OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

The high explosives issue, whether Kerry's claim happens to be the
same as reality OR NOT, has proven Kerry to be a liar (and his supporters
to either be intellectually dishonest or intellectual fools), because of
his absolute claims without supporting evidence. An honest person wouldn't
make the claims so strongly, and wouldn't be so condemning ON THAT TRUE
OR UNTRUE ASSERTION.

The hard facts are that the US allowed millions of tons of conventional
munitions to fall into the hands of the insurgency. We now have numerous
military commanders who were on the scene stating that the manpower
situation was so bad that there were NO resources to spare on providing
security for the thousands of depots. This now turns out to have been a
CRITICAL miscalculation in the Bush plan of invasion- it is breaking the
occupation, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, and costing billions
of dollars- ALL UNNECESSARILY.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <n1s4o0dff6idi9ainjr7ekhad0tu48ftqm@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> writes:

On 28 Oct 2004 18:13:08 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote...

Remember, John S. Dyson is a nazi apologist

Hear, hear!

Geez, Win, now you're calling people Nazis? What's your next book
going to be, "The Art of Intolerance"?

Win is apparently quite intolerant, and seems to be incapable to dealing

with simple adversity. Frankly, he just seems to be a little spoiled
and immature. When people who are defacto 'lefties' whose liberalism
is challenged and disproven, often they start becoming quite shrill,
and they cut loose, showing their intolerance -- almost becoming superficially
insane!!! Even John Kerry, the current highest profile lefty, has become
continuously dishonest, essentially giving up on any kind of intellectual
honesty -- even his typical superficial attempt at APPEARING to be honest.
*the RDX/HMX materials issue, which isn't proven either way, with weak
evidence of any truth (whether making Bush look good or Kerry's position
appear to be true) is being asserted as the absolute truth by the liar. He
(John Kerry) proves himself to be a liar, whether or not his claims
happen to be factually correct. This is because he has NO WAY of
backing up his claim, and his claim as supportable fact is even refuted
by his foreign policy advisor, Holbrook?(sp?)

A most amazing thing is that the leftist/liar children can somehow form
the idea that someone who has a savings (however large) should feel like
earning a modest wage is somehow beneath them. The elitist
mentality, really something that I'd expect from an emotionally
under developed teenager, is yet another disappointing bit of
information about someone like Win and Rich who have shown their modicum
of technical competency is far more sophisticated and better developed
than their emotional maturity.

The high explosives issue, whether Kerry's claim happens to be the
same as reality OR NOT, has proven Kerry to be a liar (and his supporters
to either be intellectually dishonest or intellectual fools), because of
his absolute claims without supporting evidence. An honest person wouldn't
make the claims so strongly, and wouldn't be so condemning ON THAT TRUE
OR UNTRUE ASSERTION.

Intellectually dishonest people like Kerry and his supporters (that includes
the dishonest people who are competent enough to know that he is a liar --
even deceiving themselves about the simple conclusion based upon the obvious
facts that he is a pervaricator) are truly disappointing people, helping
to show evidence of a serious regression in the humanity and honesty of
their constituency of that underclass. If truly stupid people and true
criminals didn't have the vote, Kerry would still get a few votes based
upon voter error -- but the truly stupid and emotionally/intellectually
incompetent people definitely make Kerry a viable candidate.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <pan.2004.10.30.01.05.05.342259@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:25:27 -0700, Product developer wrote:

I propose an office pool for SED. Which mentally and hormonally imbalanced
twit will blow their brains out first? Grise or Bloggs. These guys are
down right scary in thier beliefs and comments here. What will they do
when Bush wins next week? Hide all the sharp objects.

Yes, hide all your sharp objects when Bush wins because the neighborhood
sweeps will arrest you as a suspected terrorist if they find them,

Actually, there certainly might be rioting in the streets when the

unstable Kerry supporters (most all of them) go stark raving mad.
..... Okay, it isn't that they are going mad, but the Kerry supporters
lose control, and misbehave as if in their natural state rioting in their
jailcell homes. The Kerry supporter violence, incredibly immature/insane
behavior is definitely expected as normal behavior of uncivilized pieces
of intellectual manure.

