WH accuses others of lying about debate schedule
 

Gould,
I just found this web site I thought you might like. It rates the mud slung
by both parties. It looks like Kerry has gained a lead in slinging mud.
http://www.crawdadtech.com/campaign/

Maybe if he slings enough, he'll get back into the race. :-)

Does it strike you as just a bit tragic that we have organizations set up to
measure just *how* negatively one side or the other campaigns?

It's a sad fact that the name -calling, lies,
and malicious accusations seem to be what Boobus Americanus responds to most
enthusiastically. (That's why it has become the mainstay of most political
campaigns for the last 30 years or so).

It sure is, and if you take a look at Harry you will see he slings more mud
than everyone else put together. I would think the outrageous mud slinging
would case the undecided away, but who knows.

The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in the
debates.




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
I just found this web site I thought you might like. It rates the mud
slung
by both parties. It looks like Kerry has gained a lead in slinging mud.
http://www.crawdadtech.com/campaign/

Maybe if he slings enough, he'll get back into the race. :-)

Does it strike you as just a bit tragic that we have organizations set up
to
measure just *how* negatively one side or the other campaigns?

It's a sad fact that the name -calling, lies,
and malicious accusations seem to be what Boobus Americanus responds to
most
enthusiastically. (That's why it has become the mainstay of most political
campaigns for the last 30 years or so).

case should be Chase.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:b8E3d.76887$MQ5.75631@attbi_s52...
It sure is, and if you take a look at Harry you will see he slings more
mud than everyone else put together. I would think the outrageous mud
slinging would chase the undecided away, but who knows.

The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in the
debates.




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
I just found this web site I thought you might like. It rates the mud
slung
by both parties. It looks like Kerry has gained a lead in slinging mud.
http://www.crawdadtech.com/campaign/

Maybe if he slings enough, he'll get back into the race. :-)

Does it strike you as just a bit tragic that we have organizations set up
to
measure just *how* negatively one side or the other campaigns?

It's a sad fact that the name -calling, lies,
and malicious accusations seem to be what Boobus Americanus responds to
most
enthusiastically. (That's why it has become the mainstay of most
political
campaigns for the last 30 years or so).

The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in the
debates.

Precisely why GWB would be wise to avoid the debates. Bush cannot speak
extemporaneously, and should never attempt it.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in the
debates.

Precisely why GWB would be wise to avoid the debates. Bush cannot speak
extemporaneously, and should never attempt it.

The general consensus on Bush is that he has done exceptionally well in his
debates...both with Al Gore in 2000, and Ann Richards in 1994. I think the
debates will actually *help* Bush by magnifying the biggest difference
between the two candidates...which is that Bush is firm, resolute, and can
"stay on message", and Kerry is a wishy-washy, flip-flopper whose message
will meander all over the place. In a Presidential debate, voters will want
concise, black-and-white answers...not shades of grey.

very few debates are anything more than buzz words and nice platitudes.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in the
debates.

Precisely why GWB would be wise to avoid the debates. Bush cannot speak
extemporaneously, and should never attempt it.

Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in
the
debates.

Precisely why GWB would be wise to avoid the debates. Bush cannot speak
extemporaneously, and should never attempt it.

The general consensus on Bush is that he has done exceptionally well in
his
debates...both with Al Gore in 2000, and Ann Richards in 1994. I think
the
debates will actually *help* Bush by magnifying the biggest difference
between the two candidates...which is that Bush is firm, resolute, and can
"stay on message", and Kerry is a wishy-washy, flip-flopper whose message
will meander all over the place. In a Presidential debate, voters will
want
concise, black-and-white answers...not shades of grey.

The only thing that Bush should avoid is the 'townhall' with 'independent
voters' It is basically a setup....it is far too easy to sack the
'audience' as shown by the pony tailed clown that wanted guvmint to play
'daddy' during the Bush/Clinton debates

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The only thing that will save Kerry is an extremely strong showing in
the
debates.

Precisely why GWB would be wise to avoid the debates. Bush cannot
speak
extemporaneously, and should never attempt it.

The general consensus on Bush is that he has done exceptionally well in
his
debates...both with Al Gore in 2000, and Ann Richards in 1994. I think
the
debates will actually *help* Bush by magnifying the biggest difference
between the two candidates...which is that Bush is firm, resolute, and
can
"stay on message", and Kerry is a wishy-washy, flip-flopper whose
message
will meander all over the place. In a Presidential debate, voters will
want
concise, black-and-white answers...not shades of grey.

The only thing that Bush should avoid is the 'townhall' with 'independent
voters' It is basically a setup....it is far too easy to sack the
'audience' as shown by the pony tailed clown that wanted guvmint to play
'daddy' during the Bush/Clinton debates

Precisely. A townhall style debate allows the Democrats to turn the debate
into a meandering philisophical tit-for-tat with no clear answers given by
either side...which is precisely what Kerry is good at. People want
answers.

We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)

Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called
debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.



Your opinion, but he seems to have overcome Ann Richards and Al Gore.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called
debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.



Your opinion, but he seems to have overcome Ann Richards and Al Gore.



