnii, are you claiming you're dead? It sounds like your descent into
madness is nearing completion.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Iul, 12:41, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > On 30 Iun, 23:58, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
> > > >> understood him to say.
>
> > > > Then he DEMANDS that you wade through his 10,000 OT posts to find the
> > > > right ones
>
> > > *Somebody give Art a search engine lesson.
> > > Maybe he can figure out he's full of ****
> > > before he opens his big mouth for a change.
>
> > that 'is' wading through 10,000 posts., yes, with a search engine
> > the search engine gets plenty of none relevant posts
> > one has to read through, while missing a relevant one because
> > you may have used different wording.
>
> > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > search looking for gems amid *your haystacks of hot air.
>
> *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> The motto of Art:
> "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> *Pathetic.
>
> ScottW-

the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Iul, 14:37, George M. Middius > wrote:


> Witless is almost the George W. Bush of RAO, except of course that no one
> would ever vote for him.


Not really.
Take it from me, Scott happens to be very good with his
pronunciations.

[Doug Reese[_2_]]

On Jul 2, 1:16*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:48*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 5:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > .
> > > > > >>..
> > > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > > > >> ...
>
> > > > > >> >> > Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.
>
> > > > > >> >> >> > In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation
> > > > > >> >> >> > back:
> > > > > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'
>
> > > > > >> >> >> Page not found.
>
> > > > > >> >> > I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.
>
> > > > > >> >> Page not found. *Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?
>
> > > > > >> >> ScottW
>
> > > > > >> So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
> > > > > >> It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
> > > > > >> It was theKerrycampaign trying to counter charges
> > > > > >> they could not refute.
>
> > > > > >> ScottW
>
> > > > > >http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
>
> > > > > StillKerryrefuses to release the info he claims
> > > > > will prove 1 lie and take Pickens money.
>
> > > > Read the article. Pickens refused to pay.
>
> > > * *Because no one has proven anything false
> > > and the blame for that lies withKerry.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062...
> > nnatpickens.3a6c2d1b.html
>
> "In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide
> speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads."
>
> Conservative blogs reporting on his offer last fall described it as
> applying to anything Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said, not just the
> group's TV ads.
>
> "I guess now we know the 'T' in T. Boone doesn't stand for 'truth,' "
> said Del Sandusky, one of the crewmen. "I really hoped we could've
> taken him at his word. ... We won't rest until he admits the truth
> that he bankrolled a big lie."
>
> The ads focused on Mr.Kerry'santi-war activities after his tour of
> duty and the merits of his medals for heroism. They were considered a
> key factor in his loss to President Bush. "
>
> Conclusion: None of the information in the adds is refuted.
>
>
>
> >http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john-kerrys-swi.html
>
> *Interesting...
> "He told fellow journalists at The Times that many swift boat veterans
> were furious atKerryfor returning fromVietnamand testifying before
> Congress about atrocities the young Navy lieutenant said had been
> committed there. The veterans feltKerry'sstatements unfairly sullied
> all their reputations."
>
> SoKerrywas unfair. *Ok.
>
> and finally, "A spokesman said Friday that Pickens was not prepared to
> respond because he had not yet seen the letter."
>
> So nothing conclusive aside from Vets disputingKerry'sassertions on
> atrocities in his speech.
>
> Sadly, the concept of proof is eluding you. *First thing that must be
> determined is proof of what?
> It wasn't what someone says someone said. *We all see everyday how
> those stories get
> circulated. The bet was on the adds. *It's clear that people who put
> forward a good effort cannot refute the adds. If they could, they
> would. *They can't.

Sorry, but it wasn't about the ads.

This all began when two conservative columnists mentioned it -- they
were at the dinner, and heard what Pickens said. The ads were never
mentioned according to them. It was about "anything the Swift Boat
Veterans for "truth" said" about Kerry back during the 2004 election.

Of course Pickens got carried away when he made the statement, but he
lied when called on it -- and it was initially reported by HIS OWN
PEOPLE.

The ads, by the way, are 95% opinion, so "facts" hardly enter into the
picture. That is why Pickens took refuge in them.

But back to the letter from those vets -- it showed, taking just one
incident in the book -- Unfit for Command -- a whole list of false
statements. That they were false could not be denied.

So Pickens didn't -- he just lied, and said it was about the ads.
Shame on him.

Doug Reese

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.

Do you think Scottie's predominant problem is one of memory? I think his
dismal comprehension handicap is the underlying problem.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> message
> > The Krooborg thrashes about in sheer agony.
> >
> >>> BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
> >>> Officer Candidate School
> >
> >> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.
> >
> > Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you enjoy
> > being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you want?
>
> If you call her recent self-immolation punishment for me, well I guess.
>
> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death card over such a small
> thing.

