"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who once
debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the Bush
campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the
miltary
when you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing you
can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he
objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is made
up
of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a
decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

No, it doesn't. If you remember, Kerry opposed the war and
demonstrated
against it when he returned from serving his country.

Carter also served in the military.

Why are some Republicans called "chickenhawks"?

Because Democrat Politicans are pigs?
Because it's easier than debating issues?

Wrong. It's fundamental to the hypocrisy of smearing someone who served
in the military.

I think my version is more accurate.

The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded now.

Nope. Partisan smears don't change the facts, the service record or
the
decorations.

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record. You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or our
own form asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads in
the history of modern politics.

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply the
way Democrats work.
They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Best to allow people to keep what they earned. Best to allow an atmosphere
where jobs are created and the people that want them can find them.

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and his
subsequent avtivities after, are fair game.

I'll take that dare anyday. Bush asked not to be assigned overseas.

Yhat's a new one on me. If he didn't want to go overseas
being a pilot in the reserve was a bad move.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

It isn't a bad move if one doesn't intend to fulfill one's commitment.

And you are a mind reader?

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

Bush left his service early, even if one
grants that he served at all.

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?

I believe he was authorized to do so, unlike Bush.


He requested it.

Coverups for Bush,
None.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

Follow the link to the Dallas Morning News, which requires registration.

Thanks but no thanks, I won't even do that for a local paper.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.
Not likely. Not if he hasn't captured more attention and favor
by now.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by both
O'Neil
and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe
after
the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

The political and military leadership knew what was going on in
Vietnam.
Only if Kerry's version is true.

No other possibility?

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was it
atrocities?

Collectively. To call him a war criminal is twisting his words.

It's restating them but keeping it in context.

Twisty, twist, twist. He blamed "The United States of America," that is,
all of us, collectively.

That's a nice way of denying responsibility for one's own actions.
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who once
debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the Bush
campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the
miltary
when you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing you
can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he
objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is made
up
of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a
decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

No, it doesn't. If you remember, Kerry opposed the war and
demonstrated
against it when he returned from serving his country.

Carter also served in the military.

Why are some Republicans called "chickenhawks"?

Because Democrat Politicans are pigs?
Because it's easier than debating issues?

Wrong. It's fundamental to the hypocrisy of smearing someone who served
in the military.

I think my version is more accurate.

Even you can't think that.

The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded now.

Nope. Partisan smears don't change the facts, the service record or
the
decorations.

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or our
own form asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls. Points off for
parroting Rush.

They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Best to allow people to keep what they earned. Best to allow an atmosphere
where jobs are created and the people that want them can find them.

Like Clinton did. How's the Bush job record?

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

You spew a paragraph of irrelevant Dem-bashing and you say I'm
distracted when I respond?

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and his
subsequent avtivities after, are fair game.

I'll take that dare anyday. Bush asked not to be assigned overseas.

Yhat's a new one on me. If he didn't want to go overseas
being a pilot in the reserve was a bad move.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

It isn't a bad move if one doesn't intend to fulfill one's commitment.

And you are a mind reader?

You read Kerry's mind just a ways down, but, no, it was a conditional
statement.

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

Bush left his service early, even if one
grants that he served at all.

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?

I believe he was authorized to do so, unlike Bush.


He requested it.

With three medals and glowing commendations. Bush just left.

Coverups for Bush,
None.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

Follow the link to the Dallas Morning News, which requires registration.

Thanks but no thanks, I won't even do that for a local paper.

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.
Not likely. Not if he hasn't captured more attention and favor
by now.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by both
O'Neil
and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe
after
the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

The political and military leadership knew what was going on in
Vietnam.
Only if Kerry's version is true.

No other possibility?

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was it
atrocities?

Collectively. To call him a war criminal is twisting his words.

It's restating them but keeping it in context.

Twisty, twist, twist. He blamed "The United States of America," that is,
all of us, collectively.

That's a nice way of denying responsibility for one's own actions.

