ABC Reports on CBS story

[ScottW]

ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast warning
them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday morning
they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document analysts
that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.

ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce those
documents.

The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
body to take the lead on this.

ScottW

[Greg Williams]

In related news, Texans for Truth is now offering a $50,000 award to anyone
who can prove that Bush reported to service between May 1972 and May 1973.
Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
ago means nothing!

http://texansfortruth.com/



"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05...
> ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
> employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
> numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
> analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast
warning
> them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday
morning
> they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document
analysts
> that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
> authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.
>
> ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
> Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce
those
> documents.
>
> The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
> for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
> attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
> congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
> any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
> body to take the lead on this.
>
> ScottW
>
>

[ScottW]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message
...
> And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
> ago means nothing!
>

I couldn't agree more. But I do care about a major broadcast (public
airways) network engaging in potentially election altering fraud right now.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
> employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
> numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
> analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast warning
> them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday morning
> they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document analysts
> that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
> authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.
>
> ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
> Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce those
> documents.
>
> The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
> for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
> attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
> congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
> any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
> body to take the lead on this.

I only saw the last half of the ABC report, but it looks like CBS has
blown it.

The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting, or do they want a Swift vets
investigation too?

We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
reveal its sources.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,

Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
gores my ox.

[Annika1980]

>From: "Greg Williams"

>Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
>hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35 years
>ago means nothing!
>
>http://texansfortruth.com/

Does it matter if he continues to lie about it today?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05

> ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who
> were employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the
> documents had numerous problems and could not be authenticated.

Also posted at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html

which points to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05...
> ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
> employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
> numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
> analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast
warning
> them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday
morning
> they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document
analysts
> that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
> authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.
>
> ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
> Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce
those
> documents.
>
> The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
> for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
> attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
> congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
> any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
> body to take the lead on this.
>
> ScottW
>


I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of truth-
fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>
> We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
> reveal its sources.
>

What is wrong with that? They duped and used CBS. I don't
see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

[GeoSynch]

Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:

> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
of Begala and Carville.


GeoSynch

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of
> truth-
> fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.

I want to see Dan Rather squirming on TV in front of a Congressional
Committee under oath. You won't get that kind of entertainment from the FBI
or some Special Investigator.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:
>
>> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
>> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
>> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
>> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>
> Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
> They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
> Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
> consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
> merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
> really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
> control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
> presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
> all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
> of Begala and Carville.

Wouldn't that be great to see revealed. The serpent slain.

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

ScottW wrote:

>> [T]his has all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical
>> minds of Begala and Carville.

> Wouldn't that be great to see revealed. The serpent slain.

Nah, that'd be no fun at all.

That slippery snake is too clever to have himself directly or
indirectly linked to the chain of events. Also, the 2008 race
would be a bore without that beady-eyed psycho-snake
making political mischief and giving the Republicans fits.


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:
>
>> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
>> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
>> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
>> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>
>Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
>They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
>Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
>consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
>merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
>really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
>control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
>presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
>all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
>of Begala and Carville.
>
>
>GeoSynch

Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
(especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
Supreme Court justice appointments).

No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:47:56 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>
>> I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of
>> truth-
>> fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.
>
> I want to see Dan Rather squirming on TV in front of a Congressional
>Committee under oath. You won't get that kind of entertainment from the FBI
>or some Special Investigator.
>
>ScottW

If it's a Rove operation, we won't likely be seeing that any time
soon.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> > wrote:
>
> >Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:
> >
> >> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
> >> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
> >> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
> >> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
> >
> >Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
> >They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
> >Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
> >consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
> >merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
> >really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
> >control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
> >presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
> >all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
> >of Begala and Carville.
> >
> >
> >GeoSynch
>
> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
> the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
> Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
> help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
> logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
> to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
> (especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
> Supreme Court justice appointments).
>
> No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
> fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
> bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.


Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.
A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
and not leak it until the day before the election,
when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.
I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
is to smart to do something so dangerous that
could easily backfire on him.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
> > reveal its sources.
> >
>
> What is wrong with that?

Novak refused to identify the source he used to expose Valerie Plame.

> They duped and used CBS. I don't
> see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.

I want to know who burned CBS, too.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
>
> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
> gores my ox.

ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Why forge something with accurate content?

Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
>>
>> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
>> if it gores my ox.
>
> ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> content reflected what they were thinking back then.

Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html
Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News
she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the
weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I
found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been
produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and
strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the
documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they
were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday
if they ran that story," Will said.

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast
questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no
mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told
ABC News.

---------------------

> Why forge something with accurate content?

Why obfuscate the fact that the main topic of the ABC report was far more
damning to the objectivity and reliabilty of CBS news?

> Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.

Obfuscators and those who deceive themselves obfuscate and deceive
themselves. That's their nature!

[dave weil]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:18:58 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:
>> >
>> >> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
>> >> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
>> >> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
>> >> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>> >
>> >Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
>> >They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
>> >Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
>> >consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
>> >merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
>> >really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
>> >control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
>> >presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
>> >all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
>> >of Begala and Carville.
>> >
>> >
>> >GeoSynch
>>
>> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
>> the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
>> Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
>> help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
>> logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
>> to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
>> (especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
>> Supreme Court justice appointments).
>>
>> No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
>> fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
>> bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.
>
>
>Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.

Only if he can't hide his envolvement.

>A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
>60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
>and not leak it until the day before the election,
>when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.

It seems too dumb for a Democratic operative to have come up with (but
I could be wrong). It just seems too easy to cast doubt on the
documents. The key would be the ability to avoid any links.

>I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
>might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
>against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
>I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
>is to smart to do something so dangerous that
>could easily backfire on him.

Only if he thinks that he's not savvy enough to bury any connection.
I'm just sayin' that it's certainly a possibility that he's behind it,
since he's done dirty tricks in the past. What would be choice is if
he maneuvered it but thought that he was smarter than he was.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> >>
> >> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
> >> if it gores my ox.
> >
> > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
>
> Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1
> .html

I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
out there in blogland.

Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
presidential record.

> > Why forge something with accurate content?
>
> Why obfuscate the fact that the main topic of the ABC report was far more
> damning to the objectivity and reliabilty of CBS news?

I've already acknowledged CBS's foul-up.

> > Bloggers over-react. That's the nature of blogging.
>
> Obfuscators and those who deceive themselves obfuscate and deceive
> themselves. That's their nature!

Do tell.

[johnebravo836]

MINe 109 wrote:
[snip]

> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> presidential record.

I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
the documents?

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
johnebravo836 > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> > Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> > presidential record.
>
> I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
> surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
> like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
> they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
> what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
> very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
> they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
> would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
> story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
> conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
> extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
> were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
> News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
> the documents?

That's certainly a side issue, and not a good one for CBS. If one is to
set aside journalistic integrity to take a shot at Bush, why do it for
such a weak accusation?

But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
the smears, little or none for the refutations. It's tough for Democrats
and liberals to get a fair shake in the media. The right wing has done a
great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")
and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias than in doing their job in
challenging those in power. Right wing disinformation abounds; people
still think Gore said he invented the internet.

> Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
> holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
> although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
> hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
> looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.

Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

Stephen

[johnebravo836]

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> johnebravo836 > wrote:

[snip]

> But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.

Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

> Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
> the smears, little or none for the refutations.

That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

> It's tough for Democrats
> and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.

Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
they have to say is an entirely different matter . . . ;)

> The right wing has done a
> great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")

You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. ;) I have
to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )

> and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
> be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias

The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact. ;)

I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.

> than in doing their job in challenging those in power.

If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
it is surely a part.

> Right wing disinformation abounds; people
> still think Gore said he invented the internet.
>
>
>>Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
>>holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
>>although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
>>hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
>>looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.
>
>
> Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.

If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
they did, knowing what they apparently knew.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> presidential record.

Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to obfuscate
facts that don't agree with your world view.

If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> > Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> > presidential record.
>
> Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to obfuscate
> facts that don't agree with your world view.

You're just going on reflex. Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it would
be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell you I
saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way. I've also
changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new reports.
No world view problems here!

> If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
commented on the ABC story.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
johnebravo836 > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
>
> Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
> have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
> authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
> they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
> questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
> waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
> personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
> I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
> would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.

Ah, but I was looking at CBS's record instead of adopting a right-wing
stereotype of a liberal Dan Rather.

You're entitled to disagree.

> > Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
> > the smears, little or none for the refutations.
>
> That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
> dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
> already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
> minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
> reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
> I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

All fared badly, fairness-wise. And the NG story has been floating
around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
oddly, no one is disputing their content.

Indeed, the White House tried to put the NG story to bed in February by
releasing what they said were all the relevant papers, but that led to
the US News story.

> > It's tough for Democrats
> > and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.
>
> Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
> way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
> get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.

That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
since the Clinton years.

> In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
> limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
> proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
> variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
> talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
> shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
> whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
> they have to say is an entirely different matter . . . ;)
>
> > The right wing has done a
> > great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")
>
> You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
> myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
> never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. ;) I have
> to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
> mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
> the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
> not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )

AM radio, WSJ editorial page, blogs, etc.

> > and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
> > be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias
>
> The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
> cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
> charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact. ;)

Goodbye, Phil Donahue! Hello, Michael Savage-Weiner!

> I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
> whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
> themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
> Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
> extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
> have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
> conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
> about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
> news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
> more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.

I'd guess that if you ask about specific issues, many of those
"conservatives" will show "liberal" thinking. The right has succeeded in
making 'liberal' a dirty word.

> > than in doing their job in challenging those in power.
>
> If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
> in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
> to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
> they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
> it is surely a part.

Unfortunately, this devolves into the 'he said/he said' trap, in which
journalists don't comment on the truthfulness of charges but comment
instead on the spin.

> > Right wing disinformation abounds; people
> > still think Gore said he invented the internet.
> >
> >
> >>Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
> >>holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
> >>although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
> >>hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
> >>looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.
> >
> >
> > Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.
>
> If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
> tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
> effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
> politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
> be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
> can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
> they did, knowing what they apparently knew.

My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
possibility that they found the original source to be personally
credible.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
>>> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than
>>> his presidential record.
>>
>> Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to
>> obfuscate facts that don't agree with your world view.
>
> You're just going on reflex.

Dismissive attitude noted.

>Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it
> would be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell
> you I saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way.

No, you just tried to change the subject to one that is essentially
off-topic.

> I've also changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new
> reports. No world view problems here!

So, what's your new opinion of the hour?

>> If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!

> I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
> commented on the ABC story.

....and then tried to change the topic to one that's on your agenda.

[johnebravo836]

MINe 109 wrote:

[snip]


>>That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
>>dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
>>already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
>>minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
>>reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
>>I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
>
>
> All fared badly, fairness-wise.
> And the NG story has been floating
> around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
> oddly, no one is disputing their content.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.

[snip]

> My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
> make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
> possibility that they found the original source to be personally
> credible.

That may be, but once they had been put on notice by their own
consultant that the authenticity of the documents was questionable, that
should have created some corresponding doubt (or at least hesitation)
about the original source of those documents, I would think! I'm just
amazed that they could have been so foolish.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:10:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Dismissive attitude noted.

Irony alert! Irony alert!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
johnebravo836 > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
> >>dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
> >>already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
> >>minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
> >>reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
> >>I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
> >
> >
> > All fared badly, fairness-wise.
> > And the NG story has been floating
> > around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> > Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> > rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
> > oddly, no one is disputing their content.
>
> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
> networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.

That's what I meant. The Swift story was repeated often but but debunked
hardly at all.

> [snip]
>
> > My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
> > make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
> > possibility that they found the original source to be personally
> > credible.
>
> That may be, but once they had been put on notice by their own
> consultant that the authenticity of the documents was questionable, that
> should have created some corresponding doubt (or at least hesitation)
> about the original source of those documents, I would think! I'm just
> amazed that they could have been so foolish.

I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
comfortable shopping for consultants.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> >>> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than
> >>> his presidential record.
> >>
> >> Thanks for giving us yet another demonstration of your need to
> >> obfuscate facts that don't agree with your world view.
> >
> > You're just going on reflex.
>
> Dismissive attitude noted.

Yep. To paraphrase Eddie DeBartolo, you've got to bring it to get it.

> >Besides, if anyone's obfuscating, it
> > would be the person trimming the posts to remove the bit where I tell
> > you I saw the ABC report, which I haven't disputed in any way.
>
> No, you just tried to change the subject to one that is essentially
> off-topic.

That's what you're doing here. However, you're wrong because the ABC
story was about a CBS story about Bush's National Guard service.

Voila!

> > I've also changed my opinion on the CBS documents after seeing other new
> > reports. No world view problems here!
>
> So, what's your new opinion of the hour?

"Accurate but fake."

> >> If you're merely confused, just re-read the thread title!
>
> > I just re-read the thread title, but it didn't change anything. I've
> > commented on the ABC story.
>
> ...and then tried to change the topic to one that's on your agenda.

It's not like I attacked someone out of the blue.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
> > > reveal its sources.
> > >
> >
> > What is wrong with that?
>
> Novak refused to identify the source he used to expose Valerie Plame.
>

Being that he wasn't defrauded by the source, he should keep
his source confidential.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> >
> > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
> > gores my ox.
>
> ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> content reflected what they were thinking back then.
>

The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
what Killian was thinking

> Why forge something with accurate content?
>

It wasn't accurate content. The reason to forge a document
with 'that' content was because no real document with
'that' content exists.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Greg Williams"
>
>>Does anyone actually think that he was there during that time? I sure as
>>hell don't. And to be honest, I don't really care! What happened 35
>>years
>>ago means nothing!
>>
>>http://texansfortruth.com/
>
> Does it matter if he continues to lie about it today?
>
>
>
What lie would that be? He's said he served and got an honorable discharge.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:18:58 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...

> >>
> >> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
> >> the great political trickster, Karl Rove. Do you really think that
> >> Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
> >> help Hillary? If so, I think you need to step back and think
> >> logically. Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
> >> to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
> >> (especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
> >> Supreme Court justice appointments).
> >>
> >> No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
> >> fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
> >> bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.
> >
> >
> >Dave, if it came from Rove, it is a very, very dumb move.
>
> Only if he can't hide his envolvement.

I don't think you understand what I just said. It doesn't matter
whether knowledge of any Rove involvement were there. It is just
a REALLY DUMB idea to give the other side negative info
about your guy, even if forged, You ahve NO control over how
and when they might use that info. If they had saved it until
the last minute, it would backfire on Rove, cause of the content, not
because knowledge of Rove involvvement.

>
> >A 'smart' Democrat would not have released it to
> >60 minutes, "at least" not yet. Better to hold onto it
> >and not leak it until the day before the election,
> >when the Republicans would not have time to counter it.
>
> It seems too dumb for a Democratic operative to have come up with (but
> I could be wrong). It just seems too easy to cast doubt on the
> documents. The key would be the ability to avoid any links.
>

Well, the doubt did come right quick! But they might not
have figured that.

> >I think Rove would have thought that the Democrats
> >might do that, so, sensing it could easily backfire
> >against the Reps, Rove would instigate this.
> >I'm not saying he's ethical, I'm just saying he
> >is to smart to do something so dangerous that
> >could easily backfire on him.
>
> Only if he thinks that he's not savvy enough to bury any connection.
> I'm just sayin' that it's certainly a possibility that he's behind it,
> since he's done dirty tricks in the past. What would be choice is if
> he maneuvered it but thought that he was smarter than he was.

For argument's sake I'll temporarily assume he did it. Now, don't Kerry's
advisers look like a bunch of idiots?

[Michael McKelvy]

"johnebravo836" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
>
> Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would have
> broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the authenticity of
> the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once they were told by
> consultants they hired that the documents were highly questionable, they
> would have taken further steps to look into it, and waited with the story.
> Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather personally is more sympathetic
> to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone, I would have thought you'd agree
> that documents pertaining to Kerry would have received additional
> scrutiny. That would just be human nature.
>
>> Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for the
>> smears, little or none for the refutations.
>
> That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was dug
> up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was already
> floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any minimally
> competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any reports as
> to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so I can't
> comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
>
>> It's tough for Democrats and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.
>
> Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that way.
> Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't get a
> fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.
>
> In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
> limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
> proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
> variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
> talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
> shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
> whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what they
> have to say is an entirely different matter . . . ;)
>
>> The right wing has done a great job setting up alternative media (the
>> so-called "echo chamber")
>
> You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
> myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
> never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. ;) I have to
> say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
> mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially the
> other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's not
> necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . . . )
>
>> and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to be
>> more afraid of accusations of liberal bias
>
> The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
> cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in charge
> of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact. ;)
>
> I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
> whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify themselves
> as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal. Roughly half the
> public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more extreme among us who
> are even further to the left or right, but those have got to be far fewer
> than the liberals and conservatives). In short, conservatives appear to
> outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and about half the voters are
> in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that news networks would not
> recogize that their audiences are significantly more moderate or
> conservative than they are liberal.
>
> > than in doing their job in challenging those in power.
>
> If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
> in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be to
> find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as they
> can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but it is
> surely a part.
>
> > Right wing disinformation abounds; people
>> still think Gore said he invented the internet.
>>
>>>Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
>>>holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
>>>although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
>>>hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
>>>looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.
>>
>>
>> Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.
>
> If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to tip
> my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
> effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
> politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to be
> disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I can't
> help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when they did,
> knowing what they apparently knew.
>
One report I heard said they were sitting on this story for 5 years. It's
probably just a coincidence that they broke so close to the election.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > >>
> > >> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
> > >> if it gores my ox.
> > >
> > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> >
> > Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:
> >
> >
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1
> > .html
>
> I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
> tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
> with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
> out there in blogland.
>
> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> presidential record.
>

Not a very good Democratic election strategy, eh?
What kind of idiots are running the Kerry campaign?