.... I'm sorry... did you say something meaningful, Arny?

[Doug Reese[_2_]]

On Jul 2, 2:19*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:44*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 11:35*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 11:41*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 1, 5:02*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > > > search looking for gems amid *your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > > > *So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > > > Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> > > > be far behind? Lol
>
> > > > > The motto of Art:
> > > > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > > > Isn't that *exactly* what you are sayingKerrymust do regarding the
> > > > Swift Boaters? "
>
> > > *No. Those guys were there, they have a valid first hand account
> > > of events and there is no google record to easily resort to.
>
> > Instead, they stated that official records were wrong, that others who
> > were there (like the guy thatKerrysaved) were lying, etc.
>
> *I don't recall them saying he was lying.
> Like many eyewitness accounts, people can offer different
> perspectives.

Ok, then please point out the differing perspectives of those present
at the incident for which Kerry received the Silver Star. That was the
focus of the letter the 10 guys sent to Pickens. You know, the letter/
challenge he conveniently sidestepped.

That letter contained an entire laundry list of falsehoods, lies, etc,
in just 3-4 pages of Unfit for Command.

I won't blame you if you sidestep it too. . . . . . although it
appears a few here would.

Doug Reese

> > > How silly of me to think you would not be confused by these
> > > huge differences in the situations.
>
> > Officer evaluations, citations for medals, combat records, etc. are
> > all available, yet you choose to believe otherwise.
>
> Lol. * Please point out exactly where I told you my beliefs?
>
> Here, I'll give you one.Kerryis a lying scumbag for his
> gengis khan speech to congress. *I do believe that.
>
> > And you shift the
> > burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
>
> *The adds presented a point of view supported by facts.
>
> For example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
>
> What part of this add is factually in error?
> There are only a few facts and they are easily
> confirmed so this should be easy for you.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 2:39*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
>
> > BTW, part of the training I received at *the US Army
> > Officer Candidate School during ROE and the laws of
> > warfare was on William Calley, who was at the time I was
> > there a revered jeweler in Columbus, GA, the adjoining
> > town.
>
> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.

Why? You're quite insane and would believe it anyway. Besides, any
document I provided as "proof" contains my SSN. I'm not posting that
on the Internet. I'm surprised a computer "expert" like you would
advocate anybody doing so.

Private GOIA, stand at the position of "attention" when addressing
your superiors. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 6:23*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.
>
> Do you think Scottie's predominant problem is one of memory? I think his
> dismal comprehension handicap is the underlying problem.

So many problems, so little time.

2pid has so many issues even just listing them is a daunting task.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

duh-duh-duh-Scottie gibbered:

> > The Idiot barked:
> >
> >> What part of this add
> >
> > Why do you even bother, Witless?
>
> I am the eternal optimist that even you
> can learn.

You're not making sense. I've known you're an idiot for a long time. You
don't need to produce any more evidence for me to "learn" how stupid you
are.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 9:56*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> *The adds presented a point of view supported by facts.
>
> >> For example:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
>
> >> What part of this add is factually in error?
> >> There are only a few facts and they are easily
> >> confirmed so this should be easy for you.
>
> > Here's one: "accused all veterans of unspeakable horrors".
>
> "These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
> with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
>
> John Kerry

Um, 2pid, this does not counter anything.

If you'd have ever served, you'd know that there are different levels
of command. That's why there are things like "3rd Brigade" and "1st
Brigade".

"All levels of command" can mean from platoon to brigade, division or
corps. A veteran would not look at that as an indictment of "all
soldiers serving in a theater".

Duh.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 9:59*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:jr1l6491a791em2473qfeth84676uleo0v@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > The Idiot barked:
>
> >> What part of this add
>
> > Why do you even bother, Witless?
>
> *I am the eternal optimist that even you
> can learn.

Why not take out an add?

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Iul, 23:26, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 1 Iul, 12:41, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 5:02 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > On 30 Iun, 23:58, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
> > > > >> understood him to say.
>
> > > > > Then he DEMANDS that you wade through his 10,000 OT posts to find the
> > > > > right ones
>
> > > > Somebody give Art a search engine lesson.
> > > > Maybe he can figure out he's full of ****
> > > > before he opens his big mouth for a change.
>
> > > that 'is' wading through 10,000 posts., yes, with a search engine
> > > the search engine gets plenty of none relevant posts
> > > one has to read through, while missing a relevant one because
> > > you may have used different wording.
>
> > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > search looking for gems amid your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > The motto of Art:
> > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > Pathetic.
>
> > ScottW-
>
> :the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.
>
> But you don't always comprehend correctly and rather
> than ask clarification you prefer condemnation.
> Too much close contact with Arny will do that to a person.
>

Hey, you're the one who makes bold universal pronouncements.