No, it isn't.

Here's that mind-reading:
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

You knew Kerry in the 60s? Why didn't he pull strings to get into the
National Guard, or start a family right away?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

...
In article
,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who
once
debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the
Bush
campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the
miltary
when you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing
you
can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he
objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is
made
up
of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a
decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

No, it doesn't. If you remember, Kerry opposed the war and
demonstrated
against it when he returned from serving his country.

Carter also served in the military.

Why are some Republicans called "chickenhawks"?

Because Democrat Politicans are pigs?
Because it's easier than debating issues?

Wrong. It's fundamental to the hypocrisy of smearing someone who
served
in the military.

I think my version is more accurate.

Even you can't think that.


Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the military is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.


The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded
now.

Nope. Partisan smears don't change the facts, the service record
or
the
decorations.

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls. Points off for
parroting Rush.

So it's bad to use terms that are correct, simply because somebody else said
them before?

They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either, it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Best to allow people to keep what they earned. Best to allow an
atmosphere
where jobs are created and the people that want them can find them.

Like Clinton did.
When was that? When he was pushing for tax increases?
Presidents don't do job creation, not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan.
If a president's party is in the majority or if the party in power sees the
handwriting on the wall,
a President can sometimes get economic policy through Congress that helps.
Beyond that they have next to nothing to with it.


How's the Bush job record?

See above. If you want to give credit for such things, right now his record
is damn good.
Unemployment is down, job creation is up.

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

You spew a paragraph of irrelevant Dem-bashing and you say I'm
distracted when I respond?

Irrelevant? You must mean that accuracy is annoying.

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and
his
subsequent avtivities after, are fair game.

I'll take that dare anyday. Bush asked not to be assigned
overseas.

Yhat's a new one on me. If he didn't want to go overseas
being a pilot in the reserve was a bad move.


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

It isn't a bad move if one doesn't intend to fulfill one's commitment.

And you are a mind reader?

You read Kerry's mind just a ways down, but, no, it was a conditional
statement.

Actually that was based on things he's been credited with saying. I don't
remember the exact source. if it bothers you I retract it.
You could of course search and see if it's true.

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

You are speculating on the reason.
I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the story.

Bush left his service early, even if one
grants that he served at all.

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?

I believe he was authorized to do so, unlike Bush.


He requested it.

With three medals and glowing commendations.
Three purple hearts? Meaningless most of the time, I got one for a tiny
piece of shapnel in my arm.
Another guy I know got one for cutting his toe while running to a bunker
during a mortar attack.

Bush just left.

To work on a political campaign, for which he was given permission.


Coverups for Bush,
None.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

Follow the link to the Dallas Morning News, which requires
registration.

Thanks but no thanks, I won't even do that for a local paper.

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

It means that they prove nothing. Bush released his entire miltary record.
There are no coverups.


smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.
Not likely. Not if he hasn't captured more attention and favor
by now.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by
both
O'Neil
and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe
after
the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

The political and military leadership knew what was going on in
Vietnam.
Only if Kerry's version is true.

No other possibility?

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was
it
atrocities?

Collectively. To call him a war criminal is twisting his words.

It's restating them but keeping it in context.

Twisty, twist, twist. He blamed "The United States of America," that
is,
all of us, collectively.

That's a nice way of denying responsibility for one's own actions.

No, it isn't.

You want contradiction, that's just down the hall.

Here's that mind-reading:
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

You knew Kerry in the 60s? Why didn't he pull strings to get into the
National Guard, or start a family right away?

Answered above.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the military is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the military
is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just
stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

No they are not. Benedict Arnold was a war hero.
That he did something good in Viet Nam doesn't mean he's not been a complete
dickhead since.

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.
The only people I have heard make the Chicken type argument are Democrats.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the military
is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just
stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

No they are not. Benedict Arnold was a war hero.
That he did something good in Viet Nam doesn't mean he's not been a complete
dickhead since.

Is that another tune?