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > johnebravo836 > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
>>
>> Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
>> have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
>> authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
>> they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
>> questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
>> waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
>> personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
>> I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
>> would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.
>
> Ah, but I was looking at CBS's record instead of adopting a right-wing
> stereotype of a liberal Dan Rather.
>
> You're entitled to disagree.
>
>> > Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
>> > the smears, little or none for the refutations.
>>
>> That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
>> dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
>> already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
>> minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
>> reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
>> I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
>
> All fared badly, fairness-wise. And the NG story has been floating
> around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
> oddly, no one is disputing their content.
>
> Indeed, the White House tried to put the NG story to bed in February by
> releasing what they said were all the relevant papers, but that led to
> the US News story.
>
>> > It's tough for Democrats
>> > and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.
>>
>> Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
>> way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
>> get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.
>
> That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
> since the Clinton years.
>
>> In any event, "the media" that people rely on for news is no longer
>> limited to the big three (or four, maybe) networks, what with the
>> proliferation of cable news channels, the internet and the incredible
>> variety of websites that offer different perspectives, and, of course,
>> talk radio. "The Media" isn't the monolith that it used to be. Liberals
>> shouldn't be having any trouble getting their perspective heard. Now,
>> whether the general voting public is particularly interested in what
>> they have to say is an entirely different matter . . . ;)
>>
>> > The right wing has done a
>> > great job setting up alternative media (the so-called "echo chamber")
>>
>> You have in mind things like Fox News, I assume? I watch it quite a bit
>> myself, despite the fact that I'm a moderately liberal Democrat; it's
>> never a bad idea to keep abreast of what the enemy is up to. ;) I have
>> to say, though, that having watched as much of it as I have, there's no
>> mystery at all in my mind as to why the major networks, and especially
>> the other cable news networks, are losing viewers to Fox News. (That's
>> not necessarily entirely complementary to Fox News, needless to say . .
>> . )
>
> AM radio, WSJ editorial page, blogs, etc.
>
>> > and organizing to put pressure on the traditional media, who appear to
>> > be more afraid of accusations of liberal bias
>>
>> The other, older cable news networks are apparently getting their clocks
>> cleaned in the ratings game by Fox News, and I'm sure the people in
>> charge of programming at those networks have taken note of that fact. ;)
>
> Goodbye, Phil Donahue! Hello, Michael Savage-Weiner!
>
>> I've seen a number of articles that indicate that if you ask people
>> whether they are liberal or conservative, about 30-35% classify
>> themselves as conservatives, while about 15-20% say they're liberal.
>> Roughly half the public, therefore, is in the middle (minus the more
>> extreme among us who are even further to the left or right, but those
>> have got to be far fewer than the liberals and conservatives). In short,
>> conservatives appear to outnumber liberals by approximately 2 to 1, and
>> about half the voters are in the middle. It's unrealistic to expect that
>> news networks would not recogize that their audiences are significantly
>> more moderate or conservative than they are liberal.
>
> I'd guess that if you ask about specific issues, many of those
> "conservatives" will show "liberal" thinking. The right has succeeded in
> making 'liberal' a dirty word.
>
>> > than in doing their job in challenging those in power.
>>
>> If you think that's their main job, you're going to be disappointed, and
>> in my view, that's probably how it should be: their main job should be
>> to find out and disseminate the facts as fairly, and as objectively, as
>> they can. "Challenging those in power" is only a small part of that, but
>> it is surely a part.
>
> Unfortunately, this devolves into the 'he said/he said' trap, in which
> journalists don't comment on the truthfulness of charges but comment
> instead on the spin.
>
>> > Right wing disinformation abounds; people
>> > still think Gore said he invented the internet.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
>> >>holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
>> >>although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
>> >>hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls
>> >>are
>> >>looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hence the suspicion that Rovian dirty tricks are involved.
>>
>> If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
>> tip my hat to his evil genius. The Republicans have always been far more
>> effective than the Democrats at playing down-and-dirty Presidental
>> politics. Maybe that's simply because the electorate is more likely to
>> be disposed in favor of the accusations they level. In any event, I
>> can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
>> they did, knowing what they apparently knew.
>
> My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
> make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
> possibility that they found the original source to be personally
> credible.

If they never saw the originals how could they find their source credible?

[Clyde Slick]

"johnebravo836" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> > Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> > presidential record.
>
> I wouldn't take issue with your ranking of the priorities, but there is
> surely another issue -- and not an insignificant one. It certainly looks
> like CBS News received warnings from at least some of the consultants
> they asked to authenticate the documents (there's no reason to doubt
> what those consultants are now saying), and they therefore knew that
> very serious questions could be raised about their authenticity. Surely
> they would have to realize that other document-authentication experts
> would be raising the same questions very shortly after they broke the
> story. Nonetheless, they went ahead with it. It's very hard not to
> conclude that the most reasonable explanation for this is that they were
> extremely eager to take a shot at Bush: do you doubt that, if the shoe
> were on the other foot, and that the documents pertained to Kerry, CBS
> News would have at least waited and made further efforts to authenticate
> the documents?
>
> Just so there's no misunderstanding, I find Bush appalling, and will be
> holding my nose and voting for Kerry. This whole episode, though,
> although it may have nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry, will surely
> hurt him, at least somewhat, and given the way the most recent polls are
> looking, he can ill afford to concede any further ground at this point.
>

Man, you gave me a great idea. I'm going to set up a table near
my polling place and sell nose clips to the Democratic voters.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
>> reveal its sources.
>>
>
> What is wrong with that? They duped and used CBS. I don't
> see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>
I think it's far more likely to be from the Kerry campaign than some plot by
Karl Rove.

[Clyde Slick]

"johnebravo836" > wrote in message
...
>
> If he was (it's highly unlikely we'll ever know, of course), I have to
>. In any event, I
> can't help but be astonished that CBS News went with this story when
> they did, knowing what they apparently knew.
>

in one word, arrogance.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > We've already seen the absurdity of Robert Novak calling on CBS to
>> > reveal its sources.
>> >
>>
>> What is wrong with that?
>
> Novak refused to identify the source he used to expose Valerie Plame.
>
>> They duped and used CBS. I don't
>> see why CBS is beholden to them to protect their identity.
>> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
>> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
>> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
>> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>
> I want to know who burned CBS, too.

They burned themselves by being so eager to attack Bush.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:QdN1d.90376$yh.74553@fed1read05...
>> ABC news just reported on the 6 PM news that 2 document analysts who were
>> employed by CBS told CBS before the program aired that the documents had
>> numerous problems and could not be authenticated. They interviewed the
>> analysts, one saying she e-mailed CBS the night before the broadcast
> warning
>> them that if they went on the air with those documents, by Thursday
> morning
>> they would be getting the same questions from hundreds of document
> analysts
>> that she raised. One expert CBS quoted on Friday now says he could not
>> authenticate any documents. He only looked at the signature.
>>
>> ABC also produced a typewriter expert who said that the IBM Selectric
>> Composer (the most advanced typewriter at the time) could not produce
> those
>> documents.
>>
>> The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the
>> source
>> for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
>> attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
>> congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
> that
>> any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no
>> other
>> body to take the lead on this.
>>
>> ScottW
>>
>
>
> I DESPISE Congressional investigations. Politicians are incapable of
> truth-
> fully, honestly and competently investigating anything.
>
The only thing worse is "Blue Ribbon Committees" where Congress abdicates
their job and passes it off to people no longer in office but just a
partisan.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > >>That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
> > >>dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
> > >>already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
> > >>minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen
any
> > >>reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though,
so
> > >>I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
> > >
> > >
> > > All fared badly, fairness-wise.
> > > And the NG story has been floating
> > > around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> > > Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> > > rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story,
and
> > > oddly, no one is disputing their content.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
> > networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.
>
> That's what I meant. The Swift story was repeated often but but debunked
> hardly at all.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This
doesn't
> > > make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
> > > possibility that they found the original source to be personally
> > > credible.
> >
> > That may be, but once they had been put on notice by their own
> > consultant that the authenticity of the documents was questionable, that
> > should have created some corresponding doubt (or at least hesitation)
> > about the original source of those documents, I would think! I'm just
> > amazed that they could have been so foolish.
>
> I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> comfortable shopping for consultants.

What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
that these same memos once existed, and were lost
or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
from memory?

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:32:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> > wrote:
>
>>Clyde 'while Fester's still around, just call me' Slick wrote:
>>
>>> Those preps are hoaxters and frauds. Sure, if it were a
>>> legitimate source, CBS should fight to withold the id.
>>> But the clown who is the CBS source gave up rights to
>>> protection by perpetrading a fraud upon CBS.
>>
>>Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
>>They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
>>Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
>>consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
>>merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
>>really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
>>control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
>>presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
>>all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
>>of Begala and Carville.
>>
>>
>>GeoSynch
>
> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
> the great political trickster, Karl Rove.

Based on what evidence?

Do you really think that
> Begala and Carville would sabotage a four year Democratic term just to
> help Hillary?

Abso-****ing-lutely.

If so, I think you need to step back and think
> logically.

Irony?

Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
> to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform

Of course it is. The odds of winning the White House for the same party
after having one of their own in for 2 terms are very slim.

> (especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
> Supreme Court justice appointments).
>
> No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
> fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven. What's
> bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.

What's bizarre is your paranoia.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > > In article >,
>> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
>> > >>
>> > >> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
>> > >> if it gores my ox.
>> > >
>> > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
>> > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
>> >
>> > Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:
>> >
>> >
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1
>> > .html
>>
>> I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
>> tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
>> with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
>> out there in blogland.
>>
>> Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
>> Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
>> presidential record.
>>
>
> Not a very good Democratic election strategy, eh?
> What kind of idiots are running the Kerry campaign?
>
>
Actually arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issues facing
the electorate regarding national security, social security, etc., etc..

This is a bunch of brats squabbling in the sand box.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
>> >
>> > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if
>> > it
>> > gores my ox.
>>
>> ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
>> content reflected what they were thinking back then.
>>
>
> The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> what Killian was thinking
>
>> Why forge something with accurate content?
>>
>
> It wasn't accurate content. The reason to forge a document
> with 'that' content was because no real document with
> 'that' content exists.
>
>
Bingo!

CBS is trotting out the former secretary to Killian who says that she
believes the memos are forged as well, but that they reflect his thinking at
the time.

IOW CBS is staking their credibility on hearsay.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> > comfortable shopping for consultants.
>
> What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> from memory?

Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
Killian's secretary.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > >>
> > > >> Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
> > > >> if it gores my ox.
> > > >
> > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > >
> > > Typical obfuscation of the main topic and far more relevant fact:
> > >
> > >
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1
> > > .html
> >
> > I saw the complete report this morning, thanks. The Dallas Morning News
> > tracked down Killian's typist. I may take the trouble of registering
> > with their website to read more. I'll bet the story is linked somewhere
> > out there in blogland.
> >
> > Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> > Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> > presidential record.
> >
>
> Not a very good Democratic election strategy, eh?
> What kind of idiots are running the Kerry campaign?

Not Dan Rather...

[MINe 109]

In article t>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> > My thought is that the original source recreated the memos. This doesn't
> > make it right for CBS to do as they did, but it does raise the
> > possibility that they found the original source to be personally
> > credible.
>
> If they never saw the originals how could they find their source credible?

Good question! It would have to depend on the source.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> >> >
> >> > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if
> >> > it
> >> > gores my ox.
> >>
> >> ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> >> content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> >>
> >
> > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> > what Killian was thinking
> >
> >> Why forge something with accurate content?
> >>
> >
> > It wasn't accurate content. The reason to forge a document
> > with 'that' content was because no real document with
> > 'that' content exists.
> >
> >
> Bingo!
>
> CBS is trotting out the former secretary to Killian who says that she
> believes the memos are forged as well, but that they reflect his thinking
at
> the time.
>
> IOW CBS is staking their credibility on hearsay.
>
>

....and sinking their own boat, without realizing it.
They have completely abdicated professional journalisitc standards.
IT's ok to present forged documents, as long as the content is 'correct'.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > >
> > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction if it
> > > gores my ox.
> >
> > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> >
>
> The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> what Killian was thinking

Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking. She
also says she didn't type them.

> > Why forge something with accurate content?
> >
>
> It wasn't accurate content. The reason to forge a document
> with 'that' content was because no real document with
> 'that' content exists.

Wait and see.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> >
> > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > from memory?
>
> Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> Killian's secretary.
>
>

Again, what do you mean by recreated?

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > >
> > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
if it
> > > > gores my ox.
> > >
> > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > >
> >
> > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> > what Killian was thinking
>
> Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking. She
> also says she didn't type them.
>

She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
he might have thought.

[ScottW]

"johnebravo836" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
>
> Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would have
> broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the authenticity of
> the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once they were told by
> consultants they hired that the documents were highly questionable, they
> would have taken further steps to look into it, and waited with the story.
> Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather personally is more sympathetic
> to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone, I would have thought you'd agree
> that documents pertaining to Kerry would have received additional
> scrutiny. That would just be human nature.
>
>> Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for the
>> smears, little or none for the refutations.
>
> That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was dug
> up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was already
> floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any minimally
> competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any reports as
> to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so I can't
> comment on how fair their coverage of it was.

They tried to ignore it and hope it would go away..... like the Kerry
advisers apparently told them to do. BTW, this alleged refutation is highly
debatable. A former VVAW member is now claiming Kerry coached him on his
"war atrocities" testimony effectively undermining Kerry's claim that he was
just repeating what he heard at the winter soldiers thing. Now we have a
participant claiming Kerry helped stage the thing.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > johnebravo836 > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > But, no, I don't think an anti-Kerry accusation would be better vetted.
>>
>> Here I would have to disagree -- I can't imagine that CBS News would
>> have broken such a story about Kerry without investigating the
>> authenticity of the documents *much* more thoroughly. Certainly, once
>> they were told by consultants they hired that the documents were highly
>> questionable, they would have taken further steps to look into it, and
>> waited with the story. Certainly you don't doubt that Dan Rather
>> personally is more sympathetic to Kerry, do you? For that reason alone,
>> I would have thought you'd agree that documents pertaining to Kerry
>> would have received additional scrutiny. That would just be human nature.
>
> Ah, but I was looking at CBS's record instead of adopting a right-wing
> stereotype of a liberal Dan Rather.
>
> You're entitled to disagree.
>
>> > Look at how the Swift Vets charges were circulated: big publicity for
>> > the smears, little or none for the refutations.
>>
>> That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
>> dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
>> already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
>> minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
>> reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though, so
>> I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
>
> All fared badly, fairness-wise. And the NG story has been floating
> around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
> oddly, no one is disputing their content.
>
> Indeed, the White House tried to put the NG story to bed in February by
> releasing what they said were all the relevant papers, but that led to
> the US News story.
>
>> > It's tough for Democrats
>> > and liberals to get a fair shake in the media.
>>
>> Needless to say, only very liberal viewers are likely to see it that
>> way. Conservatives are just as vehement in insisting that *they* can't
>> get a fair shake, as I'm sure you're aware.
>
> That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
> since the Clinton years.

Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid internet ad
which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also interesting to
note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for unauthorized use
of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to have
departed the planet for destination unknown.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> johnebravo836 > wrote:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> >>That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
>> >>dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
>> >>already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
>> >>minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
>> >>reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though,
>> >>so
>> >>I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
>> >
>> >
>> > All fared badly, fairness-wise.
>> > And the NG story has been floating
>> > around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
>> > Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
>> > rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
>> > oddly, no one is disputing their content.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
>> networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.
>
> That's what I meant. The Swift story was repeated often but but debunked
> hardly at all.

Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all his
military records.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>> IOW CBS is staking their credibility on hearsay.
>>
>>
>
> ...and sinking their own boat, without realizing it.
> They have completely abdicated professional journalisitc standards.
> IT's ok to present forged documents, as long as the content is 'correct'.
>

Maybe they know (because of their past) that their credibility is shot and
felt they needed proof?

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

>>Something extraordinarily fishy about this whole episode.
>>They were obvious blatant forgeries too easily discredited.
>>Normally, you'd wonder who this would help, but first
>>consider who this hurts ... obviously Kerry, with Bush
>>merely being an incidental beneficiary. Now, who this
>>really helps is the Clintons, both in unchallenged continuing
>>control of the Democratic party, and particularly Hillary's
>>presumptive bid for the presidency in 2008. Yep, this has
>>all the earmarks of being hatched from the diabolical minds
>>of Begala and Carville.

> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
> the great political trickster, Karl Rove.

Radioactive risk for chump-change reward? Not likely.

> Do you really think that Begala and Carville would sabotage
> a four year Democratic term just to help Hillary?

Yes, they would ... and in a New York minute.

> If so, I think you need to step back and think logically.
> Giving the Repbulicans four more years is in no way helpful
> to either Senator Clinton *nor* the Democratic Party platform
> (especially when you consider the possibility of another couple of
> Supreme Court justice appointments).

Don't be so disingenuous, Dave. Hillary's (or Bill's) ambitions would
trump party loyalty every time. Their ambitions know no bounds, just ask
long-time acquaintances like Web Hubbell or, if you could, Vince Foster.

BTW, the smartest thing Kerry ever did was NOT selecting Hillary for
the VP slot, because if he did and he went on to win the presidency,
he'd know his life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.

> No, the more likely source would be Rove and *his* ilk. That's what's
> fishy to me, *if* they are forgeries, which isn't yet proven.

Come off it, Dave. Even their liberal media brethren, like the Washington
Post and ABC News, have concluded the documents are forgeries.

> What's bizarre is CBS' gullibility if this ends up being the case.

A good "mark", by definition, is one eager to be conned. And ever since
old man Bush gave Dan his come-uppance many years ago in a live
interview, Rather has been *seething* for revenge.


GeoSynch

[MINe 109]

In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > johnebravo836 > wrote:
> >
> >> MINe 109 wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> >>That's different, since it was not, to my knowledge, a story that was
> >> >>dug up and "broken" by a major news network -- it was a story that was
> >> >>already floating around and clearly being talked about widely, and any
> >> >>minimally competent network would have addressed it. I haven't seen any
> >> >>reports as to how NBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS dealt with the story, though,
> >> >>so
> >> >>I can't comment on how fair their coverage of it was.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > All fared badly, fairness-wise.
> >> > And the NG story has been floating
> >> > around for months, and was revived in the last few weeks, since Ben
> >> > Barnes repeated his story about getting W into the guard at a Kerry
> >> > rally here in Austin. The docs were a small part of Rather's story, and
> >> > oddly, no one is disputing their content.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to how the major broadcast
> >> networks handled the SWIFT Boat group story.
> >
> > That's what I meant. The Swift story was repeated often but but debunked
> > hardly at all.
>
> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all his
> military records.

He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges. In the
meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

[MINe 109]

In article <SV62d.92734$yh.83717@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
> > since the Clinton years.
>
> Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid internet ad
> which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also interesting to
> note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for unauthorized use
> of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to have
> departed the planet for destination unknown.

Okay, that's a week. Good balance for the right-wing decade?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an over-reaction
> if it
> > > > > gores my ox.
> > > >
> > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> > > what Killian was thinking
> >
> > Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking. She
> > also says she didn't type them.
> >
>
> She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
> he might have thought.

He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > from memory?
> >
> > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> > Killian's secretary.
> >
> >
>
> Again, what do you mean by recreated?
>
>

To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
memory) and typing it into a word processor.

There are obvious problems with this.

[GeoSynch]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> dave weil wrote:

>> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
>> the great political trickster, Karl Rove.

> Based on what evidence?

Based on this:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/rather_blames_r.html

RATHER BLAMES ROVE IN ROCKET-SKATE MISHAP
NEW YORK - Veteran anchorman Dan Rather implicated White House Political Director Karl Rove as "the
mastermind behind the so-called Acme Group" after his rocket-powered roller skates exploded during a
Wednesday CBS Evening News investigative report.

Rather had donned the controversial Acme skates -- along with an Acme brand Bat-Man suit -- in a
complicated sting operation to reveal what he termed a "deep conspiracy between the White House and
internet partisans to cover up George Bush's shameful military records."

The investigation went awry soon after Rather lit the skates, releasing what NYU Physics professor
Alan Sokol estimated as "20,000 to 30,000 pounds of thrust." The heat of the initial explosion was so
intense that it singed the hair off several nearby CBS reporters, including Rather's anchor
heir-apparent John Roberts.

The blast sent Rather hurtling along 53rd Street toward the Hudson River at speeds estimated upwards
of 200 miles per hour, scarcely slowing as the runaway skates drug the helpless journalist over, under
and through stalled rush hour traffic.

Rather frantically righted himself just in time to hurtle cleanly though the side of an MTA bus at 7th
Avenue, leaving a gaping Rather-shaped hole. The impact sent Rather careening down the stairs of the
50th Street subway terminal, through a turnstile, and onto the tracks of the Uptown-bound 1 train.

"The incoming tunnel was sparking and lighting up, I thought there was some kind of power problem,"
said Carla Robertson, who witnessed Rather speeding through the tunnel at the 34th Street platform.
"Later I realized it must have been his ass hitting the third rail."

Robertson said she didn't pay much attention whe she saw a spread-eagle Rather, screaming along the
tracks on rocket roller skates.

"This is New York, so we see celebrities all the time," said Robertson. "Then I realized he was
heading downtown on the uptown tracks."

Witnesses as far as Chelsea report hearing the collision as Rather met the next oncoming train, which
sent the newsman rocketing skyward through a man hole cover at 31st and Broadway, arms flailing
wildly, his rocket skates sputtering their last spare ounces of fuel.

Midtown bystanders looked on in horror as the award-winning broadcast titan began plummeting from his
3000-foot apex. Amazingly, though, Rather's arm-flailing and prescient decision to wear the Bat-Man
suit had paid off. Regaining composure after the initial shock, he began soaring over the skyline of
Manhattan, swooping through its concrete canyons.

Rather's high-flying antics came to a abrupt conclusion when he splattered into the New York Times
building. Momentarily stunned, he peeled off the side into a desperate pummet, not realizing his
Bat-Man wings remained adhered to a 38th floor window.

Gasping for breath as he climbed from his Rather-shaped crater on 43rd Street, he quickly faced
another ignomy: his impact had jarred loose a grand piano that was hanging from a rope outside William
Safire's 30th-story office. As the shadow of the piano slowly grew, Rather pulled out a tiny umbrella
and picket sign that read "Yipes!!"

His lump-covered head peering through the demolished keyboard, Rather finally played a off-key
rendition of "Taps" his piano-key teeth.

Rather remains in guarded condition at Cedars-Sinai hospital, but says his legendary investigative
ferocity "is as healthy as Olympic weightlifter's liver."

"Batten down the barn door, Aunt Gussie, we're got more stories coming, and I promise you that these
will sting the Bush boys like syphillitic urine," said a defiant Rather.

Rather said that the CBS news team was already working on a new story that would "prove, once and for
all, that Karl Rove made those rocket skates."

"I can't reveal much right now," added Rather. "We're still trying to line up the necessary catapult."

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all
>> his
>> military records.
>
> He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.

Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals. Obviously
differences of opinion can exist.

> In the
> meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <SV62d.92734$yh.83717@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> > That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
>> > since the Clinton years.
>>
>> Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid internet
>> ad
>> which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also interesting
>> to
>> note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for unauthorized
>> use
>> of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to
>> have
>> departed the planet for destination unknown.
>
> Okay, that's a week. Good balance for the right-wing decade?

You sound like a raider fan... always living in the past.

ScottW

[Michael McKelvy]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>
>>> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
>>> the great political trickster, Karl Rove.
>
>> Based on what evidence?
>
> Based on this:
>
> http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/rather_blames_r.html
>
> RATHER BLAMES ROVE IN ROCKET-SKATE MISHAP
> NEW YORK - Veteran anchorman Dan Rather implicated White House Political
> Director Karl Rove as "the mastermind behind the so-called Acme Group"
> after his rocket-powered roller skates exploded during a Wednesday CBS
> Evening News investigative report.
>
> Rather had donned the controversial Acme skates -- along with an Acme
> brand Bat-Man suit -- in a complicated sting operation to reveal what he
> termed a "deep conspiracy between the White House and internet partisans
> to cover up George Bush's shameful military records."
>
> The investigation went awry soon after Rather lit the skates, releasing
> what NYU Physics professor Alan Sokol estimated as "20,000 to 30,000
> pounds of thrust." The heat of the initial explosion was so intense that
> it singed the hair off several nearby CBS reporters, including Rather's
> anchor heir-apparent John Roberts.
>
> The blast sent Rather hurtling along 53rd Street toward the Hudson River
> at speeds estimated upwards of 200 miles per hour, scarcely slowing as the
> runaway skates drug the helpless journalist over, under and through
> stalled rush hour traffic.
>
> Rather frantically righted himself just in time to hurtle cleanly though
> the side of an MTA bus at 7th Avenue, leaving a gaping Rather-shaped hole.
> The impact sent Rather careening down the stairs of the 50th Street subway
> terminal, through a turnstile, and onto the tracks of the Uptown-bound 1
> train.
>
> "The incoming tunnel was sparking and lighting up, I thought there was
> some kind of power problem," said Carla Robertson, who witnessed Rather
> speeding through the tunnel at the 34th Street platform. "Later I realized
> it must have been his ass hitting the third rail."
>
> Robertson said she didn't pay much attention whe she saw a spread-eagle
> Rather, screaming along the tracks on rocket roller skates.
>
> "This is New York, so we see celebrities all the time," said Robertson.
> "Then I realized he was heading downtown on the uptown tracks."
>
> Witnesses as far as Chelsea report hearing the collision as Rather met the
> next oncoming train, which sent the newsman rocketing skyward through a
> man hole cover at 31st and Broadway, arms flailing wildly, his rocket
> skates sputtering their last spare ounces of fuel.
>
> Midtown bystanders looked on in horror as the award-winning broadcast
> titan began plummeting from his 3000-foot apex. Amazingly, though,
> Rather's arm-flailing and prescient decision to wear the Bat-Man suit had
> paid off. Regaining composure after the initial shock, he began soaring
> over the skyline of Manhattan, swooping through its concrete canyons.
>
> Rather's high-flying antics came to a abrupt conclusion when he splattered
> into the New York Times building. Momentarily stunned, he peeled off the
> side into a desperate pummet, not realizing his Bat-Man wings remained
> adhered to a 38th floor window.
>
> Gasping for breath as he climbed from his Rather-shaped crater on 43rd
> Street, he quickly faced another ignomy: his impact had jarred loose a
> grand piano that was hanging from a rope outside William Safire's
> 30th-story office. As the shadow of the piano slowly grew, Rather pulled
> out a tiny umbrella and picket sign that read "Yipes!!"
>
> His lump-covered head peering through the demolished keyboard, Rather
> finally played a off-key rendition of "Taps" his piano-key teeth.
>
> Rather remains in guarded condition at Cedars-Sinai hospital, but says his
> legendary investigative ferocity "is as healthy as Olympic weightlifter's
> liver."
>
> "Batten down the barn door, Aunt Gussie, we're got more stories coming,
> and I promise you that these will sting the Bush boys like syphillitic
> urine," said a defiant Rather.
>
> Rather said that the CBS news team was already working on a new story that
> would "prove, once and for all, that Karl Rove made those rocket skates."
>
> "I can't reveal much right now," added Rather. "We're still trying to line
> up the necessary catapult."
>
>
Nothing like top notch journalism. :-0

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:lR62d.92733$yh.35795@fed1read05...
>
> They tried to ignore it and hope it would go away..... like the Kerry
> advisers apparently told them to do. BTW, this alleged refutation is
highly
> debatable. A former VVAW member is now claiming Kerry coached him on his
> "war atrocities" testimony effectively undermining Kerry's claim that he
was
> just repeating what he heard at the winter soldiers thing. Now we have a
> participant claiming Kerry helped stage the thing.

He was just repeating what he heard at the winter soldiers
meeting............which was the stuff he told them to say.

[Clyde Slick]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> A good "mark", by definition, is one eager to be conned. And ever since
> old man Bush gave Dan his come-uppance many years ago in a live
> interview, Rather has been *seething* for revenge.
>

I vaguely rememebr something about this. What are the details?

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all
his
> > military records.
>
> He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges. In the
> meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.

I agree. We are 'makiing up' the requirmenet that he disclose the truth.
He shouldn't be required to do that.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
over-reaction
> > if it
> > > > > > gores my ox.
> > > > >
> > > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> > > > what Killian was thinking
> > >
> > > Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking.
She
> > > also says she didn't type them.
> > >
> >
> > She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
> > he might have thought.
>
> He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

I repeat.........

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > from memory?
> > >
> > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> > > Killian's secretary.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> >
> >
>
> To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
> memory) and typing it into a word processor.
>
> There are obvious problems with this.

If the source had the original, why recreate it?

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 said:
>
> > > She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
> > > he might have thought.
> >
> > He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.
>
> And not just to her... also to whoever (probably) created the documents,
> either back then or recently.
>

Hehe, I thought Killian created it.
he 'signed' it!

You seem to be saying that its just fine to document
one's allegations by creating a forgery that contains
the information one believes is correct.
that contains information you be

[Clyde Slick]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
> > dave weil wrote:
>
> >> Actually it strikes me more likely that it might come from the mind of
> >> the great political trickster, Karl Rove.
>
> > Based on what evidence?
>
> Based on this:
>
> http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/rather_blames_r.html
>
> RATHER BLAMES ROVE IN ROCKET-SKATE MISHAP
> NEW YORK - Veteran anchorman Dan Rather implicated White House Political
Director Karl Rove as "the
> mastermind behind the so-called Acme Group" after his rocket-powered
roller skates exploded during a
> Wednesday CBS Evening News investigative report.
>
> Rather had donned the controversial Acme skates -- along with an Acme
brand Bat-Man suit -- in a
> complicated sting operation to reveal what he termed a "deep conspiracy
between the White House and
> internet partisans to cover up George Bush's shameful military records."
>
> The investigation went awry soon after Rather lit the skates, releasing
what NYU Physics professor
> Alan Sokol estimated as "20,000 to 30,000 pounds of thrust." The heat of
the initial explosion was so
> intense that it singed the hair off several nearby CBS reporters,
including Rather's anchor
> heir-apparent John Roberts.
>
> The blast sent Rather hurtling along 53rd Street toward the Hudson River
at speeds estimated upwards
> of 200 miles per hour, scarcely slowing as the runaway skates drug the
helpless journalist over, under
> and through stalled rush hour traffic.
>
> Rather frantically righted himself just in time to hurtle cleanly though
the side of an MTA bus at 7th
> Avenue, leaving a gaping Rather-shaped hole. The impact sent Rather
careening down the stairs of the
> 50th Street subway terminal, through a turnstile, and onto the tracks of
the Uptown-bound 1 train.
>
> "The incoming tunnel was sparking and lighting up, I thought there was
some kind of power problem,"
> said Carla Robertson, who witnessed Rather speeding through the tunnel at
the 34th Street platform.
> "Later I realized it must have been his ass hitting the third rail."
>
> Robertson said she didn't pay much attention whe she saw a spread-eagle
Rather, screaming along the
> tracks on rocket roller skates.
>
> "This is New York, so we see celebrities all the time," said Robertson.
"Then I realized he was
> heading downtown on the uptown tracks."
>
> Witnesses as far as Chelsea report hearing the collision as Rather met the
next oncoming train, which
> sent the newsman rocketing skyward through a man hole cover at 31st and
Broadway, arms flailing
> wildly, his rocket skates sputtering their last spare ounces of fuel.
>
> Midtown bystanders looked on in horror as the award-winning broadcast
titan began plummeting from his
> 3000-foot apex. Amazingly, though, Rather's arm-flailing and prescient
decision to wear the Bat-Man
> suit had paid off. Regaining composure after the initial shock, he began
soaring over the skyline of
> Manhattan, swooping through its concrete canyons.
>
> Rather's high-flying antics came to a abrupt conclusion when he splattered
into the New York Times
> building. Momentarily stunned, he peeled off the side into a desperate
pummet, not realizing his
> Bat-Man wings remained adhered to a 38th floor window.
>
> Gasping for breath as he climbed from his Rather-shaped crater on 43rd
Street, he quickly faced
> another ignomy: his impact had jarred loose a grand piano that was hanging
from a rope outside William
> Safire's 30th-story office. As the shadow of the piano slowly grew, Rather
pulled out a tiny umbrella
> and picket sign that read "Yipes!!"
>
> His lump-covered head peering through the demolished keyboard, Rather
finally played a off-key
> rendition of "Taps" his piano-key teeth.
>
> Rather remains in guarded condition at Cedars-Sinai hospital, but says his
legendary investigative
> ferocity "is as healthy as Olympic weightlifter's liver."
>
> "Batten down the barn door, Aunt Gussie, we're got more stories coming,
and I promise you that these
> will sting the Bush boys like syphillitic urine," said a defiant Rather.
>
> Rather said that the CBS news team was already working on a new story that
would "prove, once and for
> all, that Karl Rove made those rocket skates."
>
> "I can't reveal much right now," added Rather. "We're still trying to line
up the necessary catapult."
>
>

Beep Beep!