The expected Kerry supporter violence and the intellectual dishonesty
isn't really a surprise. Moreso, it is something that would be nice
for the Kerry supporters' intellectual dishonesty to be hidden, much like
a fat mans fat-rolls, or a witch-hag's face. So, the Kerry supporters' lack
of intellectual honesty is something that is ugly, and is something that
they shouldn't be proud of (effectively a mental skid mark), but screwed
up mental problems that allow supporting a totally dishonest candidate
like Kerry do happen. Thorazine should be made available for anyone who
could possible support Kerry... (This isn't a pro-Bush comment, but
noting that Nader is truly a more logically consistent and more
intellectually honest choice.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <418307C0.8080002@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:


The high explosives issue, whether Kerry's claim happens to be the
same as reality OR NOT, has proven Kerry to be a liar (and his supporters
to either be intellectually dishonest or intellectual fools), because of
his absolute claims without supporting evidence. An honest person wouldn't
make the claims so strongly, and wouldn't be so condemning ON THAT TRUE
OR UNTRUE ASSERTION.


The hard facts are that the US allowed millions of tons of conventional
munitions to fall into the hands of the insurgency.

Please show where 'millions of tons' had been released to anyone. The

whole nonsense being talked about by Kerry was hundreds of tons, and
it is very likely that the munitions were evacuated by Russia. Many
of them were destroyed by the US (e.g. 100,000s of tons.) Kerry is whining
about 100s of Tons.

Again, Kerry is whining about 100s of tons, and our military has been
destroying 100,000s of tons. Again --

Kerry whines about 400 tons. (Probably much less)
US military has destroyed 400,000 tons. (Probably more)

I lined this up -- just in case your limited memory keeps you from
doing the comparison.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <41830BE3.1050300@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <pan.2004.10.30.01.05.05.342259@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:25:27 -0700, Product developer wrote:


I propose an office pool for SED. Which mentally and hormonally imbalanced
twit will blow their brains out first? Grise or Bloggs. These guys are
down right scary in thier beliefs and comments here. What will they do
when Bush wins next week? Hide all the sharp objects.

Yes, hide all your sharp objects when Bush wins because the neighborhood
sweeps will arrest you as a suspected terrorist if they find them,


Actually, there certainly might be rioting in the streets when the
unstable Kerry supporters (most all of them) go stark raving mad.
.... Okay, it isn't that they are going mad, but the Kerry supporters
lose control, and misbehave as if in their natural state rioting in their
jailcell homes. The Kerry supporter violence, incredibly immature/insane
behavior is definitely expected as normal behavior of uncivilized pieces
of intellectual manure.

The expected Kerry supporter violence and the intellectual dishonesty
isn't really a surprise. Moreso, it is something that would be nice
for the Kerry supporters' intellectual dishonesty to be hidden, much like
a fat mans fat-rolls, or a witch-hag's face. So, the Kerry supporters' lack
of intellectual honesty is something that is ugly, and is something that
they shouldn't be proud of (effectively a mental skid mark), but screwed
up mental problems that allow supporting a totally dishonest candidate
like Kerry do happen. Thorazine should be made available for anyone who
could possible support Kerry... (This isn't a pro-Bush comment, but
noting that Nader is truly a more logically consistent and more
intellectually honest choice.)

John


I think it would be wise for someone like you to plan on staying home
for at least a week after the elections- you must go out and buy the
necessary food, duct tape, plastic sheeting, and other essentials now-

You seem to have the paranoid plans all prepared. All that one has

to do to be safe is to stay away from the Kerry supporter/idiots. Just
like one should avoid the drug dealers on the corner in the Kerry
supporter neighborhoods, one should also stay away from the low life
(smelly, disgusting) Kerry supporters also.

John

 

[Robert Monsen]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <n1s4o0dff6idi9ainjr7ekhad0tu48ftqm@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> writes:

On 28 Oct 2004 18:13:08 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


Rich Grise wrote...