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.
The only people I have heard make the Chicken type argument are Democrats.

Or military.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the
military
is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just
stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism
are
Dems.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military
record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

No they are not. Benedict Arnold was a war hero.
That he did something good in Viet Nam doesn't mean he's not been a
complete
dickhead since.

Is that another tune?

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.
The only people I have heard make the Chicken type argument are
Democrats.

Or military.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and
raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

Fine, it's a matter of personal observation.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater.
Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear
ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

And that means what? Nothing.

In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and
raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

Fine, it's a matter of personal observation.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater.
Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear
ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

And that means what? Nothing.

It's 'playing the race card'.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 22:43:01 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

Actually no. Gore never ran *any* Willie Horton ads that I'm aware of.
Nor did he ever mention Willie Horton's name during the campaign. He
*did* bring up the issue of the prisoner release program. That's a
fair and legitimate issue to bring up - it's hardly a "partisan
smear".

Besides, how can one party engage in a "partisan smear" of someone in
its own party?

I'm about ready to give up on McKelvy, because he's denser than
granite.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Me:
Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

Actually no. Gore never ran *any* Willie Horton ads that I'm aware of.
Nor did he ever mention Willie Horton's name during the campaign. He
*did* bring up the issue of the prisoner release program. That's a
fair and legitimate issue to bring up - it's hardly a "partisan
smear".

Besides, how can one party engage in a "partisan smear" of someone in
its own party?

Indeed. I didn't make clear the distinction between Al Gore's comments
and the "Weekend Passes" ad. Of course, back then I loathed Gore for
that "Washington Wives" foolery.

I'm about ready to give up on McKelvy, because he's denser than
granite.

He need's a trip to Helen Keller's well...

Stephen

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

He need's a trip to Helen Keller's well...

There's an apostrophe too many up there. Too early...

If you want to see someone who really dislikes Bush, check out Jacob
Weisberg in slate.com, "The Misunderestimated Man".

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Me:
Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to
represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

Actually no. Gore never ran *any* Willie Horton ads that I'm aware of.
Nor did he ever mention Willie Horton's name during the campaign. He
*did* bring up the issue of the prisoner release program. That's a
fair and legitimate issue to bring up - it's hardly a "partisan
smear".

Besides, how can one party engage in a "partisan smear" of someone in
its own party?

Indeed. I didn't make clear the distinction between Al Gore's comments
and the "Weekend Passes" ad. Of course, back then I loathed Gore for
that "Washington Wives" foolery.


I'm about ready to give up on McKelvy, because he's denser than
granite.

He need's a trip to Helen Keller's well...

Stephen

After you.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls. Points off for
parroting Rush.

So it's bad to use terms that are correct, simply because somebody else said
them before?

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them
everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very
simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls.

Another non-issue.

Points off for
parroting Rush.

So it's bad to use terms that are correct, simply because somebody else
said
them before?

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

Which game is that?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them
everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very
simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls.

Another non-issue.

Non-issue for Bush, then it's a non-issue for Democrats.

Points off for
parroting Rush.

So it's bad to use terms that are correct, simply because somebody else
said
them before?

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

Which game is that?

"(C)alling increases, cuts".

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Dems
They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either, it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Dems
They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either, it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

Another non-issue. Dean wants to make some money.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Dems
They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either, it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

Another non-issue. Dean wants to make some money.

Dean has all the money he needs.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Dems
They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the
power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either,
it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

Another non-issue. Dean wants to make some money.

Dean has all the money he needs.

It still means nothing.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

You spew a paragraph of irrelevant Dem-bashing and you say I'm
distracted when I respond?

Irrelevant? You must mean that accuracy is annoying.

"Accuracy"? It's empty name-calling. And how can it be relevant if my
replies to it are irrelevant?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

You are speculating on the reason.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

You are speculating on the reason.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

Which means it's irrelevant.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the
story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

He released all his military records, what more do you want?

What has it to with anything except to try and smear him?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

You are speculating on the reason.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

Which means it's irrelevant.