[GeoSynch]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>> A good "mark", by definition, is one eager to be conned. And ever since
>> old man Bush gave Dan his come-uppance many years ago in a live
>> interview, Rather has been *seething* for revenge.

> I vaguely rememebr something about this. What are the details?

See http://www.ratherbiased.com/iran-contra.htm and also
http://www.ratherbiased.com/bush_attack.htm

Some time before that, Rather got into a huff with his CBS bosses and
petulatnly walked off the set during the evening news, leaving dead air
for about 7 minutes. This from a third-rate weasel who was nipping at
Nixon's heels for a "third-rate burglary" is about to be brought down
himself for being duped by a "third-rate forgery." Poetic justice, indeed.


GeoSynch

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they were
> > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > from memory?
> > > >
> > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
> > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> >
> > There are obvious problems with this.
>
> If the source had the original, why recreate it?

Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
memorized it or took notes.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
> over-reaction
> > > if it
> > > > > > > gores my ox.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
> > > > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
> > > > > what Killian was thinking
> > > >
> > > > Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking.
> She
> > > > also says she didn't type them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
> > > he might have thought.
> >
> > He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.
>
> I repeat.........

I don't think you need to be so literal.

[MINe 109]

In article <0Z82d.92850$yh.60065@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <SV62d.92734$yh.83717@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> > That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a drum
> >> > since the Clinton years.
> >>
> >> Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid internet
> >> ad
> >> which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also interesting
> >> to
> >> note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for unauthorized
> >> use
> >> of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to
> >> have
> >> departed the planet for destination unknown.
> >
> > Okay, that's a week. Good balance for the right-wing decade?
>
> You sound like a raider fan... always living in the past.

In the past? The Raiders are still playing.

[MINe 109]

In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all
> >> his
> >> military records.
> >
> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
>
> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals. Obviously
> differences of opinion can exist.
>
> > In the
> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
>
> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.

Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
the way Bush's was?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message


> Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> up' the way Bush's was?


Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
breath.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they
were
> > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > > from memory?
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> > > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
> > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> > >
> > > There are obvious problems with this.
> >
> > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
>
> Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
> memorized it or took notes.



If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
for this particular purposes. Your senses have
left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
straight while trying to win an election.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
> > over-reaction
> > > > if it
> > > > > > > > gores my ox.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but
the
> > > > > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was
not
> > > > > > what Killian was thinking
> > > > >
> > > > > Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was
thinking.
> > She
> > > > > also says she didn't type them.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
> > > > he might have thought.
> > >
> > > He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.
> >
> > I repeat.........
>
> I don't think you need to be so literal.

I say that cause others close to Killian say that was not his
expression of his thoughts.
So, in the abscenec of a live Killian, we don't know for sure,
all we have is the speculatiuon upon the preponderance of
evidence.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <0Z82d.92850$yh.60065@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <SV62d.92734$yh.83717@fed1read05>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> > That doesn't make it true. They've been playing the media like a
drum
> > >> > since the Clinton years.
> > >>
> > >> Who's playing the DNC like a drum with their incredibly stupid
internet
> > >> ad
> > >> which uses 60 minutes footage and the phony docs? It's also
interesting
> > >> to
> > >> note that both NBC and CBS have asked they pull the ad for
unauthorized
> > >> use
> > >> of copyrighted material. The democratic party leadership appears to
> > >> have
> > >> departed the planet for destination unknown.
> > >
> > > Okay, that's a week. Good balance for the right-wing decade?
> >
> > You sound like a raider fan... always living in the past.
>
> In the past? The Raiders are still playing.

So is Kerry.

[paul packer]

>You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
>behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
>surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.

I see nothing wrong with any of that. At least he always looks neat.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> > up' the way Bush's was?
>
>
> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.

http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
> breath.

That's Mr. Persona to you.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos, they
> were
> > > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > > > from memory?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview with
> > > > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it from
> > > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> > > >
> > > > There are obvious problems with this.
> > >
> > > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
> >
> > Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
> > memorized it or took notes.
>
>
>
> If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
> have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
> he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
> he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
> for this particular purposes. Your senses have
> left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
> your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
> I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
> straight while trying to win an election.

My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
that you mentioned any of them.

In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>>> up' the way Bush's was?
>>
>>
>> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>
> http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html

Kevin Drum a reliable source?

LOL!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> >>> up' the way Bush's was?
> >>
> >>
> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
> >
> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>
> Kevin Drum a reliable source?
>
> LOL!

Predictable...

Kevin Drum is not, note, the source.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> > up' the way Bush's was?
>>
>>
>> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>
> http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>
>> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
>> breath.
>
> That's Mr. Persona to you.

and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html

Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

ScottW

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
>> >> all
>> >> his
>> >> military records.
>> >
>> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
>>
>> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
>> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
>> Obviously
>> differences of opinion can exist.
>>
>> > In the
>> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
>>
>> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
>> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
>
> Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
> the way Bush's was?
>

And you know this because....................?

Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> > up' the way Bush's was?
>>
>>
>> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>
> http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>
>> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
>> breath.
>

IOW you have nothing but unfounded specualtion.

> That's Mr. Persona to you.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > The bloggers are, of course, over-reacting,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Translation from the political bigot: It's always an
>> > > > > over-reaction
>> if it
>> > > > > gores my ox.
>> > > >
>> > > > ABC quoted a NG secretary who said the docs looked wrong, but the
>> > > > content reflected what they were thinking back then.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > The forged document dontains a forged Killian signature. It was not
>> > > what Killian was thinking
>> >
>> > Separate the memo from the man. She said what Killian was thinking. She
>> > also says she didn't type them.
>> >
>>
>> She can speak to what Killian actually said, not to what
>> he might have thought.
>
> He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.

Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS NOT
his personal secretary.

[Michael McKelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > > He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.
>> >
>> > And not just to her... also to whoever (probably) created the
>> > documents,
>> > either back then or recently.
>> >
>>
>> Hehe, I thought Killian created it.
>> he 'signed' it!
>>
>> You seem to be saying that its just fine to document
>> one's allegations by creating a forgery that contains
>> the information one believes is correct.
>> that contains information you be
>
>
> You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
> behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
> surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.
>
>
>
You seem to be saying that since you believe this to be true, it is.


Usual assertions without facts.

[MINe 109]

In article t>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
> >> >> all
> >> >> his
> >> >> military records.
> >> >
> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
> >>
> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on subjective
> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
> >> Obviously
> >> differences of opinion can exist.
> >>
> >> > In the
> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
> >>
> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
> >
> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
> > the way Bush's was?
> >
>
> And you know this because....................?
>
> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.

Hey, you and Clyde are on the same page! What's next, are you going to
call me "angry"?

[MINe 109]

In article <uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> >> > up' the way Bush's was?
> >>
> >>
> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
> >
> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
> >
> >> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
> >> breath.
> >
> > That's Mr. Persona to you.
>
> and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
>
> Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.

How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
they'd released them all already?

> CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.

One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file
>>>> 'cleaned up' the way Bush's was?
>>>
>>>
>>> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>>
>> http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>>
>>> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding
>>> my breath.
>>
>
> IOW you have nothing but unfounded specualtion.

Exactly. But, it rocks Stephen's cradle so it's Revealed Truth.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> >> > up' the way Bush's was?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>> >
>> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>> >
>> >> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
>> >> breath.
>> >
>> > That's Mr. Persona to you.
>>
>> and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
>>
>> Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.
>
> How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
> they'd released them all already?
>
>> CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.
>
> One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.

So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
>> >> >> releasing
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> military records.
>> >> >
>> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
>> >>
>> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
>> >> subjective
>> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
>> >> Obviously
>> >> differences of opinion can exist.
>> >>
>> >> > In the
>> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
>> >>
>> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
>> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
>> >
>> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> > up'
>> > the way Bush's was?
>> >
>>
>> And you know this because....................?
>>
>> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.
>
> Hey, you and Clyde are on the same page! What's next, are you going to
> call me "angry"?

No need to point out the obvious.

[GregP]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
>for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
>attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
>congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate that
>any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
>body to take the lead on this.

This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
in his memoirs.

[GregP]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>
>Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
>Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
>presidential record.


Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.

[MINe 109]

In article et>,
"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> >> >> > up' the way Bush's was?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
> >> >
> >> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
> >> >
> >> >> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
> >> >> breath.
> >> >
> >> > That's Mr. Persona to you.
> >>
> >> and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
> >>
> >> Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.
> >
> > How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
> > they'd released them all already?
> >
> >> CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.
> >
> > One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.
>
> So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

According to Rasmussen, Kerry's steady for the week, but still behind
Bush, who had a slight rise but basically is where he started, too.

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file
>> >> >> > 'cleaned
>> >> >> > up' the way Bush's was?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
>> >> >
>> >> >> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding
>> >> >> my
>> >> >> breath.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's Mr. Persona to you.
>> >>
>> >> and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
>> >>
>> >> Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.
>> >
>> > How about the White House releasing more documents? Didn't they say
>> > they'd released them all already?
>> >
>> >> CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.
>> >
>> > One of those neck-and-neck freefalls.
>>
>> So why are Kerry's numbers still falling and Bush's rising?
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
>
> According to Rasmussen, Kerry's steady for the week, but still behind
> Bush, who had a slight rise but basically is where he started, too.

Not completely unexpected. I'm still betting Bush wins in Nov. It's also
nice to hear that Daschle is behind 3 points in his re-election bid.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
>>Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
>>presidential record.
>
>
> Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.
>
Unsubstantiated allegation noted.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > He probably expressed those thoughts to her in speech.
> > >
> > > And not just to her... also to whoever (probably) created the
documents,
> > > either back then or recently.
> > >
> >
> > Hehe, I thought Killian created it.
> > he 'signed' it!
> >
> > You seem to be saying that its just fine to document
> > one's allegations by creating a forgery that contains
> > the information one believes is correct.
> > that contains information you be
>
>
> You seem to be saying that Bush's corruption, irrational and erratic
> behavior, religious fervor, ineptitude at foreign policy, and
> surrounding himself with thieves and war profiteers is just fine.
>
>
>

you seem to be not listening.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
they
> > were
> > > > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > > > > from memory?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
with
> > > > > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
from
> > > > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are obvious problems with this.
> > > >
> > > > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
> > >
> > > Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
> > > memorized it or took notes.
> >
> >
> >
> > If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
> > have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
> > he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
> > he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
> > for this particular purposes. Your senses have
> > left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
> > your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
> > I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
> > straight while trying to win an election.
>
> My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
> that you mentioned any of them.
>
> In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
> you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.

you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of documents.
By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:uPi2d.93470$yh.69511@fed1read05...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> >> > up' the way Bush's was?
> >>
> >>
> >> Awaiting reliable proof that Bush's file was 'cleaned up'.
> >
> > http://calpundit.com/archives/003280.html
> >
> >> Given the track record of the persona making this post, not holding my
> >> breath.
> >
> > That's Mr. Persona to you.
>
> and now we have a report linking the CBS docs to Bill Burkett.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
>
> Talk about a coup wiping out the credibility of Burkett and Rather.
>
> CBS ratings (like Kerry's poll numbers) are in freefall.
>

Now, let us get itno the preexixting relationship
between Rather and Burkett. Danny Boy got into
a controversy when he gave a speech at a local Democratic
fundraiser. This is a no-no for a journalist. Oh, that
fundraiser happened to be in or around Abeline, where Burkett is
from. Burkett happens to be a local Democratic
Party officer and operative. Rajther's daughter
lives there, too. She is supposedly the one who
invited him.Rather said, at the time, that he didn't
know it was a fundraiser till he got there, but
he went ahead and spoke, anyway.

The forgeries were faxed from a Kinko's in or around Abeline.
I think that Rather knows Burkett from the
event he attended, I would bet he knew
him even before that.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing
> >> >> all
> >> >> his
> >> >> military records.
> >> >
> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
> >>
> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
subjective
> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
> >> Obviously
> >> differences of opinion can exist.
> >>
> >> > In the
> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
> >>
> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
> >
> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned up'
> > the way Bush's was?
> >
>
> And you know this because....................?
>
> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.
>
>
Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing Kerry.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
> they
> > > were
> > > > > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > > > > > from memory?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
> with
> > > > > > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
> from
> > > > > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are obvious problems with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
> > > >
> > > > Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it but
> > > > memorized it or took notes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
> > > have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
> > > he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
> > > he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the copy
> > > for this particular purposes. Your senses have
> > > left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
> > > your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
> > > I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
> > > straight while trying to win an election.
> >
> > My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
> > that you mentioned any of them.
> >
> > In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
> > you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your problem.
>
> you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of documents.
> By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.

It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.

You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
of humor, so, bye!

[Clyde Slick]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the
source
> >for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
> >attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
> >congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
that
> >any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no
other
> >body to take the lead on this.
>
> This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
> in his memoirs.
>
>

And your evidence?
What? You haven't "recreated" it yet?

[Clyde Slick]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:04:27 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Actually, arguing about this stuff obfuscates the greater issue of
> >Bush's National Guard service, which itself is a lesser issue than his
> >presidential record.
>
>
> Rove definitely pulled a beauty with this.
>

you really need a scapegoat, don't you?
You had one for 2000, now you are fishing for one for 2004.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
...
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
> > they
> > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
> > > > > > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
> > > > > > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
> > > > > > > > > > from memory?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an
interview
> > with
> > > > > > > > > Killian's secretary.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling
it
> > from
> > > > > > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are obvious problems with this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it
but
> > > > > memorized it or took notes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
> > > > have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
> > > > he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
> > > > he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the
copy
> > > > for this particular purposes. Your senses have
> > > > left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
> > > > your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
> > > > I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
> > > > straight while trying to win an election.
> > >
> > > My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
> > > that you mentioned any of them.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations.
If
> > > you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your
problem.
> >
> > you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of
documents.
> > By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.
>
> It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.
>
> You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
> of humor, so, bye!

I think this whole mess is quite funny.

[GregP]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:06:53 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>
>> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all his
>> military records.


Why he should answer to a goose-stepper like
you is beyond me. Then again, all of you
brown/black shirts/white hoods have a long
history of being arrogant, aren't you ?

[GregP]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:11:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS NOT
>his personal secretary.


She came across as much saner, logical, and with it than
the persona that you have displayed here over a number
of years.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:40 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>The bloggers are now calling for Congressional hearings to find the source
>>for the docs and determine if CBS is guilty of election altering fraud
>>attempts. At this point, since CBS is not forthcoming, I think
>>congressional hearings are in order. I have not heard anyone speculate
>>that
>>any sort of criminal investigation is underway, so I can think of no other
>>body to take the lead on this.
>
> This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
> in his memoirs.
>
What color is the sky in your world?

[Michael McKelvy]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > In article >,
>> > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > > In article >,
>> > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > In article >,
>> > > > > > > > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I think that because CBS knew who recreated the memos,
>> they
>> > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > comfortable shopping for consultants.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > What do you mean by 'recreated'? Do you have evidence
>> > > > > > > > > that these same memos once existed, and were lost
>> > > > > > > > > or destroyed, and that somebody tried to recreate them
>> > > > > > > > > from memory?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Speculation. Tune in to 60 Minutes tonight for an interview
>> with
>> > > > > > > > Killian's secretary.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Again, what do you mean by recreated?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > To speculate, it would be copying the original (or recalling it
>> from
>> > > > > > memory) and typing it into a word processor.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are obvious problems with this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If the source had the original, why recreate it?
>> > > >
>> > > > Speculating again: the source had it temporarily; didn't have it
>> > > > but
>> > > > memorized it or took notes.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If your speculation is about copying is correct, the source would
>> > > have had it and copied it in the Word era. IF he had the original,
>> > > he wou;dn't need to copy it, unless he knew, one,
>> > > he was going to lose it in the future, and two, he would need the
>> > > copy
>> > > for this particular purposes. Your senses have
>> > > left you and gone to Lala Land. That's what
>> > > your overwhelming Bush hatred has doen to you.
>> > > I lovvve it, cuase it love it when Dem Libs can't think
>> > > straight while trying to win an election.
>> >
>> > My senses? I said there were obvious problems with that scenario, not
>> > that you mentioned any of them.
>> >
>> > In the meantime, you're making stuff up about me and my motivations. If
>> > you find that easier than considering the evidence, that's your
>> > problem.
>>
>> you are the one that brought up the euphanism of "recreation" of
>> documents.
>> By any other name, a forgery stinks so much.
>
> It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.
>
It was a forgery because it was made up from whole cloth, the signatures are
forged and the documents were never seen by CBS.