Remember, John S. Dyson is a nazi apologist

Hear, hear!

Geez, Win, now you're calling people Nazis? What's your next book
going to be, "The Art of Intolerance"?


Win is apparently quite intolerant, and seems to be incapable to dealing
with simple adversity. Frankly, he just seems to be a little spoiled
and immature.

I've seen no evidence of this, although all I have to go on is his
postings and the book he co-authored. These postings seem to indicate
somebody who has it together, at least on the surface.

When people who are defacto 'lefties' whose liberalism

is challenged and disproven, often they start becoming quite shrill,
and they cut loose, showing their intolerance -- almost becoming superficially
insane!!!

Is this some kind of opinion? It appears completely without any basis in
reality, i.e., superficially insane.

Even John Kerry, the current highest profile lefty, has become

continuously dishonest, essentially giving up on any kind of intellectual
honesty -- even his typical superficial attempt at APPEARING to be honest.

Factual examples, please. None from Drudge or Coulter will be accepted
without corroboration from at least 2 independent non-partisan sources.
Try 'factcheck.org'. You might be able to dig up something, after all,
its the last weekend before the election.

*the RDX/HMX materials issue, which isn't proven either way, with weak
evidence of any truth (whether making Bush look good or Kerry's position
appear to be true) is being asserted as the absolute truth by the liar.

The U.N. inspectors DID write a letter to the bush administration,
warning them of the existence of these munitions. The embedded team DID
find (and record on video tape) the seals intact after the invasion. The
munitions DID turn up missing a month later, with the seals broken. So,
where is the lie?

He

(John Kerry) proves himself to be a liar, whether or not his claims
happen to be factually correct. This is because he has NO WAY of
backing up his claim, and his claim as supportable fact is even refuted
by his foreign policy advisor, Holbrook?(sp?)

You apparently are unwilling or unable to understand his point, which
was that even though the UN indicated that these explosives (which are
used for nuclear weapons) existed, the military units there were not
warned of their presence, or asked to secure or destroy them. The
munitions were not secured. This is true whether they were there or not.
Thus, whether they were there or not is immaterial. The problem was that
the war planning was so incompetent that they didn't even try to secure
them.

A most amazing thing is that the leftist/liar children can somehow form
the idea that someone who has a savings (however large) should feel like
earning a modest wage is somehow beneath them.

Sorry, this appears to be a nonsequitur.

The elitist

mentality, really something that I'd expect from an emotionally
under developed teenager, is yet another disappointing bit of
information about someone like Win and Rich who have shown their modicum
of technical competency is far more sophisticated and better developed
than their emotional maturity.

Oh, I get it now, it's an ad-hominem attack on Win and Rich. Rich has a
bit too much fun, so I'll admit he may let his passions get the best of
him. Calling you a Nazi was unfair. (The the Nazis.)

Win gets angry when you continually say nasty things about him, and I
can understand that. You are the only person I've seen him get angry at
in my nearly 2 years of reading this group, although I admit to having
skipped many of the political threads before the election season. He
should relax, nobody really cares what you say, and we need him to
finish the next edition of AoE without having a stroke.

The high explosives issue, whether Kerry's claim happens to be the
same as reality OR NOT, has proven Kerry to be a liar (and his supporters
to either be intellectually dishonest or intellectual fools), because of
his absolute claims without supporting evidence. An honest person wouldn't
make the claims so strongly, and wouldn't be so condemning ON THAT TRUE
OR UNTRUE ASSERTION.

Ah, back to the original point. Again, the issue wasn't whether the
explosives were there, it was really that the war planning was so poor.
Rumsfeld should never have undertaken this war with the pitiful 120,000
troops he used; the sad truth is that he wanted to use far fewer troops,
and Tommy Franks talked him out of it. The army experts (like Shinseki)
wanted to use at least 200,000, and more like 400,000, not to win, but
to 'win the peace' (according to "Rumsfeld's War" on Frontline.) If
Rumsfeld had had his way, they wouldn't have even been able to protect
the oil ministry.