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Iul, 23:25, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
> AND MOVED IMMEDIATELY TO ASSIST. PCF 94 BEACHED IN CENTER OF AMBUSH IN FRONT OF
> SMALL PATH WHEN VC SPRUNG UP FROM BUNKER 10 FEET FROM UNIT. MAN RAN WITH WEAPON
> TOWARDS HOOTCH, FORWARD M-60 GUNNER WOUNDED MAN IN LEG. OINC JUMPED ASHORE AND
> GAVE PURSUIT WHILE OTHER UNITS SATURATED AREA WITH FIRE AND BEACHED PLACING
> ASSAULT PARTIES ASHORE. OINC OF PCF 94 CHASED VC INLAND BEHIND HOOTCH AND SHOT
> HIM WHILE HE FLED CAPTURING ONE B-40 ROCKET LAUNCHER WITH ROUND IN CHAMBER.
>
> So Kerry got a silver star for pursuing and shooting in the back a wounded
> fleeing man.
>

Obviously they were burglarizing the neighbors hootch.
they came out with an armload of stolen items.
Kerry saw them reach for something, he felt
threatened and shot them in the back.
A Saigon grand jury declined to indict.

"He should get a Silver Star with a V for valor"
Scott W - 7-1-08

[Doug Reese]

On Jul 2, 10:25*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Doug Reese" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 2, 2:19 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 1:44 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 11:35 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 1, 5:02 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > > > > search looking for gems amid your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > > > > So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > > > > Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> > > > > be far behind? Lol
>
> > > > > > The motto of Art:
> > > > > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > > > > Isn't that *exactly* what you are sayingKerrymust do regarding the
> > > > > Swift Boaters? "
>
> > > > No. Those guys were there, they have a valid first hand account
> > > > of events and there is no google record to easily resort to.
>
> > > Instead, they stated that official records were wrong, that others who
> > > were there (like the guy thatKerrysaved) were lying, etc.
>
> > I don't recall them saying he was lying.
> > Like many eyewitness accounts, people can offer different
> > perspectives.
>
> :Ok, then please point out the differing perspectives of those present
> :at the incident for which Kerry received the Silver Star. That was the
> :focus of the letter the 10 guys sent to Pickens. You know, the letter/
> :challenge he conveniently sidestepped.
>
> What was convenient? Pickens financed the ads. His interest was
> was there.

His interest was in the group. He got caught opening his big mouth
about something he knew little. He weaseled out of the bet.

> In any case there are lots of questions about Kerry's Silver Starhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40149

I'm not going to waste my time for the umteenth time addressing the
crap in the urls above and below. I'll let the letter do that . . . .

> http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2004/08/27/new-kerry-silver-star-problems/
> (for a reprint of Chicago Sun-Times).
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/kerrys_silver_star_citations.html
> After action reports and the 3 citations examined.
>
> AND MOVED IMMEDIATELY TO ASSIST. PCF 94 BEACHED IN CENTER OF AMBUSH IN FRONT OF
> SMALL PATH WHEN VC SPRUNG UP FROM BUNKER 10 FEET FROM UNIT. MAN RAN WITH WEAPON
> TOWARDS HOOTCH, FORWARD M-60 GUNNER WOUNDED MAN IN LEG. OINC JUMPED ASHORE AND
> GAVE PURSUIT WHILE OTHER UNITS SATURATED AREA WITH FIRE AND BEACHED PLACING
> ASSAULT PARTIES ASHORE. OINC OF PCF 94 CHASED VC INLAND BEHIND HOOTCH AND SHOT
> HIM WHILE HE FLED CAPTURING ONE B-40 ROCKET LAUNCHER WITH ROUND IN CHAMBER..
>
> So Kerry got a silver star for pursuing and shooting in the back a wounded
> fleeing man.

Nice of you to crop the rest of the after-action report.

But no, he did not get the SS for that. Furthermore, he didn't shoot
anyone in the back. That lie is addressed in the letter (I'll get into
that in your other post) . . . . . . he was awarded that medal for
much more than shooting one person.

Doug Reese

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Doug Reese]

On Jul 2, 10:52*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Doug Reese" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> :But back to the letter from those vets -- it showed, taking just one
> :incident in the book -- Unfit for Command -- a whole list of false
> :statements. That they were false could not be denied.
>
> Here's the letters.http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Letter

Again, nice try, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I was talking
about a letter that was sent to Pickens.