The posit was, "in a real debate..."

Not a venue in which quips are exchanged.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.

Well, you won't be laughing come November.


Maybe not...if Bush wins, I'll be looking skyward to see the incoming
missiles.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called
debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.

Well, you won't be laughing come November.


Maybe not...if Bush wins, I'll be looking skyward to see the incoming
missiles.

Then thank God Republicans have had the foresight to fund missile defense
systems.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
We have never had "debates" between the candidates. They are called
debates
by TV Pundits, but they are not debates.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Brilliant strategy! I vote Chuck Gould for Bush campaign manager!

See? I told you that message would resonate with his supporters. :-)



True enough...in a real debate, Bush would be laughed off the podium.



Your opinion, but he seems to have overcome Ann Richards and Al Gore.



The posit was, "in a real debate..."

Not a venue in which quips are exchanged.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a
pariah.

What, me worry?

Well, this is what we have via all you political strategists.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
I just found this web site I thought you might like. It rates the mud
slung
by both parties. It looks like Kerry has gained a lead in slinging mud.
http://www.crawdadtech.com/campaign/

Maybe if he slings enough, he'll get back into the race. :-)

Does it strike you as just a bit tragic that we have organizations set up
to
measure just *how* negatively one side or the other campaigns?

Grow up Chuckie! The mud in present day campaigns is nothing compared to 150
years ago.

It's a sad fact that the name -calling, lies,
and malicious accusations seem to be what Boobus Americanus responds to
most
enthusiastically. (That's why it has become the mainstay of most political
campaigns for the last 30 years or so).

As I said it is for more than 150 years.

WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:00:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maybe not...if Bush wins, I'll be looking skyward to see the incoming
missiles.

I hope it doesn't hit the "scumbags" who don't like Kerry. hee hee


I'm afraid they'll hit all of us. I live in the Washington, D.C., SMSA,
and every day I go into town I wonder, "Is today the day the terrorists
are going to show us how silly the unPatriotic Act and Homeland
inSecurity are?"

Neither of these Bush misAdministration abortions will prevent
terrorists from doing us great harm. All they do is curtail the
liberties of decent citizens.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message news:b8E3d.76887$MQ5.75631@attbi_s52...
It sure is, and if you take a look at Harry you will see he slings more mud
than everyone else put together. I would think the outrageous mud slinging
would case the undecided away, but who knows.

The only reason anyone here appears to sling any more mud than you, is
you cut and run by changing your name every couple of days.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:00:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Maybe not...if Bush wins, I'll be looking skyward to see the incoming
missiles.

I hope it doesn't hit the "scumbags" who don't like Kerry. hee hee


I'm afraid they'll hit all of us. I live in the Washington, D.C., SMSA,
and every day I go into town I wonder, "Is today the day the terrorists
are going to show us how silly the unPatriotic Act and Homeland
inSecurity are?"

Neither of these Bush misAdministration abortions will prevent
terrorists from doing us great harm. All they do is curtail the
liberties of decent citizens.


Someone stole my wife's ID and credit card info recently. He/she used that
info to set up accounts on 8-10 internet auction sites, selling stolen
products. I managed to trace the thief to an AOL email address...and
managed to "loosely" connect the email address to a phone number and
physical address in Myrtle Beach, SC. I contacted AOL's Community Action
Team, and found out that the person had also registered two other usernames
with my wife's profile. We were getting threatening and/or obscene crank
calls from all over the US, and I figured that the thief was using those
usernames linked to my wife's profile while he visited pervert chat rooms.
I had those inactivated last week, and haven't received a call since. The
AOL rep wouldn't tell me the name of the person registered to the email
address...nor the physical address. He wouldn't even confirm nor deny that
the name and address that I provided him matched the aol address. I
contacted Citibank's fraud dept., figuring that they could subpoena AOL and
get the name, but they weren't interested since the theft was less than
$700...and they weren't even sure which law enforcement agency would handle
it. (It was $700 from me...but they are peddling in tens of thousands of
dollars of stolen merchandise worldwide). I contacted my county's Sheriff
Dept. and got the usual "out of my jurisdiction" response. (At least he ran
the VIN for the motorcycle that the thief was selling online...but it came
up as fictitious.) I contacted the Horry County, SC sheriff, and they said
to contact Myrtle Beach police. I contacted Myrtle Beach police, and they
said that since he's selling the items online, it's not their jurisdiction
(what about possession of stolen property while living at a physical address
in SC!?!?!?)

I did a little more probing around and found that (thanks to the Patriot
Act) it's actually the Secret Service's Electronic Crime Task Force that
handles investigations into internet crimes. I called the Miami office and
asked to speak to an agent of the ECTF, and amazingly talked to someone
right away. He took about 10 minutes to collect all the info,...and said
that he'd subpoena the AOL address, subpoena the phone numbers of the crank
calls, and have an agent visit the physical address if it matched the AOL
address. He provided his email address and phone number in case I needed to
contact him any further..."especially if we received another phone call". I
spoke with him Friday, and he and a few dozen agents from his office were
going up to NY for the UN meeting on the Middle East. He stated that it may
be "several weeks" to "get to the bottom of it" if the leads that I provided
don't immediately produce results.