Intellectually dishonest people like Kerry and his supporters (that includes
the dishonest people who are competent enough to know that he is a liar --
even deceiving themselves about the simple conclusion based upon the obvious
facts that he is a pervaricator) are truly disappointing people, helping
to show evidence of a serious regression in the humanity and honesty of
their constituency of that underclass. If truly stupid people and true
criminals didn't have the vote, Kerry would still get a few votes based
upon voter error -- but the truly stupid and emotionally/intellectually
incompetent people definitely make Kerry a viable candidate.

Well, I've asked you for factual evidence several times in the last
week. You fail to provide any. You make assertions, and then refuse to
support them with any credible evidence. You cry about people being
immature and 'intellectually dishonest'. Well, it's not us, bucko. Take
a look in the mirror.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <clv50t$bav$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <clv2rk$2mhl$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
In article <pan.2004.10.30.01.05.05.342259@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:25:27 -0700, Product developer wrote:

I propose an office pool for SED. Which mentally and hormonally imbalanced
twit will blow their brains out first? Grise or Bloggs. These guys are
down right scary in thier beliefs and comments here. What will they do
when Bush wins next week? Hide all the sharp objects.

Yes, hide all your sharp objects when Bush wins because the neighborhood
sweeps will arrest you as a suspected terrorist if they find them,

Actually, there certainly might be rioting in the streets when the
unstable Kerry supporters (most all of them) go stark raving mad.

Actually, it is more likely that the Bush supporters will be blubbering
masses when Kerry wins.

If that is true, Bush supporters would be mourning because of the moral

death of the American nation given that Kerry might win. That wouldnt' be the
same as the selfish, hedonistic behavior of the Kerry supporters, whether
they would be celebrating the death of the nation by Kerry's win, or trying
to destroy the nation that was just barely wise enough to reject the
pervaricator Kerry. Even given the mostly leftist American press, most
of the so called support of Kerry is based upon hatred against another
person. Voting against Kerry is obviously just a matter of protecting
the nation from John Kerry, not based upon hatred of any kind.

Of course, the difference after the election is that upon a possible
Kerry win, the Bush supporters would unselfishly mourn the impending
death of a nation and freedom. Whether or not Kerry wins, the Kerry
supporters would be causing the impending chaos (either if Kerry wins,
or if Kerry loses.) In both cases, Kerry and his supporters are on the
side of chaos and devolution of humanity.

I am not personally happy with Bush or Kerry, but have to make the
very unbiased observation that Kerry represents the side of
the dissolution of personal integrity, American freedom and
society. This is the major fact that tiebreaks the selection
between the flawed GWB and the essential evil (in the sense of organized
and free society) of John Kerry.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:28:48 -0700, Tom Seim wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.10.29.18.14.16.83954@example.net>...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:45:23 -0700, Tom Seim wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.10.28.23.07.46.477457@example.net>...

And I guess I have to come to the conclusion that ranting and raving
about it isn't going to make anything change much.

Now that is an emotionally healthy response. Regardless of the
outcome, there will always be a battle to fight the next day. Believe
me, I lived thru 8 years of Bill Clinton.

Oh, Christ. Now I know I'm fucked. Tom Seim is citing my "emotional
maturity."

I guess up is down and down is up after all. ;-)

Cheers!
RIch

Perhaps I was premature, RIch.

I don't particularly care about your ejaculatory dysfunction, thanks
anyway.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <clvdmi$2p8m$2@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:

Win is apparently quite intolerant, and seems to be incapable to dealing
with simple adversity.
^^^^^^

You are right. He doesn't suffer fools gladly. :

Actually, I suffer fools (like you and Winfred) with humor,

Who exactly is this Winfred person? Perhaps I'd like to meet him. He is
obviously someone who disagrees with you but that only narrows it down to
something like 90% of the worlds population .

[....]

I just don't like proven liars
(that is, knowing that he is making untrue statements) like Kerry.

Please give a specific example of an untrue statement. You have been
asked before to provide an example but you have either not responded or
responded with a claim that one of Kerry's true statements was false.

[...]