This letter: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FINALPICKENSLETTERFROMCREW..pdf

It pretty much blows your "evidence" out of the water.

> Please be specific in identifying the false passage(s).

The letter I posted does that. Would you care to comment on the
contents of the letter? I'm guessing not.

> BTW, Unfit for Command though authored by 2 members of
> SBVFT with contributions of 60 others, is not a work of the
> SBVFT.

So what? It's bull****. And without the SBV"t", it never gets written.

Doug Reese

> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 10:25*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Doug Reese" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 2, 2:19 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 1:44 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 11:35 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 1, 11:41 am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 1, 5:02 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > > > > search looking for gems amid your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > > > > So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > > > > Yay! It's been a while since you invoked Mapes' name. 2pid. Can Murtha
> > > > > be far behind? Lol
>
> > > > > > The motto of Art:
> > > > > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > > > > Isn't that *exactly* what you are sayingKerrymust do regarding the
> > > > > Swift Boaters? "
>
> > > > No. Those guys were there, they have a valid first hand account
> > > > of events and there is no google record to easily resort to.
>
> > > Instead, they stated that official records were wrong, that others who
> > > were there (like the guy thatKerrysaved) were lying, etc.
>
> > I don't recall them saying he was lying.
> > Like many eyewitness accounts, people can offer different
> > perspectives.
>
> :Ok, then please point out the differing perspectives of those present
> :at the incident for which Kerry received the Silver Star. That was the
> :focus of the letter the 10 guys sent to Pickens. You know, the letter/
> :challenge he conveniently sidestepped.
>
> What was convenient? Pickens financed the ads. His interest was
> was there.
>
> In any case there are lots of questions about Kerry's Silver Starhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40149
>
> http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2004/08/27/new-kerry-silver-star-problems/
> (for a reprint of Chicago Sun-Times).
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/kerrys_silver_star_citations.html
> After action reports and the 3 citations examined.
>
> AND MOVED IMMEDIATELY TO ASSIST. PCF 94 BEACHED IN CENTER OF AMBUSH IN FRONT OF
> SMALL PATH WHEN VC SPRUNG UP FROM BUNKER 10 FEET FROM UNIT. MAN RAN WITH WEAPON
> TOWARDS HOOTCH, FORWARD M-60 GUNNER WOUNDED MAN IN LEG. OINC JUMPED ASHORE AND
> GAVE PURSUIT WHILE OTHER UNITS SATURATED AREA WITH FIRE AND BEACHED PLACING
> ASSAULT PARTIES ASHORE. OINC OF PCF 94 CHASED VC INLAND BEHIND HOOTCH AND SHOT
> HIM WHILE HE FLED CAPTURING ONE B-40 ROCKET LAUNCHER WITH ROUND IN CHAMBER.
>
> So Kerry got a silver star for pursuing and shooting in the back a wounded
> fleeing man.

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the
affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star."

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It
was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with
those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 11:03*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jul 1, 9:56 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > ScottW > wrote:
>
> > >> The adds presented a point of view supported by facts.
>
> > >> For example:
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg
>
> > >> What part of this add is factually in error?
> > >> There are only a few facts and they are easily
> > >> confirmed so this should be easy for you.
>
> > > Here's one: "accused all veterans of unspeakable horrors".
>
> > "These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
> > with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
>
> > John Kerry
>
> Um, 2pid, this does not counter anything.
>
> If you'd have ever served, you'd know that there are different levels
> of command. That's why there are things like "3rd Brigade" and "1st
> Brigade".
>
> "All levels of command" can mean from platoon to brigade, division or
> corps. A veteran would not look at that as an indictment of "all
> soldiers serving in a theater".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Spin spin spin.

Nope. And if you knew *anything* about Vietnam, you'd know about Tiger
Force:

the routine torture and execution of prisoners[8]
the routine practice of intentionally killing unarmed Vietnamese
villagers including men, women, children, and elderly people[9]
the routine practice of cutting off and collecting the ears of
victims[10]
the practice of wearing necklaces composed of human ears[11]
the practice of cutting off and collecting the scalps of victims[12]
an incident where a young mother was drugged, raped, and then
executed[13]
an incident where a soldier killed a baby and cut off his or her head
after the baby's mother was killed[14]
The investigators concluded that many of the war crimes indeed took
place.[15] Despite this, the Army decided not to pursue any
prosecutions.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

So Kerry didn't "lie" or give "aid and comfort" to the enemy with
false testimony.

You're so dumb. Lol

>*Even Kerry has tried to retract this speech.