> You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
> of humor, so, bye!

What's funny about using forgery to try and discredit the President?
What's funny about your blind hatred Of George W. Bush?

There's lots of YUCKS, but no humor.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
>> >> >> releasing
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> military records.
>> >> >
>> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
>> >>
>> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
> subjective
>> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
>> >> Obviously
>> >> differences of opinion can exist.
>> >>
>> >> > In the
>> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
>> >>
>> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed the
>> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
>> >
>> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> > up'
>> > the way Bush's was?
>> >
>>
>> And you know this because....................?
>>
>> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.
>>
>>
> Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing Kerry.
>
I may have missed your comment on the first Pres. Bush bitch slapping Rather
in an interview, did you see it? I really did LOL.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:06:53 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by releasing all
>>> his
>>> military records.
>
>
> Why he should answer to a goose-stepper like
> you is beyond me. Then again, all of you
> brown/black shirts/white hoods have a long
> history of being arrogant, aren't you ?

Ah yes the old call your antagonist a Nazi ploy.

You do know this means you've lost the argument, don't you?

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
> >> >> >> releasing
> >> >> >> all
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> military records.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
> >> >>
> >> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
> > subjective
> >> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
> >> >> Obviously
> >> >> differences of opinion can exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> > In the
> >> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed
the
> >> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
> >> >
> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
> >> > up'
> >> > the way Bush's was?
> >> >
> >>
> >> And you know this because....................?
> >>
> >> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.
> >>
> >>
> > Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing
Kerry.
> >
> I may have missed your comment on the first Pres. Bush bitch slapping
Rather
> in an interview, did you see it? I really did LOL.
>
>

I don't think I commented on that.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:11:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS
>>NOT
>>his personal secretary.
>
>
> She came across as much saner, logical, and with it than
> the persona that you have displayed here over a number
> of years.

She's 86 years old and said she never typed the memos. I never implied she
was anything but sane. But trying to claim she remembers that this is how
Killian really felt about Bush is hearsay and contradicted by his son and
widow.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "GregP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:11:25 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Still hearsay and the rambling of an old woman from 35 years ago who WAS
> >>NOT
> >>his personal secretary.
> >
> >
> > She came across as much saner, logical, and with it than
> > the persona that you have displayed here over a number
> > of years.
>
> She's 86 years old and said she never typed the memos. I never implied she
> was anything but sane. But trying to claim she remembers that this is how
> Killian really felt about Bush is hearsay and contradicted by his son and
> widow.
>

but its a good enough source to use to "recreate" (not forge)
documents you don't have.

[GeoSynch]

GregP wrote:

> This is a Karl Rove masterpiece: he'll be crowing about it
> in his memoirs.

As Zippy would be wont to say: "BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!!!"


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

MINe 109 wrote:

> It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.

Congratulations. Bubba couldn't have parsed it better himself.

> You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
> of humor, so, bye!

A sure sign a lib is at the end of his rope: he starts calling his verbal
opponent "mean-spirited" or "intolerant" or "a racist."


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> GregP wrote:

>> Why he should answer to a goose-stepper like
>> you is beyond me. Then again, all of you
>> brown/black shirts/white hoods have a long
>> history of being arrogant, aren't you ?

> Ah yes the old call your antagonist a Nazi ploy.

> You do know this means you've lost the argument, don't you?

Yeah, it was painfully obvious from that meltdown of a paragraph
scribed by this Kerry Klown.


GeoSynch

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:22:57 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>
>You sound like an apologist for the Islamofascists that killed over 3,000
>of our citizens in New York City.


You sound like you are a wannabe brown shirt who's been
brainwashed (probably took no more than a teaspoonful...)
into believing that all those US military boys and girls being
killed had something to do with 9/11.

[MINe 109]

In article t>,
"GeoSynch" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > It wasn't a 'forgery' until it was represented as an original.
>
> Congratulations. Bubba couldn't have parsed it better himself.
>
> > You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
> > of humor, so, bye!
>
> A sure sign a lib is at the end of his rope: he starts calling his verbal
> opponent "mean-spirited" or "intolerant" or "a racist."

But when a right-wing calls you a hater, angry and unstable, he's just
getting started.

[GeoSynch]

MINe whined:

>> > You seem kinda mean-spirited about all this and you've lost your sense
>> > of humor, so, bye!

>> A sure sign a lib is at the end of his rope: he starts calling his verbal
>> opponent "mean-spirited" or "intolerant" or "a racist."

> But when a right-wing calls you a hater, angry and unstable, he's just
> getting started.

The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the assertion.


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

GregP plunged:

>>You sound like an apologist for the Islamofascists that killed over 3,000
>>of our citizens in New York City.

> You sound like you are a wannabe brown shirt who's been
> brainwashed (probably took no more than a teaspoonful...)
> into believing that all those US military boys and girls being
> killed had something to do with 9/11.

And you're so far off the deep end, that you're beyond laughable.


GeoSynch

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:27:12 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>Ah yes the old call your antagonist a Nazi ploy.


You're giving yourself far too much credit.

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:25:02 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>
>The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the assertion.


The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives,
you're fascists.

[Clyde Slick]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:25:02 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the
assertion.
>
>
> The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives,
> you're fascists.

foaming at the mouth, noted.

[paul packer]

>We can turn this into a nature-vs.-nurture
>discussion if it'll help you dry out.

If I needed to dry out, such a discussion wouldn't help at all.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:25:02 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the
>>assertion.
>
>
> The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives,
> you're fascists.

Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <QX82d.92849$yh.34474@fed1read05>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article <VY62d.92735$yh.58499@fed1read05>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Kerry has the power to debunk it if it can be debunked by
>> >> >> >> releasing
>> >> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> his
>> >> >> >> military records.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He doesn't have to. Let the Swifts defend their charges.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Defend them from what? The only defense offered has been on
>> > subjective
>> >> >> assessments of battle conditions surrounding some of his medals.
>> >> >> Obviously
>> >> >> differences of opinion can exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In the
>> >> >> > meantime, you're making up requirements for Kerry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I'm holding him to the same standard set by Bush. Bush signed
> the
>> >> >> release form and made his military records public, Kerry has not.
>> >> >
>> >> > Shall we offer Kerry the same chance to first have his file 'cleaned
>> >> > up'
>> >> > the way Bush's was?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And you know this because....................?
>> >>
>> >> Blind hatred doesn't srve you well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Not only that, his hatred actually subverts his own goal, electing
> Kerry.
>> >
>> I may have missed your comment on the first Pres. Bush bitch slapping
> Rather
>> in an interview, did you see it? I really did LOL.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think I commented on that.
>
If you haven't read it you should.

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is a failure should pull their
>head out of their ass.


You're right. I will restate things, with the understanding of
your particular slant on things. Bush has done wonders
for big-time corporate America (actually, he doesn't really
care whether it's American or not, as long as it has a lot
of money and a lot of influence),

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:51 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.

There are a lot of non-Democrats who are not fascists
or extremist religious fundamentalists.

[Lionel]

GregP wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:51 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.
>
>
> There are a lot of non-Democrats who are not fascists
> or extremist religious fundamentalists.

Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
....They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
> courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> ...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(

Explain yourself.

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> GregP wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:51 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of non-Democrats who are not fascists
>> or extremist religious fundamentalists.
>
> Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
> courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> ...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(

Lionels a front... his real name is Abdul Mohammed Zarkawai

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

GregP snarled:

>>The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the assertion.

> The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives, you're fascists.

Another fine example of the end-product being excreted by our public education system.

Lots of self-esteem and politically correct buzzwords and phrases but, sadly, little else.


GeoSynch

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:57 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>GregP snarled:
>
>>>The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the assertion.
>
>> The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives, you're fascists.
>
>Another fine example of the end-product being excreted by our public education system.
>
>Lots of self-esteem and politically correct buzzwords and phrases but, sadly, little else.

Do you consider yourself superior to those educated in public schools?

--

Jacob Kramer

[GeoSynch]

Pudge the pillow-biter piffled:

> Careful how you talk ...

Yo, gimp boy, why don't you "Take the Last Train to Trotsville"?


GeoSynch

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:51 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.
>
> There are a lot of non-Democrats who are not fascists
> or extremist religious fundamentalists.
>
And there are a lot of Democrats who aren't stupid, you're just not one of
them.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:16:57 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> > wrote:
>
>>GregP snarled:
>>
>>>>The difference being the conservative has the proof to back up the
>>>>assertion.
>>
>>> The difference is that you guys aren't conservatives, you're fascists.
>>
>>Another fine example of the end-product being excreted by our public
>>education system.
>>
>>Lots of self-esteem and politically correct buzzwords and phrases but,
>>sadly, little else.
>
> Do you consider yourself superior to those educated in public schools?
>
> --
>
Compared to Greg who isn't.

[Michael McKelvy]

"GregP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is a failure should pull their
>>head out of their ass.
>
>
> You're right. I will restate things, with the understanding of
> your particular slant on things. Bush has done wonders
> for big-time corporate America (actually, he doesn't really
> care whether it's American or not, as long as it has a lot
> of money and a lot of influence),

Confirmation of you're stupidity noted.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>
>
> Explain yourself.

You are the one who has cited the *Zealots* as the paragon of courage,
idiot. So you should understand.

You are an old tired repressed pederast, Art Salckman, accept that as it
and perhaps you will deserve George's friendship. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
> >>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >
> >

Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
people to be killed for them.

[GregP]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:23:39 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>
>Prove your worth and name that tune, homey!
>
>GeoSynch

Gee, I'm touched: a fascist who's taken the time to learn
a bit of the vernacular of the untermensche.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>
>>>
>
> Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> people to be killed for them.

I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:

>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>>>the
>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>> people to be killed for them.
>
> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.

Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in over
50 years.

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

ScottW wrote:

> Lionel wrote:

>> Clyde Slick wrote:

>>> Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>> people to be killed for them.

>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.

> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would include actions but I can't
> recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.

Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is merely
trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip coffee
and eat brie on the Left Bank.


GeoSynch

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
the
> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> > people to be killed for them.
>
> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.

You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for them.
I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
accusuations.

[GregP]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:44:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>Lionels a front... his real name is Abdul Mohammed Zarkawai


And yours is Timothy McVeigh.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Slick wrote:


>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>the
>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>> > people to be killed for them.
>>
>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>
>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for them.
>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>accusuations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer and RAO
hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of common
decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>people to be killed for them.
>>
>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>
>
> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
> include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in over
> 50 years.

I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50 years.
If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
Hamburg...
This is the heroic actions of a country built on a genocide...

Oh I forgot that while USA was massacring the Viets a little man has
walked on the moon ! LOL !

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>people to be killed for them.
> >>
> >>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >
> >
> > Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
> > include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
over
> > 50 years.
>
> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50 years.
> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
> Hamburg...
> This is the heroic actions of a country built on a genocide...
>
> Oh I forgot that while USA was massacring the Viets a little man has
> walked on the moon ! LOL !

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>people to be killed for them.
> >>
> >>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >
> >
> > Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
> > include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
over
> > 50 years.
>
> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...

Dimwit, Salvatore Allende was a far left Socialist, a la
Noriega and Chavez. We didn't like him.

> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50 years.
> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
> Hamburg...
> This is the heroic actions of a country built on a genocide...
>
> Oh I forgot that while USA was massacring the Viets a little man has
> walked on the moon ! LOL !

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ScottW wrote:
>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>> >>>>>>haven't the
>> >>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>> >>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>> >>>people to be killed for them.
>> >>
>> >>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>> >
>> >
>> > Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>> > would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
>> > France in
> over
>> > 50 years.
>>
>> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>
> Dimwit, Salvatore Allende was a far left Socialist, a la
> Noriega and Chavez. We didn't like him.


Hitler didn't like Jewishs, do you think that this is an excuse for
everything he has done ? :-(



>> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>> years. If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
>> Dresden, Hamburg...
>> This is the heroic actions of a country built on a genocide...
>>
>> Oh I forgot that while USA was massacring the Viets a little man has
>> walked on the moon ! LOL !

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Mr. Slick wrote:
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>the
>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>
>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>them.
>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>accusuations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
> and RAO
> hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
> inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of common
> decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.

LOL !
Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> Mr. Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >
>>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>> >>>>haven't
>>>the
>>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>them.
>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>accusuations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>> and RAO
>> hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>> inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>> common
>> decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>
> LOL !
> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)

Lionell appears too embarrassed to address his own statements. Such is
the plight of our demented Frenchboy.

ScottW

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott W wrote:


>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>> >>>>haven't
>>>>the
>>>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>them.
>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>>accusuations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>>> and RAO
>>> hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>> inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>> common
>>> decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>
>> LOL !
>> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>
> Lionell appears too embarrassed to address his own statements. Such is
>the plight of our demented Frenchboy.
>
>ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very true. He's a coward who after uttering antisemetic and anti-Catholic
absurdities, is afraid to either take responsibility for or explain his idiotic
and demonstrably false statements. He also demonstrates his stupidity and
delusional belief system by hysterically and falsely stating that a person he
has never met is either senile or incontinent. If I were senile, I'd hardly be
able to make mincemeat out o this French cretin and hatemonger. As for
incontinence, I have no doubt that after having almost everybody on RAO **** on
him verbally because of his delusional stupidity and demonstration of subhuman
values, he thinks that everybody is incontinent. In reality, he's been
swimming in his own bowl of ideological feces for a long time.

And now he's drowning. LOL !



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
> the
>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>> > people to be killed for them.
>>
>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>
> You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
> them.
> I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
> and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
> misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
> But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
> explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
> accusuations.

You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
metamorphosis last night ?

My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
understand what I mean.

I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims extremists
which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>
>>
>> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
>> include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>> over 50 years.
>
> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.

All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.

> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50 years.

I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement in
Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the consequences of
our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for yours.

A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm

Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.

> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
> Hamburg...

I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
> >> >>>>>>haven't the
> >> >>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >> >>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >> >>>people to be killed for them.
> >> >>
> >> >>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
> >> > would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
> >> > France in
> > over
> >> > 50 years.
> >>
> >> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
> >> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
> >> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
> >
> > Dimwit, Salvatore Allende was a far left Socialist, a la
> > Noriega and Chavez. We didn't like him.
>
>
> Hitler didn't like Jewishs, do you think that this is an excuse for
> everything he has done ? :-(
>

Look, Moron, you offered up Noriega as an example of a
US sponsored South American despot. I pointed out that you didn't
have a clue as what you are babbling about, as we
actually opposed him. This has nothing to do
with your incessant anti Semitic drivel.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
> > Mr. Slick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >>> > ...
> >>> >
> >>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
haven't
> >>the
> >>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>> > people to be killed for them.
> >>>
> >>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >>
> >>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
> >>them.
> >>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
> >>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
> >>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
> >>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
> >>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
> >>accusuations.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
> > and RAO
> > hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
> > inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
common
> > decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>
> LOL !
> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)

Like the true weasel you are, you still duck the specific question

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
haven't
> > the
> >> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >> > people to be killed for them.
> >>
> >> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >
> > You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
> > them.
> > I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
> > and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
> > misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
> > But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
> > explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
> > accusuations.
>
> You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
> metamorphosis last night ?
>
> My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
> centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
> Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
> understand what I mean.
>

Here is your chance. State your historic facts concerning
Jews and Catholics paying poor people to
kill for them.


> I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
> For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
extremists
> which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.

Yes, hard line Muslim extremists kidnapping and beheading civilians,
shooting children in the back, causing inhuman terror by taking
women and children lhostages in a school.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Clyde Slick wrote:


>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>> > Mr. Slick wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> >>> > ...
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>haven't
>> >>the
>> >>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>> >>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>> >>> > people to be killed for them.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>> >>
>> >>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>> >>them.
>> >>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>> >>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>> >>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>> >>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>> >>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>> >>accusuations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>> > and RAO
>> > hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>> > inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>common
>> > decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>
>> LOL !
>> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>
>Like the true weasel you are, you still duck the specific question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Since he has no evidence to support any of his imbecilic statements, he's
reduced to delusional screaming on RAO. With every new scream from this
cretin, he simply demonstrates why his credibility is zero.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
>>> include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>> over 50 years.
>>
>> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>
> All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.

