"basskisser" wrote in message

Again, you are too ****ing stupid to understand. Now, go back and READ
THE ORIGINAL POST. If it isn't painfully obvious to you which group of
swift boat vets are being talked about here, then you are indeed
beyond stupid.

Golly, bass, you have really picked up your Harry lessons well, as evidenced
by your constant stream of personal insult whenever you can't or don't want
to respond to a query. Harry should be well pleased, imitation and flattery
and all that. Unfortunately, as with Harry, it does little to advance the
flow of information.

Your earlier post, to which you referred me with such vitriol, says only
"...other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?" This is non-specific, as there are
two groups being paid to say different things. My simple question is,
"which swift boat vets", posed for the reasons aforementioned. Now, I
gather from your positions on other matters that you are an unhesitating and
unquestioning Democrat supporter, so I'm guessing that you just naturally
presume the anti-Kerry swift boat vets to be the paid group that is lying,
and that the other paid group is being truthful. I simply asked for a
clarification from you, that's all. If you're uncomfortable or
self-conscious having to state an unequivocal position, I guess I can
understand.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Again, you are too ****ing stupid to understand. Now, go back and READ
THE ORIGINAL POST. If it isn't painfully obvious to you which group of
swift boat vets are being talked about here, then you are indeed
beyond stupid.

Golly, bass, you have really picked up your Harry lessons well, as evidenced
by your constant stream of personal insult whenever you can't or don't want
to respond to a query.

I must apologize. I just get sick and tired of having to explain
things, which should be obvious to someone who feels the need to
interject into a thread. If someone is going to join a thread, it's my
feeling they should have at least an inkling about what they are
talking about.

Harry should be well pleased, imitation and flattery
and all that. Unfortunately, as with Harry, it does little to advance the
flow of information.

Your earlier post, to which you referred me with such vitriol, says only
"...other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?" This is non-specific, as there are
two groups being paid to say different things.

No, there is only one group getting paid for their political views.
That makes your argument completely invalid.
My simple question is,
"which swift boat vets", posed for the reasons aforementioned. Now, I
gather from your positions on other matters that you are an unhesitating and
unquestioning Democrat supporter,

Once again, you are wrong. I've voted for Republicans, independents,
and Democrats before, and probably will again. I leave my mind open.

so I'm guessing that you just naturally
presume the anti-Kerry swift boat vets to be the paid group that is lying,
and that the other paid group is being truthful.

One of the group has already admitted that they told lies upon lies.
That would be proof. What proof do you have that the pro-Kerry swift
boat vets are lying? By the way, one group calls themselves the swift
boat vets, the others call themselves something else. This is yet
another clue that you should have picked up on, but failed. So again,
I had to answer dumb questions that didn't need to be asked.
I simply asked for a

clarification from you, that's all. If you're uncomfortable or
self-conscious having to state an unequivocal position, I guess I can
understand.

I've stated my case above. I truly hope you DO understand, but
somehow, I doubt it.

"basskisser" wrote in message

I must apologize. I just get sick and tired of having to explain
things,

But you haven't explained anything.


No, there is only one group getting paid for their political views.

I'd love to see documentation on that. Although, I doubt seriously that all
Kerry's former crewmembers are paying their own way along the campaign
trail, in which case the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" would be the group
that is *not* being paid for their political views. Do you concur?



I've stated my case above. I truly hope you DO understand, but
somehow, I doubt it.

Gee, this is fun! No matter what or how I ask, you give the same tap-dance
answers, which say nothing. That might work in Georgia, but it is not
generally successful in serious conversation. Consequently, the only place
I encounter this tactic is in exchanges with you, or Harry, and some few
others on this NG.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

I must apologize. I just get sick and tired of having to explain
things,

But you haven't explained anything.


No, there is only one group getting paid for their political views.

I'd love to see documentation on that. Although, I doubt seriously that all
Kerry's former crewmembers are paying their own way along the campaign
trail, in which case the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" would be the group
that is *not* being paid for their political views. Do you concur?