I see no evidence of that. Where is it?

> His words speak for themselves.

A retraction like this?

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the
affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star."

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It
was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with
those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Or a retraction like this?

*********
UPDATE: The transcript:


ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Mr. O'Neill, just in the interest of time, look,
there are so many inconsistencies here, in my view, in the swiftboat
story.

I thank you for being on the show, and again, as you know, I admire
your service, as I do all those who served their country, although we
may disagree on this issue.

Look, this issue of Cambodia, you said, on George Stephanopoulos' show
over the weekend that you knew that Kerry was not in Cambodia, that
you could not have been in Cambodia on a swift boat, that he didn't go
north of Sadak (ph). They just didn't go that far. You were 15 miles
away.

There's a tape of you, as you now know, in the Oval Office, saying you
were in Cambodia, you said to Richard Nixon. You worked along the
border, or you were in Cambodia.

That seems very different than being 15 miles away and saying the
swift boats didn't go to Cambodia. So they can't both be true.

O'NEILL: Alan, yes, they are, Alan. It's two different places, Alan.
One place is along the Mekong River, right in the heart of the delta.
The second place is on the west coast of Cambodia at a place called
Hatien (ph), where the boundary is right along that border.

Where Kerry was in Christmas of 1968 was on this river, the Mekong
River. We got about 40 or 50 miles from the border. That's as close as
we ran.

Later, Kerry went, and I went to a place called Bernique's (ph) Creek
— that was our nickname for it — at Hatien (ph). That was a canal
system that ran close to the border, but that wasn't at Christmas for
Kerry. That was later for him.

So it's two separate places, Alan, and the story is correct.

COLMES: All right. Well, either you were in Cambodia or Kerry was in
Cambodia and you claim he wasn't in Cambodia. You claimed at one point
you weren't and then you claimed you were. This is very confusing to
people.

O'NEILL: Well, it shouldn't be confused. I was never in Cambodia, and
Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia.

COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon you were in Cambodia.

O'NEILL: And it was the turning point of his life.

COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir."

HANNITY: On the border.

COLMES: There's a tape of you saying that to Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: What's the next sentence? I was along the Cambodian border.
That's exactly right. What I told Nixon and was trying to tell him in
this meeting was I was along the Cambodian border. As Sean clearly
read...

COLMES: "I was in Cambodia," Those are your words.

O'NEILL: Yes, but you missed the next sentence. You're not reading the
next sentence, Alan.

COLMES: Yes, along the border. But you're in Cambodia or you're not in
Cambodia.

O'NEILL: Well, I'm sorry, Alan. I wasn't — I was talking in a
conversation. And the first thing, by the way, I told him in the
conversation, as you know, was that I was a Democrat and I voted for
Hubert Humphrey.

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2M0OTI0OTg4ZWY1MDE5N2JiYzBhZWRlNDI5OWI0NmY=
********

As I've already said, 2pid, I know that you're too partisan to
actually seek the truth.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 1, 11:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 1 Iul, 23:26, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On 1 Iul, 12:41, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 5:02 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 Iul, 01:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > On 30 Iun, 23:58, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > As you know, Scottie often denies he said what we all
> > > > > >> understood him to say.
>
> > > > > > Then he DEMANDS that you wade through his 10,000 OT posts to find the
> > > > > > right ones
>
> > > > > Somebody give Art a search engine lesson.
> > > > > Maybe he can figure out he's full of ****
> > > > > before he opens his big mouth for a change.
>
> > > > that 'is' wading through 10,000 posts., yes, with a search engine
> > > > the search engine gets plenty of none relevant posts
> > > > one has to read through, while missing a relevant one because
> > > > you may have used different wording.
>
> > > > There you go again, DEMANDING i do the time consuming
> > > > search looking for gems amid your haystacks of hot air.
>
> > > So instead, you aspire to be the Mary Mapes of RAO.
>
> > > The motto of Art:
> > > "I can say what I want and you must prove me wrong."
>
> > > Pathetic.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > :the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.
>
> > But you don't always comprehend correctly and rather
> > than ask clarification you prefer condemnation.
> > Too much close contact with Arny will do that to a person.
>
> Hey, you're the one who makes bold universal pronouncements.

Silly Clyde, are you trying to hold 2pid to a 2pid Standard?

That'll never do. They only apply to others.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in
message
> Arnii the Undead croaked:

>>> My master and commander you're going to have everybody believing you
>>> enjoy being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you
>>> want?

>> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death
>> card over such a small thing.

> My master and commander, are you claiming you're dead?

No, I'm pointing out that I won game, set match. Jenn melted down.