*You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s ?
Cuba ? :-)
Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
underhandedness actions during this period.

>
>> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>> years.
>
> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement in
> Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
> stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the consequences
> of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
> yours.
>
> A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
> http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm

LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
find on North Corean Websites.
You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
reamain ignorant. ;-)

>
> Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.

My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
flag of the colonialism here. USA have helped the French army as long
French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
of the US Air Force.
Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
was negotiating with them in Geneve.

No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the minimum
research to satisfy your curiosity.

>> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>> Hamburg...
>
> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.

The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> > ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>> >>>>haven't
>>>>the
>>>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>them.
>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>>accusuations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>>> and RAO
>>> hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>> inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>> common
>>> decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>
>> LOL !
>> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>
> Lionell appears too embarrassed to address his own statements. Such is
> the plight of our demented Frenchboy.

Scott has long that the opposition will be handle by guys like you or Art
Sackman, I will not be embarrassed of anything.

When do you start your own diet ? Are you waiting the "GO!" from G.W. Bush ?
Are you waiting for governmental subvention ?
Sincerely Scott I have been astonished that by the way you have recognized
the institionalized "overweight" of your country.
If Bruce J Richman wasn't a hypocrit liar, to be short if he was a competent
psychologist, he would tell you the plausible psychologic explanations of
this excess of fat for a human being... If you transpose these explanations
to a national dimension, you would understand that I am very worry for your
country. :-)

Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so courageous
that he is speaking of me via third party only...
When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients" via
his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>
>>> > Mr. Slick wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> >>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> >>> > ...
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>haven't
>>> >>the
>>> >>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>> >>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>> >>> > people to be killed for them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish
>>> >>> extremist.
>>> >>
>>> >>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>> >>them.
>>> >>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>> >>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>> >>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>> >>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>> >>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for
>>> >>your accusuations.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas
>>> > sympathizer and RAO
>>> > hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>> > inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>common
>>> > decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>>
>>> LOL !
>>> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>>> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>>> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>>
>>Like the true weasel you are, you still duck the specific question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Since he has no evidence to support any of his imbecilic statements, he's
> reduced to delusional screaming on RAO. With every new scream from this
> cretin, he simply demonstrates why his credibility is zero.

LOL, despite all his promises and anathemas, the dear Doctor is still taking
care of my little person...
....I am honored. :-)

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>> the
>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>
>> You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>> them.
>> I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>> and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>> misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>> But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>> explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>> accusuations.
>
> You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
> metamorphosis last night ?
>
> My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
> centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.

So you admit this problem is not exclusively a Jewish or Catholic one. You
used a strawmen to advance your bigotry.

Who did the french use to fight their war in SE asia in the '50s?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>> would
>>>> include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>> over 50 years.
>>>
>>> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>
>> All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.
>
> *You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
> Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s ?
> Cuba ? :-)
> Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
> underhandedness actions during this period.

How about the largest one... Brazil?
>
>>
>>> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>>> years.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement
>> in
>> Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
>> stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the consequences
>> of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
>> yours.
>>
>> A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
>> http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
>
> LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
> The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
> find on North Corean Websites.
> You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
> reamain ignorant. ;-)
>
>>
>> Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.
>
> My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
> flag of the colonialism here.

You're still whining about the crusades yet you want absolution from your
own country's history of just 50 years past? The hypocrisy is stunning.

>USA have helped the French army as long
> French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
> that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
> of the US Air Force.

It would have been inhumane to save the french with indiscriminate bombing.
Remember Dresden? Come now... surely a few french soldiers aren't worth the
collatoral damage.

> Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
> was negotiating with them in Geneve.
>
> No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the
> minimum
> research to satisfy your curiosity.
>
>>> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>>> Hamburg...
>>
>> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.
>
> The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(

Sure... the Nazis took an entire winter killing the people of Stalingrad.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
.. If you like historic facts, note
> that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
> of the US Air Force.

Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
I will gladly oblige.

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>them.
>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>accusuations.
>>
>>You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
>>metamorphosis last night ?
>>
>>My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
>>centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
>
>
> So you admit this problem is not exclusively a Jewish or Catholic one. You
> used a strawmen to advance your bigotry.

I have *never* written that this is an exclusive problem of Jewish or
Catholic.
I wrote the following :

"Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
the courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
....They pay poor people to be killed for them."

Where do you understand in the above an notion of "exclusivity".
You are phantasming our discussion, Scott.
You are using a strawman, Scott a real stupid strawman. LOL !

Strawman :
# noun: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

>
> Who did the french use to fight their war in SE asia in the '50s?

The poor natives, like in Algeria 10 years after, moreover most of the
survivors have been abandoned after the wars.

>
> ScottW
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so courageous
> that he is speaking of me via third party only...
> When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients"
via
> his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)

He has nothing to worry about, as far as talking to you.
Mental illness and ignorace
are not catching

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> . If you like historic facts, note
>
>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
>>of the US Air Force.
>
>
> Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
> I will gladly oblige.

You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
do that for you. :-(

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so courageous
>>that he is speaking of me via third party only...
>>When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients"
>
> via
>
>>his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)
>
>
> He has nothing to worry about, as far as talking to you.
> Mental illness and ignorace
> are not catching

Are you speaking of "ignorance" ? ;-)

[Lionel]

GeoSynch wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>>Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>people to be killed for them.
>
>
>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>
>
>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would include actions but I can't
>>recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.
>
>
> Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is merely
> trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip coffee
> and eat brie on the Left Bank.

Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
neighbourhood.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > . If you like historic facts, note
> >
> >>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
bombing
> >>of the US Air Force.
> >
> >
> > Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
> > I will gladly oblige.
>
> You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
> do that for you. :-(

I can make some money selling the privilege.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so
courageous
> >>that he is speaking of me via third party only...
> >>When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients"
> >
> > via
> >
> >>his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)
> >
> >
> > He has nothing to worry about, as far as talking to you.
> > Mental illness and ignorace
> > are not catching
>
> Are you speaking of "ignorance" ? ;-)

Well, I was talking about you.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> GeoSynch wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lionel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>>people to be killed for them.
> >
> >
> >>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >
> >
> >>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
include actions but I can't
> >>recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.
> >
> >
> > Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
merely
> > trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
coffee
> > and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>
> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
> you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
> neighbourhood.

The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
a fruitful exchange.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>. If you like historic facts, note
>>>
>>>
>>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
>
> bombing
>
>>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>
>>>
>>>Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
>>>I will gladly oblige.
>>
>>You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
>>do that for you. :-(
>
>
> I can make some money selling the privilege.

Venal and coward you are a real caricature. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > Look, Moron, you offered up Noriega as an example of a
> > US sponsored South American despot. I pointed out that you didn't
> > have a clue as what you are babbling about, as we
> > actually opposed him.
>
> You mean we kidnapped him and forced a regime change because we weren't
> getting our money's worth, but only after 7 years of a relationship
> based on mutually beneficial dirty deeds. Luckily for us, there was no
> equivalent to al Qaeda in Central America. Noriega would probably have
> been killed in a coup anyway. He wasn't as vicious as Saddam and he
> didn't have two psychopathic sons to do even more dirty work for him.
>

I'm sorry, I meant Allende, not El Pineapple

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
>
> include actions but I can't
>
>>>>recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>
> merely
>
>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>
> coffee
>
>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>
>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
>>you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>neighbourhood.
>
>
> The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
> take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
> back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
> a fruitful exchange.

Don't try to pollute me and my neighborhood with your pathologic fear,
consult a good psychologist.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> GregP wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:51 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, everybody not drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid is a fascist.
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of non-Democrats who are not fascists
>> or extremist religious fundamentalists.
>
> Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
> courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> ...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(

Isn't France a Catholic country?

Is there some specific evidence that you can provide that shows what you are
alleging has any truth to it and isn't just your normal anti-Semitic,
anti-religious bull****?

I won't hold my breath.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> GeoSynch wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>
>>
>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>
>>
>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
>>>include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>over 50 years.
>>
>>
>> Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>> merely
>> trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>> coffee
>> and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>
> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that you
> are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
> neighbourhood.

It's a bit tricky to do that with someone who is about to blow himself and
you into the next world with a suicide bomb.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>haven't the
>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
>>>>>France in
>>>
>>>over
>>>
>>>>>50 years.
>>>>
>>>>I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>>>dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>>>I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>>
>>>Dimwit, Salvatore Allende was a far left Socialist, a la
>>>Noriega and Chavez. We didn't like him.
>>
>>
>>Hitler didn't like Jewishs, do you think that this is an excuse for
>>everything he has done ? :-(
>>
>
>
> Look, Moron, you offered up Noriega as an example of a
> US sponsored South American despot. I pointed out that you didn't
> have a clue as what you are babbling about, as we
> actually opposed him. This has nothing to do
> with your incessant anti Semitic drivel.

I am not more anti-semitic than you are anti-French. ;-)

You are a moron *you* spoke of Noriega. I never spoke about Noriega.
Noriega was a ****ing despote, an international drug dealer and he has
nothing to do with a democrat predident like Salvatore Allende that USA
has assassinated.

You seem a little bit confuse Art Sackman.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>> would
>>>> include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>> over 50 years.
>>>
>>> I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>> dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>
>> All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.
>
> *You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
> Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s ?
> Cuba ? :-)
> Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
> underhandedness actions during this period.
>
>>
>>> I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>> With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>>> years.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement
>> in
>> Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
>> stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the consequences
>> of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
>> yours.
>>
>> A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
>> http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
>
> LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
> The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
> find on North Corean Websites.
> You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
> reamain ignorant. ;-)
>
>>
>> Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.
>
> My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
> flag of the colonialism here. USA have helped the French army as long
> French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
> that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
> of the US Air Force.
> Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
> was negotiating with them in Geneve.
>
> No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the
> minimum
> research to satisfy your curiosity.
>
>>> If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>>> Hamburg...
>>
>> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.
>
> The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(
>

And of course they would never have dreamed of using nukes if they had them.

You are aware that the Nazi's were trying to develop nukes to use against
the rest of the world. Naturally France would have been spared, since it
was essentially a German ally.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I would
>>>>include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>>over 50 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>>>merely
>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>>>coffee
>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>
>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that you
>>are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>neighbourhood.
>
>
> It's a bit tricky to do that with someone who is about to blow himself and
> you into the next world with a suicide bomb.

One more paranoid. Are you living in the same bunker than Art Sackman ?

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>would
>>>>>include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>>>over 50 years.
>>>>
>>>>I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>>>dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>>
>>> All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.
>>
>>*You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
>>Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s ?
>>Cuba ? :-)
>>Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
>>underhandedness actions during this period.
>>
>>
>>>>I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>>>With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>>>>years.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement
>>>in
>>>Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
>>>stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the consequences
>>>of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
>>>yours.
>>>
>>>A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
>>>http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
>>
>>LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
>>The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
>>find on North Corean Websites.
>>You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
>>reamain ignorant. ;-)
>>
>>
>>>Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.
>>
>>My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
>>flag of the colonialism here. USA have helped the French army as long
>>French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
>>of the US Air Force.
>>Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
>>was negotiating with them in Geneve.
>>
>>No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the
>>minimum
>>research to satisfy your curiosity.
>>
>>
>>>>If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>>>>Hamburg...
>>>
>>> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.
>>
>>The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(
>>
>
>
> And of course they would never have dreamed of using nukes if they had them.
>
> You are aware that the Nazi's were trying to develop nukes to use against
> the rest of the world.

Yes you are right. This is exactly what USA done.

> Naturally France would have been spared, since it
> was essentially a German ally.

This would have been the only one advantage to be occuped.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> Mr. Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >
>>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>> >>>>haven't
>>>the
>>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>them.
>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>accusuations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>> and RAO
>> hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>> inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>> common
>> decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>
> LOL !
> Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
> Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
> pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)

Are you trying to win a contest to prove you're more hysterical?

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>them.
>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>>accusuations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>>>and RAO
>>>hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>>inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>>common
>>>decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>
>>LOL !
>>Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>>Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>>pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>
>
> Are you trying to win a contest to prove you're more hysterical?

Are you trying to win a contest to prove that you're more liar ?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>> the
>>> >>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>> >>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> > Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>> > people to be killed for them.
>>>
>>> I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>
>> You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>> them.
>> I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>> and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>> misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>> But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>> explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>> accusuations.
>
> You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
> metamorphosis last night ?
>
> My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
> centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
> Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
> understand what I mean.
>
> I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
> For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
> extremists
> which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.

You don't have to be an extremist or Jewish to hate the mindless,
hate-filled drivel you spew. You're blinded by your own hatred of your
betters and by the fact that your ****ant little country is no longer
relevant on the world stage.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>
>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>them.
>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>accusuations.
>>
>>You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
>>metamorphosis last night ?
>>
>>My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
>>centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
>>Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
>>understand what I mean.
>>
>>I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
>>For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
>>extremists
>>which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.
>
>
> You don't have to be an extremist or Jewish to hate the mindless,
> hate-filled drivel you spew. You're blinded by your own hatred of your
> betters

If you represent the "betters" Michael I don't feel any hatred, just
pity. :-)

> and by the fact that your ****ant little country is no longer
> relevant on the world stage.

Forget my ****ant little country and focus on your country problems, you
have a lot of work.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> > I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
> > brass the necessary belly aches.
>
> American propaganda.
> This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html

[GeoSynch]

Lionel wrote:

>> Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is merely
>> trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip coffee
>> and eat brie on the Left Bank.

> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that you are also doing : to have
> fruitful exchange with human being and my neighbourhood.

Here's what you have to look forward to:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504


GeoSynch

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>> So you admit this problem is not exclusively a Jewish or Catholic one.
>> You used a strawmen to advance your bigotry.
>
> I have *never* written that this is an exclusive problem of Jewish or
> Catholic.
> I wrote the following :
>
> "Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they haven't the
> courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> ...They pay poor people to be killed for them."
>
> Where do you understand in the above an notion of "exclusivity".
> You are phantasming our discussion, Scott.
> You are using a strawman, Scott a real stupid strawman. LOL !
>
> Strawman :
> # noun: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
>
>>
>> Who did the french use to fight their war in SE asia in the '50s?
>
> The poor natives, like in Algeria 10 years after, moreover most of the
> survivors have been abandoned after the wars.

I see. So you could just as easily said, "Yes a lot of french "zealots".
But since the french haven't
the courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
....They pay poor people to be killed for them."

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>> > I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>> > brass the necessary belly aches.
>>
>> American propaganda.
>> This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html

You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal wrote:

> >
> > While there were many innocent people killed in those attacks, our
> > world would most certainly looka little different today if they had
> > not taken place.
> > We probably would pay for our bread in Reichsmarks............if not
> > in blood.
>
> American propaganda.
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration of force from USA in order
> to stop the communism expension.
>

Too bad it didn't work. We would have saved
even more lives if Communist expansion was halted
in 1945.

So, its a GOOD thing, see?

>
> The guys in Muslims country are sayingthat terrorist actions are the
> only way to stop Occidental economical imperialism.
> Objectively do you see any differences between your above statement and
> their discourse ?
>

And if I said that the only way to keep you from spewing
this hate filled nonsense would be to dip you in
a vat of boiling oil, would that justify actually doing it?


> >
> > The attack on the WTC wasn't an action of war, it was just a low stab
> > in the back of the US and the entire Western world. As was Madrid.
>
> The guy who has attacked the WTC weren't agree with you. For them it was
> an action of war.
>

Well, let them conduct it in some basic accordance with the rules of war.


>
> > Is Paris next? Or Amsterdam?
>
> Who's next Iran, Pakistan, North Corea ?
>

Maybe Chick Corea is next.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:13:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> GeoSynch wrote:

>> > Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>merely
>> > trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>coffee
>> > and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>
>> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
>> you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>> neighbourhood.
>
>The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
>take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
>back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
>a fruitful exchange.

You mean because they are Muslims?

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>. If you like historic facts, note
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
> >
> > bombing
> >
> >>>>of the US Air Force.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
> >>>I will gladly oblige.
> >>
> >>You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
> >>do that for you. :-(
> >
> >
> > I can make some money selling the privilege.
>
> Venal and coward you are a real caricature. :-)

I'm venal when the situation calls for it.
Otherwise, I'm a very nice guy.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>GeoSynch wrote:
> >>
> >>>ScottW wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Lionel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>>>>people to be killed for them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
would
> >
> > include actions but I can't
> >
> >>>>recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
> >
> > merely
> >
> >>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
> >
> > coffee
> >
> >>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
> >>
> >>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
> >>you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
> >>neighbourhood.
> >
> >
> > The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
> > take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
> > back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
> > a fruitful exchange.
>
> Don't try to pollute me and my neighborhood with your pathologic fear,
> consult a good psychologist.