I see the lies
in your claims.

If you are seeing lies in my claims you need to either (a) get yours eyes
examined or (b) get your head examined. I know that you will not be able
to point to a single false claim. Just because something said by me or
others does not agree with your dogma does not make them incorrect.

... or they could just be better informed than you. You claim there is no
supporting evidence but there is a video tape and the statements from a
few people to support Kerry's claim.

Note that Kerry's main foreign policy advisor disagrees with Kerry and
agrees better with me (that there isn't enough information.)

No, he agrees that all the facts are not in but he certainly does not
agree with your position. When asked where the weapons are he would have
to truthfully say he doesn't know. The reason he doesn't know is because
the Bush folks mismanaged the situation and left the arms depot unsecured.

Even if Kerry's claim becomes proven, or continues to devolve into
insignificance (<0.1% of the total arms in Iraq)

The population of the US is about 300 million. about 3000 died in the
9-11 attack. So that's 0.1% too. Does the fact that its a small
percentage make that insignificant too. I don't think so. The lost
weapons would be able to take down many aircraft and kill many people.
You don't know where they are, nor does the Bush Whitehouse. They didn't
secure them. This is just another reason why their administration is
being call incompetent by so many conservatives.

like
the media is tending to show, Kerry is still a proven liar, because
he is implying that he CURRENTLY knows the truth, and the fact is
that he CURRENTLY doesn't have complete information (per Holbrooke(sp)).

He knows the truth about the portion of the information he has. I know
that it is the morning and that it is brigher outside than it was a few
hours ago. I don't know whether there are clouds in the sky or not. I
too have incomplete information, but my saying that it is the morning is
not a lie.

It is pretty bad that the common populace is able to discuss with
more accuracy than the candidate Kerry himself. Again, I cannot imagine
that he is so stupid that he keeps on making incorrect claims, so it
is most probable that he is continuing to visibly manifest Kerry's
lack of integrity and honesty.

An even better theory is that he is better informed than you. He gets
briefings that you would not be allowed to attend. There may be a great
deal on this subject that he knows but must protect to protect the sources
and methods. He is making claims that disagree with your dogma. You find
this uncomfortable so you choose to believe it is a lie rather that start
to suspect that you have been wrong.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <kxGgd.546158$8_6.199507@attbi_s04>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]

wanted to use at least 200,000, and more like 400,000, not to win, but
to 'win the peace' (according to "Rumsfeld's War" on Frontline.) If
Rumsfeld had had his way, they wouldn't have even been able to protect
the oil ministry.

To digress a bit:

What the devil were they doing gaurding the oil ministry in the first
place? It is the only building that should not have been gaurded. There
was nothing of real value in that building. The weapons weren't there nor
were any oil wells. It was just a bunch of paperwork that was being
protected while important stuff like bombs and actual equipment were left
to the vandals. It is just another example of the total lack of good
judgement shown in this whole effort.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <clvd39$2p8m$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]

Actually, it is more likely that the Bush supporters will be blubbering
masses when Kerry wins.

If that is true, Bush supporters would be mourning because of the moral
death of the American nation given that Kerry might win.

There won't be anyone telling them they are supposed to be in morning so
they won't know what to do. One of the consistant characteristics of the
anti-Kerry crowd is that they can't think for themselves. They've seen
the complete mess made of the government, the mess created in the middle
east, the budget totally out of balance and the corruption from to to
bottom of the Bush administration but they are simply unable to put that
together with the moral correctitude of Kerry and break their programming.
Like dogs who have been trained to bark when a bell rings, they bark
every time they hear a bell ring whether it makes sense for them to or
not.

[...]

or if Kerry loses.) In both cases, Kerry and his supporters are on the
side of chaos and devolution of humanity.

Merely allowing people to think for themselves and giving them the freedom
that is their right looks to some like chaos. Animals raised in small
pens can sometime be frightened to go out into the sunshine when the door
to their enclosure is opened. Farm animals usually can addapt to their
new found freedom, so there may be some hope for Bush supporters, even
though they are mostly dumber than goats. Bush sat in that classroom
listening to the story about a goat, jut like I or Win may be tempted to
sit and listen to a story about goats.