No, it doesn't.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the
story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

He released all his military records, what more do you want?

No, he hasn't.

What has it to with anything except to try and smear him?

Release it all and you'll see for yourself.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.

Anyone else look?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

Anyone else look?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

Look *under* the line that says "OVERSEAS (Number areas in order of
preference". You'll see squares labelled: European area; Pacific area;
Alaskan area; and Caribbean area. None have been selected.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

Look *under* the line that says "OVERSEAS (Number areas in order of
preference". You'll see squares labelled: European area; Pacific area;
Alaskan area; and Caribbean area. None have been selected.

And they are all blacked out.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 23:23:12 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

You need to look again.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

It means that they prove nothing.

Since you haven't read the summary or the article, you have no basis for
your statement.

Bush released his entire miltary record. There are no coverups.

That you know of.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:


http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them
true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

It means that they prove nothing.

Since you haven't read the summary or the article, you have no basis for
your statement.

Bush released his entire miltary record. There are no coverups.

That you know of.

Or that you know of.

In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:


http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them
true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

It means that they prove nothing.

Since you haven't read the summary or the article, you have no basis for
your statement.

Bush released his entire miltary record. There are no coverups.

That you know of.

Or that you know of.

No, I know of the one outlined in the link above.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:41:22 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Are you insane? It was Bush Sr. who did the Willie Horton attack ads.

You really *do* have trouble remembering what's what.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:41:22 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Are you insane? It was Bush Sr. who did the Willie Horton attack ads.

You really *do* have trouble remembering what's what.

Sorry but you're wrong.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:41:22 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Are you insane? It was Bush Sr. who did the Willie Horton attack ads.

You really *do* have trouble remembering what's what.

Sorry but you're wrong.

Al Gore had no connection to the "Weekend Passes" ad. The ad, at first
without the infamous mug shot, was run by the partisan (but technically
independent of the Bush campaign) National Security PAC/Americans for
Bush.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 11:13:07 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:41:22 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Are you insane? It was Bush Sr. who did the Willie Horton attack ads.

You really *do* have trouble remembering what's what.

Sorry but you're wrong.

Unsubstantiated comment noted.

Please supply anything credible that shows that Gore did Horton attack
ads.

You're not going to be able to, because it just didn't happen. Even
the charge that Gore "attacked Dukakis over Horton in speeches in the
primaries" has been shown to be false (or at least nobody can find any
actual quotes from Gore about Horton specifically).

I'll be waiting to see your rebuttal.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2004 11:13:07 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 May 2004 20:41:22 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

Are you insane? It was Bush Sr. who did the Willie Horton attack ads.

You really *do* have trouble remembering what's what.

Sorry but you're wrong.

Unsubstantiated comment noted.

Please supply anything credible that shows that Gore did Horton attack
ads.

You're not going to be able to, because it just didn't happen. Even
the charge that Gore "attacked Dukakis over Horton in speeches in the
primaries" has been shown to be false (or at least nobody can find any
actual quotes from Gore about Horton specifically).

I'll be waiting to see your rebuttal.

Conservative commentators have taken to repeating the mantra that Al Gore
introduced Willie Horton, the inflammatory racial symbol who enlivened the
1988 presidential race, to political debate in America. On Oct. 24, William
Kristol, editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard, said on ABC's This
Week:

Gore's a mean, tough political fighter. Gore is the one who introduced
Willie Horton to American politics in the 1988 primary against Mike Dukakis.

Kristol repeated this, almost verbatim, in a "Memo to Bill Bradley" that
appeared in the issue of Newsweek that hit newsstands the following day:

Big Al can be a tough, mean player. After all, he's the guy who introduced
Willie Horton to the American public in his primary campaign against Michael
Dukakis.

Four days after that, Paul Gigot wrote in his Oct. 29 Wall Street Journal
column:

Recall that the candidate who first raised the prison furlough (Willie
Horton) issue against Mike Dukakis in 1988 wasn't George Bush. It was Al
Gore.