I couldn't make your neighborhood any worse than it
already is.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>ScottW wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
> >>>>>>>>>>haven't the
> >>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish
extremist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
> >>>>>would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
> >>>>>France in
> >>>
> >>>over
> >>>
> >>>>>50 years.
> >>>>
> >>>>I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
> >>>>dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
> >>>>I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
> >>>
> >>>Dimwit, Salvatore Allende was a far left Socialist, a la
> >>>Noriega and Chavez. We didn't like him.
> >>
> >>
> >>Hitler didn't like Jewishs, do you think that this is an excuse for
> >>everything he has done ? :-(
> >>
> >
> >
> > Look, Moron, you offered up Noriega as an example of a
> > US sponsored South American despot. I pointed out that you didn't
> > have a clue as what you are babbling about, as we
> > actually opposed him. This has nothing to do
> > with your incessant anti Semitic drivel.
>
> I am not more anti-semitic than you are anti-French. ;-)
>
> You are a moron *you* spoke of Noriega. I never spoke about Noriega.
> Noriega was a ****ing despote, an international drug dealer and he has
> nothing to do with a democrat predident like Salvatore Allende that USA
> has assassinated.
>
> You seem a little bit confuse Art Sackman.

Sorry, I was eating pineapple, and it made me think of Noriega.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:15:02 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>There are no innocents when nations are at war.

Children?

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:30:51 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>As bad as Abu Graib was, and it certainly was uncalled for by
>its involuntary vicitms, it wasn't much worse than a college
>fraternity pledge and hazing.

To my knowledge none of official investigations of the torture have
made any such claim. Those events which occurred in Abu Ghraib--both
pictured and not pictured--and elsewhere were held to be serious
illegal activities that ran deeply afoul of U.S. military traditions.

[Clyde Slick]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Lionel wrote:
>
> >> Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
merely
> >> trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
coffee
> >> and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>
> > Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
you are also doing : to have
> > fruitful exchange with human being and my neighbourhood.
>
> Here's what you have to look forward to:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504
>
>

And Kerry says we should be consutling with the European community
when formulating our policies on the war on terror.
Western Europe is fast becoming our enemy in the New War.

[MINe 109]

In article <enp3d.102196$yh.38395@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Lionel > wrote:
> >
> >> > I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
> >> > brass the necessary belly aches.
> >>
> >> American propaganda.
> >> This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
> >
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>
> You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?

He'd just change the subject...

[ScottW]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:15:02 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>There are no innocents when nations are at war.
>
> Children?

Ya got me. Unfortunately they tend to live with parents who spend their
days in the factories producing war machines. I don't condone targeting
purely civilian population centers but Dresden was not one.

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>> Here's what you have to look forward to:
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504

> And Kerry says we should be consutling with the European community
> when formulating our policies on the war on terror.
> Western Europe is fast becoming our enemy in the New War.

European collectivist thought on the matter:
"Perhaps appeasement will work this time, or we can always cry
'Uncle' (Sam, that is)."

France may even bring the guillotine out of mothballs, though for
altogether different purposes, namely, Sharia law.


GeoSynch

[Clyde Slick]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:13:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> GeoSynch wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
> >merely
> >> > trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to
sip
> >coffee
> >> > and eat brie on the Left Bank.
> >>
> >> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
> >> you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
> >> neighbourhood.
> >
> >The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
> >take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
> >back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
> >a fruitful exchange.
>
> You mean because they are Muslims?

Try to rise above being a dunderhead, Jacob. I am talking
about neighborhood in the figurative sense, such as those
being his fellow travellers and the Islamists for which he is so fond
of making excuses.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:30:51 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >As bad as Abu Graib was, and it certainly was uncalled for by
> >its involuntary vicitms, it wasn't much worse than a college
> >fraternity pledge and hazing.
>
> To my knowledge none of official investigations of the torture have
> made any such claim. Those events which occurred in Abu Ghraib--both
> pictured and not pictured--and elsewhere were held to be serious
> illegal activities that ran deeply afoul of U.S. military traditions.

I didn't say it was legal, and I didn't say it was right. I am countereing
lionel's inference of these events as a moral equivalency to the
terrorist acts of the Islamists.

[Clyde Slick]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >> Here's what you have to look forward to:
> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504
>
> > And Kerry says we should be consutling with the European community
> > when formulating our policies on the war on terror.
> > Western Europe is fast becoming our enemy in the New War.
>
> European collectivist thought on the matter:
> "Perhaps appeasement will work this time, or we can always cry
> 'Uncle' (Sam, that is)."
>
> France may even bring the guillotine out of mothballs, though for
> altogether different purposes, namely, Sharia law.
>

Not exactly the Halal way of doing it.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:05:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:13:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> GeoSynch wrote:
>>
>> >> > Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>> >merely
>> >> > trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to
>sip
>> >coffee
>> >> > and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>> >>
>> >> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
>> >> you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>> >> neighbourhood.
>> >
>> >The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
>> >take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
>> >back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
>> >a fruitful exchange.
>>
>> You mean because they are Muslims?
>
>Try to rise above being a dunderhead, Jacob. I am talking
>about neighborhood in the figurative sense, such as those
>being his fellow travellers and the Islamists for which he is so fond
>of making excuses.

I would ask you to try to rise above name-calling and bullying, but I
don't think you can.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > I didn't say it was legal, and I didn't say it was right. I am
countereing
> > lionel's inference of these events as a moral equivalency to the
> > terrorist acts of the Islamists.
>
> But you did compare wanton murder and torture to fraternity hazing. Are
> you sure arguing with Sluttella hasn't driven you around the bend?
>

I didn't hear that anyone was murdered, much less injured at Abu Graib,
if that is waht you are referring to.
I did see pictures of prisoners paraded around baked on leashes, and
I heard that there was some infliction of beatings with sticks. I have also
heard of such tihings at fraternity hazings, not that is is legal, the right
thing to do; and certainly those actions were a brutality. But there isn't
a shred of moral equivalency with the acts of the Islamist terorists. It was
Lionel that was making the insinuation of moral equivalency.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:05:33 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:13:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> GeoSynch wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel
is
> >> >merely
> >> >> > trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to
> >sip
> >> >coffee
> >> >> > and eat brie on the Left Bank.
> >> >>
> >> >> Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope
that
> >> >> you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and
my
> >> >> neighbourhood.
> >> >
> >> >The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
> >> >take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in
the
> >> >back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
> >> >a fruitful exchange.
> >>
> >> You mean because they are Muslims?
> >
> >Try to rise above being a dunderhead, Jacob. I am talking
> >about neighborhood in the figurative sense, such as those
> >being his fellow travellers and the Islamists for which he is so fond
> >of making excuses.
>
> I would ask you to try to rise above name-calling and bullying, but I
> don't think you can.

You gets what you deserves. I have had much more
respectful disagreements with others who's intelligence
and logical thinking I respect. Of course there are those
more idiotic than you, and they get treated worse than
I treat you.

I have had conversations with you before, and I
have found you to be quite thickheaded. My response was
based upon the totality of your persona. A positive
change in your persona would be welcome, but it is not
expected.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> I didn't hear that anyone was murdered, much less injured at Abu Graib,
> if that is waht you are referring to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2755-2004Jun24.html

[Bruce J. Richman]

Clyde Slick wrote:


>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so courageous
>> that he is speaking of me via third party only...
>> When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients"
>via
>> his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)
>
>He has nothing to worry about, as far as talking to you.
> Mental illness and ignorace
>are not catching
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The imbecilic cretin, Lionel, continues to make factual errors as he lies
delusionally about me. Why talk to such a fool? His babblling simply reveals
his ignorance. He's a fool.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

ScottW wrote:


>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Lionel > wrote:
>>
>>> > I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>> > brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>
>>> American propaganda.
>>> This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>
>You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>
>ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lionel wouldn't know the truth if it was shoved in his idiotic face. He's
demonstrated this many times on RAO. He exhibits symptoms of serious thought
disorder including delusional beliefs, paranoid ideation re. Jews and
Catholics, pathological, chronic confabulation about people and events about
which he has no factual knowledge, etc.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>
>>American propaganda.
>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html

Ok Stephen just an excerpt of the text you quote :

"Taylor himself finally determined that between 25,000 and 35,000 lives
were lost in the raids, not the hundreds of thousands claimed by
neo-Nazi and leftist sources."

Have you seen how the author is equaling the claim of the "leftists"
with the claim of the neo-Nazis in a perfid comparison.

This is the way that I am decrypting this kind of music...
I guess that your intention was to make me shut up, so in this case just
"say shut up".
IE you are not obliged to quote documents which in the end make you
abjure your own convictions and values.
Do you understand what I mean ?

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>
>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Lionel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>>
>>>>American propaganda.
>>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>>
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>>
>>You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>>
>>ScottW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Lionel wouldn't know the truth if it was shoved in his idiotic face. He's
> demonstrated this many times on RAO. He exhibits symptoms of serious thought
> disorder including delusional beliefs, paranoid ideation re. Jews and
> Catholics, pathological, chronic confabulation about people and events about
> which he has no factual knowledge, etc.

Wrong way Doc. I am baptized my wife and my 3 children are also baptized.
I just not believe in the holiness of the churchmen...

Just give me a fax number and I will send you copies of our christening
books.

>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Note that Bruce J. Richman, this pompous hysteric oldster is so courageous
>>>that he is speaking of me via third party only...
>>>When he was working, a long time ago, he was dealing with his "patients"
>>
>>via
>>
>>>his secretary in order to avoid any "contamination". ;-)
>>
>>He has nothing to worry about, as far as talking to you.
>>Mental illness and ignorace
>>are not catching
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The imbecilic cretin, Lionel, continues to make factual errors as he lies
> delusionally about me. Why talk to such a fool? His babblling simply reveals
> his ignorance. He's a fool.
>

Bruce you are still taking care of me. You are really incontinent. :-)

>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist
>
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>>
>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
>>>>>France in over 50 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>>>>merely
>>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>>>>coffee
>>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>>
>>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that you
>>>are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>>neighbourhood.
>>
>>
>> It's a bit tricky to do that with someone who is about to blow himself
>> and you into the next world with a suicide bomb.
>
> One more paranoid. Are you living in the same bunker than Art Sackman ?

It's not paranoia, it's been done. Not here, and I'm not worried about it
happening here, but it's an example of the state of mind of the people you
want to dialog with.

Naturally, I don't believe all Muslims are this crazy, but enough of them
are.

[Michael McKelvy]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:enp3d.102196$yh.38395@fed1read05...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Lionel > wrote:
>>
>>> > I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>> > brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>
>>> American propaganda.
>>> This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>
> You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>
> ScottW
I don't think it even comes to visit his mind.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Lionel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>>>
>>>>>American propaganda.
>>>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>>>
>>>You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>>>
>>>ScottW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lionel wouldn't know the truth if it was shoved in his idiotic face.
>> He's
>> demonstrated this many times on RAO. He exhibits symptoms of serious
>> thought
>> disorder including delusional beliefs, paranoid ideation re. Jews and
>> Catholics, pathological, chronic confabulation about people and events
>> about
>> which he has no factual knowledge, etc.
>
> Wrong way Doc. I am baptized my wife and my 3 children are also baptized.
> I just not believe in the holiness of the churchmen...
>
> Just give me a fax number and I will send you copies of our christening
> books.
>
>>
>>
>>
Nobody gives a **** about your religious upbringing. You make allegations
without any substance to back them up, clearly showing that you are either
making it up or worse that actually believe the bull**** you spew.

Think about it, as whacked out as Geo is in his views, you are the flipside
of the same coin.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> MINe 109 wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Lionel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>
>>>American propaganda.
>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>
> Ok Stephen just an excerpt of the text you quote :
>
> "Taylor himself finally determined that between 25,000 and 35,000 lives
> were lost in the raids, not the hundreds of thousands claimed by neo-Nazi
> and leftist sources."
>
> Have you seen how the author is equaling the claim of the "leftists" with
> the claim of the neo-Nazis in a perfid comparison.
>
Remember the bit about 2 sides of the same coin?

> This is the way that I am decrypting this kind of music...
> I guess that your intention was to make me shut up, so in this case just
> "say shut up".
> IE you are not obliged to quote documents which in the end make you abjure
> your own convictions and values.
> Do you understand what I mean ?

Nobody does.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:15:02 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>There are no innocents when nations are at war.
>
> Children?

In Viet Nam children would sometimes be the ones planting booby traps and
sometimes shooting at you with their AK47's. If you saw a 12 year old
coming at you with such a weapon, you would not consider him an innocent for
much longer than it took to pull the trigger. This is not to say that they
should be targeted, only that war is messy.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>. If you like historic facts, note
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
>>
>> bombing
>>
>>>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
>>>>I will gladly oblige.
>>>
>>>You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
>>>do that for you. :-(
>>
>>
>> I can make some money selling the privilege.
>
> Venal and coward you are a real caricature. :-)

More Irony?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>>>>over 50 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>>>>dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>>>
>>>> All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.
>>>
>>>*You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
>>>Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s
>>>?
>>>Cuba ? :-)
>>>Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
>>>underhandedness actions during this period.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>>>>With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>>>>>years.
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement
>>>> in
>>>>Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
>>>>stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the
>>>>consequences
>>>>of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
>>>>yours.
>>>>
>>>>A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
>>>>http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
>>>
>>>LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
>>>The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
>>>find on North Corean Websites.
>>>You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
>>>reamain ignorant. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.
>>>
>>>My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
>>>flag of the colonialism here. USA have helped the French army as long
>>>French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
>>>was negotiating with them in Geneve.
>>>
>>>No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the
>>>minimum
>>>research to satisfy your curiosity.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>>>>>Hamburg...
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.
>>>
>>>The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(
>>>


How long was it in the gas chambers, you moron?
>>


>> And of course they would never have dreamed of using nukes if they had
>> them.
>>
>> You are aware that the Nazi's were trying to develop nukes to use against
>> the rest of the world.
>
> Yes you are right. This is exactly what USA done.

Only because the Allies took out the Nazi facilities and we had better
scientists.

>> Naturally France would have been spared, since it was essentially a
>> German ally.
>
> This would have been the only one advantage to be occuped.

Then maybe they should have put up a fight.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>>them.
>>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for
>>>>>your
>>>>>accusuations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>>>>and RAO
>>>>hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>>>inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>>>common
>>>>decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>>
>>>LOL !
>>>Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>>>Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>>>pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>>
>>
>> Are you trying to win a contest to prove you're more hysterical?
>
> Are you trying to win a contest to prove that you're more liar ?

You've already won. It wasn't even close.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>
>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>them.
>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>>accusuations.
>>>
>>>You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
>>>metamorphosis last night ?
>>>
>>>My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
>>>centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
>>>Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
>>>understand what I mean.
>>>
>>>I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
>>>For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
>>>extremists
>>>which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to be an extremist or Jewish to hate the mindless,
>> hate-filled drivel you spew. You're blinded by your own hatred of your
>> betters
>
> If you represent the "betters" Michael I don't feel any hatred, just pity.
> :-)
>
>> and by the fact that your ****ant little country is no longer relevant on
>> the world stage.
>
> Forget my ****ant little country and focus on your country problems, you
> have a lot of work.

Not nearly as much as yours.

Does it still take a year to evict someone who hasn't paid their rent?

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>>would include actions but I can't recall any of significance from
>>>>>>France in over 50 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>>>>>merely
>>>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>>>>>coffee
>>>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>>>
>>>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that you
>>>>are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>>>neighbourhood.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a bit tricky to do that with someone who is about to blow himself
>>>and you into the next world with a suicide bomb.
>>
>>One more paranoid. Are you living in the same bunker than Art Sackman ?
>
>
> It's not paranoia, it's been done. Not here, and I'm not worried about it
> happening here, but it's an example of the state of mind of the people you
> want to dialog with.
>
> Naturally, I don't believe all Muslims are this crazy, but enough of them
> are.

My point of view is that they are not more dangerous than Americans,
Jewishs, French...
Compare to G.W. Bush most of them are angels. ;-)

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:enp3d.102196$yh.38395@fed1read05...
>
>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Lionel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>>
>>>>American propaganda.
>>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>>
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>>
>>You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>>
>>ScottW
>
> I don't think it even comes to visit his mind.

You speak like Bruce J. Richman. :-(

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Lionel > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>American propaganda.
>>>>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>>>>
>>>>You really think the truth will change Lionel twisted mind?
>>>>
>>>>ScottW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Lionel wouldn't know the truth if it was shoved in his idiotic face.
>>>He's
>>>demonstrated this many times on RAO. He exhibits symptoms of serious
>>>thought
>>>disorder including delusional beliefs, paranoid ideation re. Jews and
>>>Catholics, pathological, chronic confabulation about people and events
>>>about
>>>which he has no factual knowledge, etc.
>>
>>Wrong way Doc. I am baptized my wife and my 3 children are also baptized.
>>I just not believe in the holiness of the churchmen...
>>
>>Just give me a fax number and I will send you copies of our christening
>>books.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
> Nobody gives a **** about your religious upbringing.

