VOTE FOR BUSH!

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.

All I am hearing from this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief
is a bunch of whining about how "hard" it was for *him* to make the
decision to go to war. There are many other issues where the little wimp
retreats into complaining how hard things are for him and he then
pretends to educate us on the qualities a good President should have-
while never claiming to possess those qualities himself. You might get a
clue from all this ego perspective he blithers, that we have a seriously
defective individual as President. Bush's own words are that war is
"political capital" to be used to advance his agenda, and he criticized
his own father for not cashing in on the war he fought. You may think
it's brave to demonstrate a total lack of respect for humanity, but I
call that sickness, and this has nothing to do with pacifism.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:15 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Fields wrote:


I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.


All I am hearing from this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief
is a bunch of whining about how "hard" it was for *him* to make the
decision to go to war.


---
A better alternative would have been someone who found it _easy_ to go
to war?

I just don't recall any of our other past Presidents complaining about
it- LBJ was known to suffer from serious anxiety over Vietnam- can you
tell me when he *ever* cried on the shoulder of the American public.

---


There are many other issues where the little wimp
retreats into complaining how hard things are for him and he then
pretends to educate us on the qualities a good President should have-
while never claiming to possess those qualities himself.


---
Yes, well, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, and I can't find
fault with his stating his aspirations while admitting his
limitations.

If Bush has doubts about his abilities then he needs to keep them to
himself. He should know that a leader is supposed to set the example and
show confidence.

---


You might get a clue from all this ego perspective he blithers, that we have a seriously
defective individual as President. Bush's own words are that war is
"political capital" to be used to advance his agenda, and he criticized
his own father for not cashing in on the war he fought. You may think
it's brave to demonstrate a total lack of respect for humanity, but I
call that sickness, and this has nothing to do with pacifism.


---
With one tongue you condemn him for admitting that it was difficult
for him to get us into a war, and with the other you condemn him for
having a total lack of respect for humanity?

Yes- that's right- I believe his consternation is a facade.

>

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:22:26 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On 1 Nov 2004 19:18:24 -0800, hybridyne2000@yahoo.com (Steve Sands)
wrote:


War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control.

---
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs

Which thumbs are those? The Vietnamese?

Fool.


and

they'd all be hovering around just waiting for anyone to make the
slightest move which they considered threatening and then, SQUISH...
---

If your type were dealing with Bin
Laden or Saddam you would be the first to break out the K-Y.

---
I think they'd be praying to magically sprout more cheeks.
---

War is not for the cowardly. It's real easy to sit back and just throw
cheap cowardly insults at the president without the benefit of knowing
the facts.

---
I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:15 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.


All I am hearing from this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief
is a bunch of whining about how "hard" it was for *him* to make the
decision to go to war.

---
A better alternative would have been someone who found it _easy_ to go
to war?
---

There are many other issues where the little wimp
retreats into complaining how hard things are for him and he then
pretends to educate us on the qualities a good President should have-
while never claiming to possess those qualities himself.

---
Yes, well, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, and I can't find
fault with his stating his aspirations while admitting his
limitations.
---

You might get a clue from all this ego perspective he blithers, that we have a seriously
defective individual as President. Bush's own words are that war is
"political capital" to be used to advance his agenda, and he criticized
his own father for not cashing in on the war he fought. You may think
it's brave to demonstrate a total lack of respect for humanity, but I
call that sickness, and this has nothing to do with pacifism.

---
With one tongue you condemn him for admitting that it was difficult
for him to get us into a war, and with the other you condemn him for
having a total lack of respect for humanity?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:27:09 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:15 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Fields wrote:


I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.


All I am hearing from this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief
is a bunch of whining about how "hard" it was for *him* to make the
decision to go to war.


---
A better alternative would have been someone who found it _easy_ to go
to war?

I just don't recall any of our other past Presidents complaining about
it- LBJ was known to suffer from serious anxiety over Vietnam- can you
tell me when he *ever* cried on the shoulder of the American public.

---
I seem to recall something about a "heavy heart" when he refused
re-election.
---

There are many other issues where the little wimp
retreats into complaining how hard things are for him and he then
pretends to educate us on the qualities a good President should have-
while never claiming to possess those qualities himself.


---
Yes, well, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, and I can't find
fault with his stating his aspirations while admitting his
limitations.

If Bush has doubts about his abilities then he needs to keep them to
himself. He should know that a leader is supposed to set the example and
show confidence.

---
Au contraire! Admitting to difficulty doesn't indicate a lack of
confidence, it shows that you've got the balls to talk about it.

Besides, I don't think admitting to difficulty is an admission of
impossibility.

Just because you need surgery and you're told that it's going to be
difficult doesn't necessarily mean you're going to die under the
knife.
---

You might get a clue from all this ego perspective he blithers, that we have a seriously
defective individual as President. Bush's own words are that war is
"political capital" to be used to advance his agenda, and he criticized
his own father for not cashing in on the war he fought. You may think
it's brave to demonstrate a total lack of respect for humanity, but I
call that sickness, and this has nothing to do with pacifism.


---
With one tongue you condemn him for admitting that it was difficult
for him to get us into a war, and with the other you condemn him for
having a total lack of respect for humanity?

Yes- that's right- I believe his consternation is a facade.

---
You may be right. They're _all_ politicians, so it's _all_ pretty
much smoke and mirrors...

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4185A043.8090601@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4184F1E1.9000305@nospam.com>...

Paul Burridge wrote:

It'd be a dull old world without him. ;-

But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!


It used to be a dangerous idiot and liar, can't keep your story
straight?

Bush is a dangerous liar, and BUsh is a dangerous idiot,and bUsh is a
liar, and Bush is an idiot. If Bush is a dangerous liar then he is a
liar, and if Bush is a dangerous idiot than he is an idiot. It has been
established that Bush dangerous as a liar and an idiot.

But it still takes one to know one.

Not really- I *know* you're a mental midget- and I am nowhere near as
dumb as you are. You just don't seem to pick up on details very well-
probably explains why you're a failure and unemployable parasite.


Hehe, I guess you are just partly as dumb as you say I am then!

Have you you maxed out your unemployment yet?

Have you?