Horton, you may recall, is a black man who, while doing prison time in
Massachusetts for murder, escaped from a weekend furlough and committed a
particularly brutal assault and rape. Dukakis hadn't started the state
program that allowed prisoners like Horton, who were serving life sentences
without parole, to take furloughs--that would have been Dukakis' Republican
predecessor as governor of Massachusetts, Francis Sargent. But Dukakis, even
after hearing what Horton did on his furlough, was resistant to ending the
program, which the state legislature finally did after much crusading by a
local newspaper. Horton's story was subsequently offered up by Vice
President George Bush's campaign as evidence of Dukakis' softness on crime,
and--less directly--of the Democratic party's excessive fondness for black
people. (It was an ugly election.) Introducing Willie Horton to American
political discourse would not seem to be something to be proud of. Is it
true that Gore did so? And if it is true, was Gore's 1988 campaign guilty of
injecting cryptic racist messages into the debate? The answers to these
questions are, respectively, yes and no.

Gore did ask Dukakis, in a debate right before the 1988 New York primary,
about "weekend passes for convicted criminals." Here is how Sidney
Blumenthal, now a Clinton White House aide but then a reporter for the
Washington Post, wrote it up a few months later:

An uncomfortable Dukakis, after dispassionately reciting statistics,
conceded that the Massachusetts furlough program for murderers sentenced to
life imprisonment had been canceled



This seems to be accurate, as far as I can tell.



I stand corrected..

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
t,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

...
In article
,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who
once
debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the
Bush
campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the
miltary
when you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing
you
can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he
objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is
made
up
of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a
decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

No, it doesn't. If you remember, Kerry opposed the war and
demonstrated
against it when he returned from serving his country.

Carter also served in the military.

Why are some Republicans called "chickenhawks"?

Because Democrat Politicans are pigs?
Because it's easier than debating issues?

Wrong. It's fundamental to the hypocrisy of smearing someone who
served
in the military.

I think my version is more accurate.

Even you can't think that.

The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded
now.

Nope. Partisan smears don't change the facts, the service record
or
the
decorations.

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or
our
own form asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls. Points off for
parroting Rush.

They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Best to allow people to keep what they earned. Best to allow an
atmosphere
where jobs are created and the people that want them can find them.

Like Clinton did. How's the Bush job record?

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

You spew a paragraph of irrelevant Dem-bashing and you say I'm
distracted when I respond?

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and
his
subsequent avtivities after, are fair game.

I'll take that dare anyday. Bush asked not to be assigned
overseas.

Yhat's a new one on me. If he didn't want to go overseas
being a pilot in the reserve was a bad move.


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

It isn't a bad move if one doesn't intend to fulfill one's commitment.

And you are a mind reader?

You read Kerry's mind just a ways down, but, no, it was a conditional
statement.

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

Bush left his service early, even if one
grants that he served at all.

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?

I believe he was authorized to do so, unlike Bush.


He requested it.

With three medals and glowing commendations. Bush just left.

Coverups for Bush,
None.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

Follow the link to the Dallas Morning News, which requires
registration.

Thanks but no thanks, I won't even do that for a local paper.

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.
Not likely. Not if he hasn't captured more attention and favor
by now.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by
both
O'Neil
and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe
after
the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

The political and military leadership knew what was going on in
Vietnam.
Only if Kerry's version is true.

No other possibility?

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was
it
atrocities?

Collectively. To call him a war criminal is twisting his words.

It's restating them but keeping it in context.

Twisty, twist, twist. He blamed "The United States of America," that
is,
all of us, collectively.

That's a nice way of denying responsibility for one's own actions.

No, it isn't.

Here's that mind-reading:
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

You knew Kerry in the 60s?

No, but I've heard this discussed.

Why didn't he pull strings

Not so subtle smear noted. Who pulled strings?

to get into the
National Guard, or start a family right away?

Doesn't look as good on a resume if one is considering a career in politics.