[...]

society. This is the major fact that tiebreaks the selection
between the flawed GWB and the essential evil (in the sense of organized
and free society) of John Kerry.

So you admit that you would rather be an ant in an ant hill rather than
getting up on your hind legs and thinking for yourself. At least we know
where you are coming from.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:41:44 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <clvdmi$2p8m$2@news.iquest.net>, John S. Dyson

Note that Kerry's main foreign policy advisor disagrees with Kerry and
agrees better with me (that there isn't enough information.)

No, he agrees that all the facts are not in but he certainly does not
agree with your position. When asked where the weapons are he would have
to truthfully say he doesn't know. The reason he doesn't know is because
the Bush folks mismanaged the situation and left the arms depot unsecured.

Mr. Dyson should be pleased to hear the Army's latest spin - "Oh, _those_
weapons! We blew them up months ago!"

Cheers!
RIch

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2004.10.30.19.30.43.770130@example.net>,
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:41:44 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <clvdmi$2p8m$2@news.iquest.net>, John S. Dyson

Note that Kerry's main foreign policy advisor disagrees with Kerry and
agrees better with me (that there isn't enough information.)

No, he agrees that all the facts are not in but he certainly does not
agree with your position. When asked where the weapons are he would have
to truthfully say he doesn't know. The reason he doesn't know is because
the Bush folks mismanaged the situation and left the arms depot unsecured.

Mr. Dyson should be pleased to hear the Army's latest spin - "Oh, _those_
weapons! We blew them up months ago!"

I really hope that, that is really the case. I think we would have heard
about it before now it it was true, but I still hope that this time the US
dodged the bullet.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[xray]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:56:23 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

Actually, your dishonesty (or incompetency) shows again --

Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Bush is a dangerous idiot.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <cm0dt4$8pd$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <clvd39$2p8m$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]
Actually, it is more likely that the Bush supporters will be blubbering
masses when Kerry wins.

If that is true, Bush supporters would be mourning because of the moral
death of the American nation given that Kerry might win.

There won't be anyone telling them they are supposed to be in morning so
they won't know what to do.

Actually, your dishonesty (or incompetency) shows again -- do you really

think that people are told what to do every day? Do you believe that the
obvious leftist hive mentality extends to the center and right? Your
perceptions are outrageous.

The only thing that causes me to resist SOME leftist ideas is the association
with the leftist animal.

John

 

[Robert Monsen]

John S. Dyson wrote:

Yassar Araft also prefers Kerry. It is interesting that ROGUE regimes
and TERRORISTS prefer Kerry... This is a 'brothers in arms' situation.

John

After Bush dismantled any pretense of the US being a neutral negotiator
in the palestinian conflict, against the better judgement of his
secretary of state Colin Powell (see "Bush At War", by Bob Woodward),
and after his recently stating during the debate that Arafat cannot lead
the palestinians to statehood, I'd be suprised if Arafat supported him.
On the other hand, Jews in the US don't support Bush either, because
they know that the way to peace in Israel isn't by allowing Sharon to
beat the shit out of the palestinians, or by breeding more terrorists
next door in Iraq.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/486408.html

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2004/10/ajc_69_of_ameri.html

On the other hand, Russians seem to love Bush. Perhaps it is because he
appears to fit into their model of a 'strong' leader who, like Putin,
doesn't take this Democracy thing too seriously.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <cm1k8n$c32$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:

In article <cm0dt4$8pd$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <clvd39$2p8m$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]
Actually, it is more likely that the Bush supporters will be blubbering
masses when Kerry wins.

If that is true, Bush supporters would be mourning because of the moral
death of the American nation given that Kerry might win.

There won't be anyone telling them they are supposed to be in morning so
they won't know what to do.

Actually, your dishonesty (or incompetency) shows again -- do you really
think that people are told what to do every day? Do you believe that the
obvious leftist hive mentality extends to the center and right? Your
perceptions are outrageous.