Middiot, please check your Debating Trade rule book - a winning dominatrix
does not lose her cool.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
>> message
>>> The Krooborg thrashes about in sheer agony.
>>>
>>>>> BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
>>>>> Officer Candidate School
>>>
>>>> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.
>>>
>>> Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you
>>> enjoy being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you
>>> want?
>>
>> If you call her recent self-immolation punishment for
>> me, well I guess.
>>
>> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death
>> card over such a small thing.
>
> ... I'm sorry... did you say something meaningful, Arny?

Jenn, your melt down was so delicious.

Now we go through the stupid part where you and the Middiot pretend it never
happened. But, its all in google.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> BTW, Unfit for Command though authored by 2 members of
> SBVFT with contributions of 60 others, is not a work of the
> SBVFT.

Moving goalposts...

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Jul 1, 6:23*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > the rest of us here can read, and we have memories.
> >
> > Do you think Scottie's predominant problem is one of memory? I think his
> > dismal comprehension handicap is the underlying problem.
>
> So many problems, so little time.
>
> 2pid has so many issues even just listing them is a daunting task.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10750

....The message is pretty obvious, but I¹ll belabor it anyway: modern
conservatism either makes people amazingly sensitive to criticism or it
preferentially attracts people who already are (nature vs. nurture?
discuss.). The idea certainly fits with sociology studies linking
conservatives with whiny kids who crave certainty and the comfort of
authority...

It¹s hardly possible to illustrate my point better than John McCain
sending original swift boater Bud Day to tear his shirt and cry about
Wesley Clark.

In other words, McCain and his party demand be [sic] protection against
the kind of criticism that they throw at everyone else. It¹s even
funnier to see how the criticism that drives them into hysterics is
comically weak tea compared to the kind of stuff that attack-mode
conservatives, swifties, and angry-mode John McCain regularly dish out.
--

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>> The Krooborg thrashes about in sheer agony.
> >>>
> >>>>> BTW, part of the training I received at the US Army
> >>>>> Officer Candidate School
> >>>
> >>>> Prove that you were ever in the Army, ****R.
> >>>
> >>> Arnii, you're going to have everybody believing you
> >>> enjoy being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you
> >>> want?
> >>
> >> If you call her recent self-immolation punishment for
> >> me, well I guess.
> >>
> >> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death
> >> card over such a small thing.
> >
> > ... I'm sorry... did you say something meaningful, Arny?
>
> Jenn, your melt down was so delicious.
>
> Now we go through the stupid part where you and the Middiot pretend it never
> happened. But, its all in google.

If it helps you sleep better, Arny, you may call my posts a "melt down".
You have my blessing. It simply further points out your distant
relationship with reality.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in
> message
> > Arnii the Undead croaked:
>
> >>> My master and commander you're going to have everybody believing you
> >>> enjoy being punished by Mistress Jenn. Is that what you
> >>> want?
>
> >> Actually, it is painful to see her playing the death
> >> card over such a small thing.
>
> > My master and commander, are you claiming you're dead?
>
> No, I'm pointing out that I won game, set match. Jenn melted down.
>
> Middiot, please check your Debating Trade rule book - a winning dominatrix
> does not lose her cool.

What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is that I'm not here
to "win". That you obviously are here for that purpose says everything.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is that I'm not here
> to "win". That you obviously are here for that purpose says everything.

Quite so. Arnii believes that winning "debating trade" confrontations is a
valuable contribution to the audio industry.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
> that I'm not here to "win".

That is indeed part of your sales pitch.

>That you obviously are here for that purpose says everything.

I can't be here to win because I already been here and done that.

But thanks for playing, you've been very revealing in your way. ;-)

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
> > that I'm not here to "win".
>
> That is indeed part of your sales pitch.

It's simply the truth, Arny. That concept is increasingly foreign to
you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>

>>> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
>>> that I'm not here to "win".

>> That is indeed part of your sales pitch.

> It's simply the truth, Arny. That concept is
> increasingly foreign to you.

It gets more foreign, the more I read your posts, Jenn.

I'm thinking of a recent sequence where you insulted my intelligence and
then repeated back paraphrases of my own posts.

There's plenty of truth in the real world, but it is a stranger to RAO. You
are very at home in RAO, aren't you? I'm always a stranger here.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
> >>> that I'm not here to "win".
>
> >> That is indeed part of your sales pitch.
>
> > It's simply the truth, Arny. That concept is
> > increasingly foreign to you.
>
> It gets more foreign, the more I read your posts, Jenn.
>
> I'm thinking of a recent sequence where you insulted my intelligence and
> then repeated back paraphrases of my own posts.