I've stated my case above. I truly hope you DO understand, but
somehow, I doubt it.

Gee, this is fun! No matter what or how I ask, you give the same tap-dance
answers, which say nothing. That might work in Georgia, but it is not
generally successful in serious conversation. Consequently, the only place
I encounter this tactic is in exchanges with you, or Harry, and some few
others on this NG.


Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????

basskisser wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

I must apologize. I just get sick and tired of having to explain
things,

But you haven't explained anything.


No, there is only one group getting paid for their political views.

I'd love to see documentation on that. Although, I doubt seriously that all
Kerry's former crewmembers are paying their own way along the campaign
trail, in which case the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" would be the group
that is *not* being paid for their political views. Do you concur?



I've stated my case above. I truly hope you DO understand, but
somehow, I doubt it.

Gee, this is fun! No matter what or how I ask, you give the same tap-dance
answers, which say nothing. That might work in Georgia, but it is not
generally successful in serious conversation. Consequently, the only place
I encounter this tactic is in exchanges with you, or Harry, and some few
others on this NG.


Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????



Serious question: how long do you think it will take President Kerry to
clean up the awful mess left behind when Bush leaves the White House in
January? It's going to take years on the diplomatic front...and some
time to undo Bush's damage to the environment, to health care, to the
infrastructure...

It's going to take at least two terms of Kerry, two terms of Edwards or
Barack Obama and...well, after that, I probably won't care.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Serious question: how long do you think it will take President Kerry to
clean up the awful mess left behind when Bush leaves the White House in
January? It's going to take years on the diplomatic front...and some
time to undo Bush's damage to the environment, to health care, to the
infrastructure...

It's going to take at least two terms of Kerry, two terms of Edwards or
Barack Obama and...well, after that, I probably won't care.

Yes, it would have been so much simpler all around if we had just let Al
Gore take it in 2000. We could by now just let the UN make all our
decisions for us, petition the EU for membership, and the worst of it would
be that every year or so we'd only have to tolerate several thousand dead in
terrorist attacks.

Probably would have been a better choice, right Harry.....bass.....Doug?
Right?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:42:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:



Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????



Serious question: how long do you think it will take President Kerry to
clean up the awful mess left behind when Bush leaves the White House in
January? It's going to take years on the diplomatic front...and some
time to undo Bush's damage to the environment, to health care, to the
infrastructure...

So you're already laying the groundwork for your excuses when/if Kerry
wins and then fails to deliver on those lofty promises that any
rational person realizes he just can't keep?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:42:28 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:



Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????



Serious question: how long do you think it will take President Kerry to
clean up the awful mess left behind when Bush leaves the White House in
January? It's going to take years on the diplomatic front...and some
time to undo Bush's damage to the environment, to health care, to the
infrastructure...

So you're already laying the groundwork for your excuses when/if Kerry
wins and then fails to deliver on those lofty promises that any
rational person realizes he just can't keep?

Dave

No, Dave. Let's try again. Bush has done tremendous damage to us with
our allies, and with other countries friendly or at least neutral to us.
He also has increased resolve among those terrorists who want to do us
great harm. Bush has also damage to the environment, to health care, to
the infrastructure, to the budget, and so forth and so on, and it will
take aggressive action and years to undo the failures and catastrophes
of the Bush-**** administration.

Kerry will deliver...in time. The United States will not be rebuilt in a
day, or even a 1000 days. But Kerry will start the process and move us
along the path to recovery.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"basskisser" wrote in message


Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????

By God, this is fun! You never get it!

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:43:11 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


Holy, ****, John, are you REALLY saying that you STILL don't
understand which group I'm talking about? REALLY????

By God, this is fun! You never get it!

And by all accounts, he never will.......

At least he provides a bit of comic relief, for those of us who aren't
quite so serious about the whole thing....

Dave