I've included the body of my post below. Obviously you didn't read or
understand it or you would not be asking the questions you are asking. It
is you who has admitted to the hive mentality. I assume therefor that
either (a) you are secretly from the left or (b) you are transfering to
others your own failings.

As for your claim that there was anything dishonest in my posting: go read
it again and point it out if you can. It is below so you don't even have
to back up the thread to find it.

=There won't be anyone telling them they are supposed to be in morning so
=they won't know what to do. One of the consistant characteristics of the
=anti-Kerry crowd is that they can't think for themselves. They've seen
=the complete mess made of the government, the mess created in the middle
=east, the budget totally out of balance and the corruption from to to
=bottom of the Bush administration but they are simply unable to put that
=together with the moral correctitude of Kerry and break their
=programming.
=Like dogs who have been trained to bark when a bell rings, they bark
=every time they hear a bell ring whether it makes sense for them to or
=not.
=
=[...]
=
=>or if Kerry loses.) In both cases, Kerry and his supporters are on the
=>side of chaos and devolution of humanity.
=
=Merely allowing people to think for themselves and giving them the
=freedom
=that is their right looks to some like chaos. Animals raised in small
=pens can sometime be frightened to go out into the sunshine when the door
=to their enclosure is opened. Farm animals usually can addapt to their
=new found freedom, so there may be some hope for Bush supporters, even
=though they are mostly dumber than goats. Bush sat in that classroom
=listening to the story about a goat, jut like I or Win may be tempted to
=sit and listen to a story about goats.
=
=
=[...]
=>society. This is the major fact that tiebreaks the selection
=>between the flawed GWB and the essential evil (in the sense of organized
=>and free society) of John Kerry.
=
=So you admit that you would rather be an ant in an ant hill rather than
=getting up on your hind legs and thinking for yourself. At least we know
=where you are coming from.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <cljqgc$keu$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <clistn$2796$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]
Remember: my own comment was in relation to the mismanagement of the
'Bubble' and not fully controlling the economy.

Since you started that with "Remember" everyone will accept it without
checking.

You suggested that somehow Clinton was at fault for the huge drop in the
economy

In the way that the president can mismanage the economy, Clinton did so.

The most ludicrous claim is the relative comparison where Bush somehow
screwed it up, and the reality is that the recession started in approx
the month that Bush took office -- ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR POLICIES TO
TAKE EFFECT!!!

The Bush folks were talking about a huge drop in the economy

The economic trajectory was downward, and got worse after the 9/11 attacks

that were FULLY PLANNED DURING CLINTON. The stimulation effect of the
tax breaks were the only reason why the economy didn't get worse. Hint:
those people making $200K or more on their taxes (often small businesses)
are giving alot of people jobs.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:35:46 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Ah, there's the rub. The power is in using both,
simultaneously,
in alignment with each other. The passion provides the
fuel, and
the reason directs that power intelligently. Don't
forget, passion is the root of compassion. (I just made that
up. )

Do you know how to cast a spell? Three essentials; raw
emotion for fuel, disciplined will to set the pattern...

Hmm.. I had entertained notions of learning how to cast spells,
but I don't like that word "discipline." I don't like it at all.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm": "Discipline, comrades. Iron
discipline." When I was a kid, "discipline" meant "punish."

Thanks, anyway, but I'm on a different quest this trip - I'm
here to end the discipline, or at least let it go to its right
place, which isn't inside me.

Or, I could say, "I release the judgement that says I
can't heal the
world immediately."

That's the third; once it's cast, forget it. Otherwise,
it won't work.

Yeah, the ol' catch. Wanna turn straw into gold? Nothing to it.
Just put the straw in a pot, add a little water, put it on a
cookstove, and don't think of a rhinoceros. ;-)

Those vociferously politicking here would do well to
absorb this lesson. ;&gt

Good Point. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Reg Edwards wrote:

Bush is a dangerous idiot.

=============================

The multi-nationals are far too intelligent to employ a president with an
IQ greater than 75.

That is a credible number in my estimation.

Remember- Bush is a dangerous idiot and liar!