WHich sequence is that, Arny?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>
>>>>> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
>>>>> that I'm not here to "win".
>>
>>>> That is indeed part of your sales pitch.
>>
>>> It's simply the truth, Arny. That concept is
>>> increasingly foreign to you.
>>
>> It gets more foreign, the more I read your posts, Jenn.
>>
>> I'm thinking of a recent sequence where you insulted my
>> intelligence and then repeated back paraphrases of my
>> own posts.
>
> WHich sequence is that, Arny?

Nice comeback, Jenn. Highly repetitive, though. You do stupid so well it
can't be an act. :-(

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>>> What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is
> >>>>> that I'm not here to "win".
> >>
> >>>> That is indeed part of your sales pitch.
> >>
> >>> It's simply the truth, Arny. That concept is
> >>> increasingly foreign to you.
> >>
> >> It gets more foreign, the more I read your posts, Jenn.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking of a recent sequence where you insulted my
> >> intelligence and then repeated back paraphrases of my
> >> own posts.
> >
> > WHich sequence is that, Arny?
>
> Nice comeback, Jenn. Highly repetitive, though. You do stupid so well it
> can't be an act. :-(

No, I've never asked you about your email quoted above. So let's see:
you state that I lie, but you have never quoted a place where you
believe that I lied. Then you refer to a "sequence" but won't quote
that sequence. Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
and not backing them up.
Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out. Your
choice.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said to LiarBorg:

> Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> and not backing them up.
> Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out.

I'm curious as to why you intend to keep pointing it out.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said to LiarBorg:
>
> > Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> > and not backing them up.
> > Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out.
>
> I'm curious as to why you intend to keep pointing it out.

Well, this will bring yet another onslaught from AK, but whatever.
Two of my "hot button" issues are: 1. Integrity. If you are going to
accuse somebody of something serious (like lying), you must be able to
back it up, period. 2. I hate bullies.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Iul, 12:05, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > What you continue to be unable to understand, Arny, is that I'm not here
> > to "win". *That you obviously are here for that purpose says everything.
>
> Quite so. Arnii believes that winning "debating trade" confrontations is a
> valuable contribution to the audio industry.

i wondered why my stereo was sounding better this week.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Iul, 14:10, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> I'm thinking of a recent sequence where you insulted my intelligence and
> then repeated back paraphrases of my own posts.
>

Arny laid the first official AI turd.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Iul, 15:28, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said to LiarBorg:
>
> > > *Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> > > and not backing them up.
> > > Hint: *as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out.
>
> > I'm curious as to why you intend to keep pointing it out.
>
> Well, this will bring yet another onslaught from AK, but whatever.
> Two of my "hot button" issues are: 1. *Integrity. *If you are going to
> accuse somebody of something serious (like lying), you must be able to
> back it up, period. *2. *I hate bullies.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Iul, 15:28, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said to LiarBorg:
>
> > > *Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> > > and not backing them up.
> > > Hint: *as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out.
>
> > I'm curious as to why you intend to keep pointing it out.
>
> Well, this will bring yet another onslaught from AK, but whatever.
> Two of my "hot button" issues are: 1. *Integrity. *If you are going to
> accuse somebody of something serious (like lying), you must be able to
> back it up, period. *2. *I hate bullies.

their weak spot is their balls.
a swift kick works nicely.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > Jenn said to LiarBorg:
> >
> > > Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> > > and not backing them up.
> > > Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing it out.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why you intend to keep pointing it out.
>
> Well, this will bring yet another onslaught from AK, but whatever.
> Two of my "hot button" issues are: 1. Integrity. If you are going to
> accuse somebody of something serious (like lying), you must be able to
> back it up, period. 2. I hate bullies.

I understand those motivations, but aren't they based on your interactions
with human beings in the real world? What I was getting at is that Arnii
Krooger is clearly insane, so his ability to understand your motivation is
questionable at best.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 2, 10:16 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Doug Reese" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 2, 10:52 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Doug Reese" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > :But back to the letter from those vets -- it showed, taking just one
> > :incident in the book -- Unfit for Command -- a whole list of false
> > :statements. That they were false could not be denied.
>
> > Here's the letters.http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Letter
>
> :Again, nice try, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I was talking
> :about a letter that was sent to Pickens.
>
> :This letter:http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FINALPICKENSLETTERFROMCREW.pdf
>
> :It pretty much blows your "evidence" out of the water.
>
> Certainly a lot of material worth considering.
> Too bad Kerry chose to smear all vets with his speech
> to the Senate. IMO, that speech alone disqualifies him from
> consideration for the presidency.