Is your name "Nobody" ?

> You make allegations
> without any substance to back them up, clearly showing that you are either
> making it up or worse that actually believe the bull**** you spew.

I have substentiated my view with historic example it is not my fault if
too stupid to understand more of 50% of the mails I post.

> Think about it, as whacked out as Geo is in his views, you are the flipside
> of the same coin.

You are at the right of the right Michael, we have guys like you here in
France, they mostly belong to a party named "Front National".
This party is full of nostalgic veterans "Arabs killers" like you have
dreamed to be a Vietcong killer (with your famous typewriter).

I am very happy to disagree with you, it's an honour for me.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Lionel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
>>>>>brass the necessary belly aches.
>>>>
>>>>American propaganda.
>>>>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>>
>>Ok Stephen just an excerpt of the text you quote :
>>
>>"Taylor himself finally determined that between 25,000 and 35,000 lives
>>were lost in the raids, not the hundreds of thousands claimed by neo-Nazi
>>and leftist sources."
>>
>>Have you seen how the author is equaling the claim of the "leftists" with
>>the claim of the neo-Nazis in a perfid comparison.
>>
>
> Remember the bit about 2 sides of the same coin?

As you are living in a "mono-dimensional" world you don't know where is
located the second side of the coin. Poor Michael.

>>This is the way that I am decrypting this kind of music...
>>I guess that your intention was to make me shut up, so in this case just
>>"say shut up".
>>IE you are not obliged to quote documents which in the end make you abjure
>>your own convictions and values.
>>Do you understand what I mean ?
>
>
> Nobody does.

So stop to comment what you don't understand, idiot. ;-)

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:15:02 -0700, "ScottW" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are no innocents when nations are at war.
>>
>>Children?
>
>
> In Viet Nam children would sometimes be the ones planting booby traps and
> sometimes shooting at you with their AK47's. If you saw a 12 year old
> coming at you with such a weapon, you would not consider him an innocent for
> much longer than it took to pull the trigger. This is not to say that they
> should be targeted, only that war is messy.

Perhaps this 12 years old "soldiers" have written poem like :
"Vietnam I know you"
Do you remember Michael, you was so proud of your son, perhaps the
Vietcongs have teached to their children the same nationalistic values
that you have teached to your son.
They have changed their sons in brainless war machines like you are
doing with your.

"Vietnam, I know you, You are no stranger to me.
You are the majestic pools that are so refreshing.
You are the mountains that tower so high.
You are the giant states that stand so strong.
You are the extreme power that no other county has.
You are the bald eagles that let our freedom soar.
You are the education I need to thrive.
You are my gifted mind.
You are my cheerful sister.
You are my lucky baseball hat.
You are my speedy skatebiard.
You are my great knowledge"

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>. If you like historic facts, note
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
>>>
>>>bombing
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
>>>>>I will gladly oblige.
>>>>
>>>>You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
>>>>do that for you. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>I can make some money selling the privilege.
>>
>>Venal and coward you are a real caricature. :-)
>
>
> More Irony?

I never joke with you Michael, you are too stupid for that.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>include actions but I can't recall any of significance from France in
>>>>>>>over 50 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I perfectly recall that USA have maintained South-America in horrible
>>>>>>dictature during the 70' and early 80'.
>>>>>
>>>>>All of South America? do tell... You remain incredibly ignorant.
>>>>
>>>>*You* are terribly ignorant, Scott and you have a short memory.
>>>>Which country of South America wasn't under the US' thumb during the 70s
>>>>?
>>>>Cuba ? :-)
>>>>Which of South American countries hasn't be the victim of CIA's
>>>>underhandedness actions during this period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I recall a name "Salvatore Allende"...
>>>>>>With Vietnam it the most famous actions from USA during the last 50
>>>>>>years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that you can cast dispersions on US involvement
>>>>>in
>>>>>Vietnam when your own country's colonial exploits gave rise to the whole
>>>>>stinking mess in the first place. We continue to debate the
>>>>>consequences
>>>>>of our actions while you seem to continue to ignore and blame others for
>>>>>yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>A little history lesson for the ignorant frenchboy.
>>>>>http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
>>>>
>>>>LOL, is the above your history handbook, Scott ?
>>>>The *quality* of the information provides is nearly the same that you can
>>>>find on North Corean Websites.
>>>>You are right, if you haven't anything better to provide, I prefer to
>>>>reamain ignorant. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Our biggest crime in SE asia was supporting the french.
>>>>
>>>>My "country" was a ****ing colonialist country. I don't want to carry the
>>>>flag of the colonialism here. USA have helped the French army as long
>>>>French army was fighting the communists. If you like historic facts, note
>>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised bombing
>>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>>Better than to bomb the vietcong according to its promise your government
>>>>was negotiating with them in Geneve.
>>>>
>>>>No, I will not provide any link. If you like history you will do the
>>>>minimum
>>>>research to satisfy your curiosity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If we go 10 years sooner we can recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,
>>>>>>Hamburg...
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose you found the German blitzkrieg much more humane.
>>>>
>>>>The Nazis take more than 2 seconds to burn 150,000 innocents. :-(
>>>>
>
>
>
> How long was it in the gas chambers, you moron?

You are answering my question, you idiot.
When the subject come to innocents' assassination, the only difference
between US army and Nazis is a difference of time.


>>>And of course they would never have dreamed of using nukes if they had
>>>them.
>>>
>>>You are aware that the Nazi's were trying to develop nukes to use against
>>>the rest of the world.
>>
>>Yes you are right. This is exactly what USA done.
>
>
> Only because the Allies took out the Nazi facilities and we had better
> scientists.
>
>
>>>Naturally France would have been spared, since it was essentially a
>>>German ally.
>>
>>This would have been the only one advantage to be occuped.
>
>
> Then maybe they should have put up a fight.

Eh Rambo, you have already avowed that the only weapon you have used in
Vietnam was your "typewriter".

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mr. Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>accusuations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right, Art. You *are* giving this antisemitic Hamas sympathizer
>>>>>and RAO
>>>>>hatemonger much too civility. Given his record of bigotry, idiotic
>>>>>inflammatory statements such as the ones above, and overall lack of
>>>>>common
>>>>>decency, he deserves nothing but scorn and avoidance.
>>>>
>>>>LOL !
>>>>Note that this comment is coming for the senile and incontinent Limited
>>>>Psychologist Bruce J. Richman. This guy is well known on RAO for his
>>>>pathologic hysteric suceptibility. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you trying to win a contest to prove you're more hysterical?
>>
>>Are you trying to win a contest to prove that you're more liar ?
>
>
> You've already won. It wasn't even close.

Sacré guerrier, va !

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
>>>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
>>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
>>>>>them.
>>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
>>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
>>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
>>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
>>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for your
>>>>>accusuations.
>>>>
>>>>You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
>>>>metamorphosis last night ?
>>>>
>>>>My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since many
>>>>centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
>>>>Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
>>>>understand what I mean.
>>>>
>>>>I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
>>>>For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
>>>>extremists
>>>>which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't have to be an extremist or Jewish to hate the mindless,
>>>hate-filled drivel you spew. You're blinded by your own hatred of your
>>>betters
>>
>>If you represent the "betters" Michael I don't feel any hatred, just pity.
>>:-)
>>
>>
>>>and by the fact that your ****ant little country is no longer relevant on
>>>the world stage.
>>
>>Forget my ****ant little country and focus on your country problems, you
>>have a lot of work.
>
>
> Not nearly as much as yours.

My country is not for you Michael, we don't adulate nostalgic assassins
here.

> Does it still take a year to evict someone who hasn't paid their rent?

It's very difficult to evict someone who hasn't paid his rent, and from
my point of you it's a very good thing.
This avoids a lot of abuse from the landlords at it's has been the case
in the past.

[Lionel]

GeoSynch wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>>>Here's what you have to look forward to:
>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504
>
>
>>And Kerry says we should be consutling with the European community
>>when formulating our policies on the war on terror.
>>Western Europe is fast becoming our enemy in the New War.
>
>
> European collectivist thought on the matter:
> "Perhaps appeasement will work this time, or we can always cry
> 'Uncle' (Sam, that is)."

Geo, in my point of view appeasement doesn't work, not more than
institutionalized lie.
Your governement have chosen instutionamized lie.
Concerning 'Uncle Sam' he is surely eating his funny hat considering
Bush's desaster.

> France may even bring the guillotine out of mothballs, though for
> altogether different purposes, namely, Sharia law.

I am a "pure" french (lol).
Do you think that I should request for a UNESCO classification in order
to not finish like the ultimate Mohicans ?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>GeoSynch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ScottW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
>>>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lionel is French. He has no accountability for his statements. I
>
> would
>
>>>include actions but I can't
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>recall any of significance from France in over 50 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>>>
>>>merely
>>>
>>>
>>>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>>>
>>>coffee
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>>>
>>>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
>>>>you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>>>neighbourhood.
>>>
>>>
>>>The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
>>>take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
>>>back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
>>>a fruitful exchange.
>>
>>Don't try to pollute me and my neighborhood with your pathologic fear,
>>consult a good psychologist.
>
>
> I couldn't make your neighborhood any worse than it
> already is.

Don't be so modest, you can...
....If you decide to move just near my home for example.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>. If you like historic facts, note
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>that the guys in Dien Bien Phu are still waiting for the promised
>>>
>>>bombing
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>of the US Air Force.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Since the French are back home now, drop me your address, and
>>>>>I will gladly oblige.
>>>>
>>>>You are to coward for that. You would be obliged to delegate somebody to
>>>>do that for you. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>I can make some money selling the privilege.
>>
>>Venal and coward you are a real caricature. :-)
>
>
> I'm venal when the situation calls for it.
> Otherwise, I'm a very nice guy.

Only when you are watching in a mirror.
You *could* have been a very nice guy if you wasn't a *repressed*
homosexual. This has ruined your life.

[Lionel]

Jacob Kramer wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:13:03 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>GeoSynch wrote:
>
>
>>>>Actually, since France is about to be overrun by Muslims, Lionel is
>>
>>merely
>>
>>>>trying to ingratiate himself with them, so that he may continue to sip
>>
>>coffee
>>
>>>>and eat brie on the Left Bank.
>>>
>>>Somewhere you are right Geo, I am daily trying to do what I hope that
>>>you are also doing : to have fruitful exchange with human being and my
>>>neighbourhood.
>>
>>The 'human beings' in your neighborhood would just as soon
>>take you and your family hostage, then behead them, or shoot them in the
>>back when they try to escape. I guess you might call that
>>a fruitful exchange.
>
>
> You mean because they are Muslims?

Good question... Should we obliged them to wear a kind of "green star".

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Michael McKelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Yes a lot of Catholics and Jewishs "zealots". But since they
> >>>>>>>>>>haven't
> >>>>>
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>courage to be human-bombs they have found a good solution...
> >>>>>>>>>>...They pay poor people to be killed for them. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Explain your statement about Catholics and Jews paying poor
> >>>>>>>people to be killed for them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I am a democrat. I haven't anything to explain to a Jewish
extremist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You made a charge that Catholics and Jews pay poor people to kill for
> >>>>>them.
> >>>>>I am being a nice guy and giving you a chance to back out of it,
> >>>>>and tell me that your charge is some kind of a mistake or
> >>>>>misunderstanding, or a chance to elaborate and substantiate them.
> >>>>>But instead, you keep your stench out there with no
> >>>>>explanation, and act like a weasel, avoiding all responsibility for
your
> >>>>>accusuations.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are giving me a chance ? You are a nice guy ? LOL, have you done a
> >>>>metamorphosis last night ?
> >>>>
> >>>>My charge is not a "kind of mistake", it's an historic fact. Since
many
> >>>>centuries the richs use the poors to make the wars.
> >>>>Just do an analyze of the social composition of your army and you will
> >>>>understand what I mean.
> >>>>
> >>>>I maintain that you are a coward Jewish extremist full of hatred.
> >>>>For me you're just equaling in cynisism and duplicity the muslims
> >>>>extremists
> >>>>which are taking the hard line in the Middle East.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You don't have to be an extremist or Jewish to hate the mindless,
> >>>hate-filled drivel you spew. You're blinded by your own hatred of your
> >>>betters
> >>
> >>If you represent the "betters" Michael I don't feel any hatred, just
pity.
> >>:-)
> >>
> >>
> >>>and by the fact that your ****ant little country is no longer relevant
on
> >>>the world stage.
> >>
> >>Forget my ****ant little country and focus on your country problems, you
> >>have a lot of work.
> >
> >
> > Not nearly as much as yours.
>
> My country is not for you Michael, we don't adulate nostalgic assassins
> here.
>
> > Does it still take a year to evict someone who hasn't paid their rent?
>
> It's very difficult to evict someone who hasn't paid his rent, and from
> my point of you it's a very good thing.
> This avoids a lot of abuse from the landlords at it's has been the case
> in the past.

Please explain me how it is abusive for a landlord to
evict a tenant who has not been paying his rent.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Lionel > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I've read somewhere that the raid on Dresden caused some military
> >>>brass the necessary belly aches.
> >>
> >>American propaganda.
> >>This is wrong Sander, you should re-read Dresden history.
> >
> >
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0210/p14s02-bogn.html
>
> Ok Stephen just an excerpt of the text you quote :
>
> "Taylor himself finally determined that between 25,000 and 35,000 lives
> were lost in the raids, not the hundreds of thousands claimed by
> neo-Nazi and leftist sources."
>
> Have you seen how the author is equaling the claim of the "leftists"
> with the claim of the neo-Nazis in a perfid comparison.

If they both claim hundreds of thousands of victims, they are equal in
that respect.

Here's an excerpt from another review:

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2004/03/01/dresden/

That doesn't mean that Taylor minimizes the horrors Dresden and its
people suffered. "Dresden" is not a simplistic or simplifying book.
Along with his diligent documentation of body counts and British bombing
strategies, he presents the fruits of in-depth interviews with survivors
of the attack. The centerpiece of the book is a riveting narrative
account of how Dresden's citizens experienced the bombing and the
monstrous firestorm it succeeded in fomenting. Twenty-five thousand
people killed is still a massacre, and Taylor's description of the bleak
aftermath is a nightmare of corpses lying in heaps on a landscape
blasted and burned into lunar rubble.

End quote.

> This is the way that I am decrypting this kind of music...
> I guess that your intention was to make me shut up, so in this case just
> "say shut up".
> IE you are not obliged to quote documents which in the end make you
> abjure your own convictions and values.
> Do you understand what I mean ?

You suggested reading a history of Dresden, so I made a general
recommendation which you may take as you please.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have substentiated my view with historic example it is not my fault if
> too stupid to understand more of 50% of the mails I post.
>

Maybe our lack of understanding might have something to do
with your lack of skill in writing English, as exemplified by your
most recent nattering.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...


> You are the majestic pools that are so refreshing.
> You are the mountains that tower so high.
> You are the giant states that stand so strong.
> You are the extreme power that no other county has.
> You are the bald eagles that let our freedom soar.
> You are the education I need to thrive.
> You are my gifted mind.
> You are my cheerful sister.
> You are my lucky baseball hat.
> You are my speedy skatebiard.
> You are my great knowledge"

You are an idiot.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> When the subject come to innocents' assassination, the only difference
> between US army and Nazis is a difference of time.
>
>

Do you really believe this lunacy?

[Jacob Kramer]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:45:23 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:15:02 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There are no innocents when nations are at war.
>>
>> Children?
>
>In Viet Nam children would sometimes be the ones planting booby traps and
>sometimes shooting at you with their AK47's. If you saw a 12 year old
>coming at you with such a weapon, you would not consider him an innocent for
>much longer than it took to pull the trigger. This is not to say that they
>should be targeted, only that war is messy.

If you can't conclude from it that children should be targeted, it
doesn't justify bombing civilians.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:33:59 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>I didn't hear that anyone was murdered, much less injured at Abu Graib,
>if that is waht you are referring to.
>I did see pictures of prisoners paraded around baked on leashes, and
>I heard that there was some infliction of beatings with sticks. I have also
>heard of such tihings at fraternity hazings, not that is is legal, the right
>thing to do; and certainly those actions were a brutality. But there isn't
>a shred of moral equivalency with the acts of the Islamist terorists. It was
>Lionel that was making the insinuation of moral equivalency.

The Schlesinger report found 5 deaths of detainees due to torture, and
23 deaths of detainees are still being investigated.