Here is is, 2pid. What parts bother you the most?

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the
Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that
several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which
is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term
Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he
spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at
Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we
could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went
on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not
the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it,
that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South
Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United
States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American
life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the
preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to
us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy
which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who
had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial
influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we
had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take
up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism
and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without
helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages
and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the
war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of
America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of
survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a
particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice
paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how
monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime.
We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who
was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage
of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and
search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and
yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on
the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw
America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My
Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out
chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that
moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of
orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the
glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we
were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using
weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons
against those people which I do not believe this country would dream
of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while
men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken,
and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to
leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched
pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into
extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and
because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove
that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill
81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while
American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible
arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes
her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the
United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world
already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake.
Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his
words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a
man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be
the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say
that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and
diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as
human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question
of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other
questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking
umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for
a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body
of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire
zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the
bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units
in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and
parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of
Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an
Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the
cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one
day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these
people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he
stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this
thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the
leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask
where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others?
Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have
returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And
there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they
never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their
dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a
pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their
reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that
service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories
of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this
denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to
undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last
vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the
hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and
more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down
the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys
ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a
filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned
and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html

> It's clear the democratic party no longe (sic) considers him president (sic)
> material as well.

I'm sure for the same 'reasons', 2pid. LoL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 2:09*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
> > out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.
>
> *Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
> Clark?
>
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1175471.aspx
>
> "*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
> Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
> "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
> Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
> statement by General Clark." "
>
> Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?
>
> Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
> lately than republicans.

Do you suppose that Obama might "reject" *your* statements about *my*
service, 2pid?

Just curious.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> and not backing them up.

And my dear Jenn, you have a pattern of looking proof square in the eyes and
denying it.

Very Middiot-like of you.

Therefore, backing up anything I say is a waste of time.

> Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing
> it out. Your choice.

Keep pointing out what you will Jenn. Half the time you do it so badly you
further incriminate yourself. Be my guest. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


.. If you are going to accuse somebody of
> something serious (like lying), you must be able to back
> it up, period.

Being able to do it, and wasting time on people who are as deep into denial
as you Jenn, are two different things.

> 2. I hate bullies.

Then you hate yourself Jenn, because you just bullied me in the last post
from you that I read.

Deny on, dudette! ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Iul, 07:14, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> . *If you are going to accuse somebody of
>
> > something serious (like lying), you must be able to back
> > it up, period.
>
> Being able to do it, and wasting time on people who are as deep into denial
> as you Jenn, are two different things.
>
> > *2. *I hate bullies.
>
> Then you hate yourself Jenn, because you just bullied me in the last post
> from you that I read.
>


You're a pathetic excuse for a man,
letting a woman bully you like that.
Show us your balls, Arny!

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> Show us your balls, Arny!

So Art you're saying that sort of thing turns you on?

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Iul, 08:03, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Show us your balls, Arny!
>
> So Art you're saying that sort of thing turns you on?


your domination by women is just another chapter in
your meltdown comedy special.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 3 Iul, 08:03, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Show us your balls, Arny!
>>
>> So Art you're saying that sort of thing turns you on?

<Art does not deny, but instead changes the subject.>

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Iul, 08:46, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 3 Iul, 08:03, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Show us your balls, Arny!
>
> >> So Art you're saying that sort of thing turns you on?
>
> <Art does not deny, but instead changes the subject.>


No Arny, as if you don't know what I mean.
I don' t want to 'literally' see your balls.
Please keep them in your pants.
What I enjoy seeing is you being
subjugated by a woman.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> . If you are going to accuse somebody of
> > something serious (like lying), you must be able to back
> > it up, period.
>
> Being able to do it, and wasting time on people who are as deep into denial
> as you Jenn, are two different things.

Again, you show that you are unable to back up your accusations.

>
> > 2. I hate bullies.
>
> Then you hate yourself Jenn, because you just bullied me in the last post
> from you that I read.

I've never bullied you, Arny. To paraphrase Truman, I just point out
the truth about you and you think it's bullying.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Obviously, you display a pattern of making accusations
> > and not backing them up.
>
> And my dear Jenn, you have a pattern of looking proof square in the eyes and
> denying it.

You've never proved to anyone that I have lied here, and you never will.

>
> Very Middiot-like of you.
>
> Therefore, backing up anything I say is a waste of time.
>
> > Hint: as long as you keep doing that, I'll keep pointing
> > it out. Your choice.
>
> Keep pointing out what you will Jenn. Half the time you do it so badly you
> further incriminate yourself. Be my guest. ;-)

OK; your choice.