Having gone through all of this, I realized that without the Patriot Act,
there'd be no agency with the authority, know-how, or interest to even
pursue a case like this. No wonder internet crime had become so
popular...and had become a preferred method of communication and revenue
generation by the terrorists.

I've seen the Patriot Act work in my favor...but have yet to see it work
against me or any other law-abiding citizen that I know.

NOYB wrote:


Someone stole my wife's ID and credit card info recently.

Yikes! That sucks. Sorry to hear about it.


I did a little more probing around and found that (thanks to the Patriot
Act) it's actually the Secret Service's Electronic Crime Task Force that
handles investigations into internet crimes.
Having gone through all of this, I realized that without the Patriot Act,
there'd be no agency with the authority, know-how, or interest to even
pursue a case like this. No wonder internet crime had become so
popular...and had become a preferred method of communication and revenue
generation by the terrorists.

I've seen the Patriot Act work in my favor...but have yet to see it work
against me or any other law-abiding citizen that I know.


But it wasn't the unPatriotic Act that provided help...it was the Secret
Service.

We had a couple of really nasty crank calls some years ago, two serious
enough to contact the local police, who put us in direct contact with
the FBI. They took care of the perps in a satisfactory fashion. One of
the perps no longer posts here, at least not under the handle he had
used in rec.boats.

This was before the unPatriotic Act.

Apparently the local police up here are a little more "with it."





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

I've seen the Patriot Act work in my favor...but have yet to see it work
against me or any other law-abiding citizen that I know.



When you see it work against you, it will be too late to do anything about it.

It's one thing to use these powers on "terorists", but as you discovered first
hand
the law enforcement agencies are all too quick to use these powers to usurp the
constitutional rights of others suspected of
non-terror offenses as well.

Everybody agrees that we should crack down on "Terrorists".

Our founding fathers, for good or ill, created some specific guidelines we must
observe when pursuing common criminals.
Their intent was to prevent fraudlent or groundless prosecution based on
political preferance or personal ambition- as can be more common in a monarchy.

I struggle to think of a government, anywhere in history, that had the sweeping
powers available to it that the Patriot Act bestows on the the US government
and that did not, ultimately, direct those powers against its political, as
well as criminal, opponents.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Someone stole my wife's ID and credit card info recently.

Yikes! That sucks. Sorry to hear about it.


I did a little more probing around and found that (thanks to the Patriot
Act) it's actually the Secret Service's Electronic Crime Task Force that
handles investigations into internet crimes.
Having gone through all of this, I realized that without the Patriot
Act,
there'd be no agency with the authority, know-how, or interest to even
pursue a case like this. No wonder internet crime had become so
popular...and had become a preferred method of communication and revenue
generation by the terrorists.

I've seen the Patriot Act work in my favor...but have yet to see it work
against me or any other law-abiding citizen that I know.


But it wasn't the unPatriotic Act that provided help...it was the Secret
Service.


The Patriot Act gave to the USSS the authority and responsibility to
investigate internet crimes. Prior to that, nobody was sure *who* was
responsible and had jurisdiction.


We had a couple of really nasty crank calls some years ago, two serious
enough to contact the local police, who put us in direct contact with
the FBI. They took care of the perps in a satisfactory fashion. One of
the perps no longer posts here, at least not under the handle he had
used in rec.boats.

This was before the unPatriotic Act.

Apparently the local police up here are a little more "with it."

It wasn't the phone calls that the agent was most interested in. If it was
merely phone threats, I suspect that the FBI would have been the
organization to contact. However, it was the fact that the thief used the
internet to commit identity theft, credit card fraud, and the sale of stolen
merchandise...and was doing this on an international scale. I called the
local FBI office and they said an agent would call back, which he never did.
I never followed up with them because I spoke with the USSS agent
immediately after leaving a message at the FBI's office.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I've seen the Patriot Act work in my favor...but have yet to see it work
against me or any other law-abiding citizen that I know.



When you see it work against you, it will be too late to do anything about
it.

It's one thing to use these powers on "terorists", but as you discovered
first
hand
the law enforcement agencies are all too quick to use these powers to
usurp the
constitutional rights of others suspected of
non-terror offenses as well.

The thief was selling goods purchased illegally in Romania, the Netherlands,
Great Britain, an elsewhere. How do you know that it isn't a
money-producing scheme used to fund terrorism?

The thief was selling goods purchased illegally in Romania, the Netherlands,
Great Britain, an elsewhere. How do you know that it isn't a
money-producing scheme used to fund terrorism?

Thank you for making my point.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no need to establish any link to terrorism,
merely to claim that one exists.

Take search warrants, for instance. Under the Patriot Act, no judge can refuse
to grant a search warrant if the law enforcement agency mentions the word
"terrorist" anywhere in the application for such a warrant. Under the patriot
act, an initially issued search warrant can be used over, and over, and over,
and over again if the police believe the search "could be" related to an
existing investigation that "could be" related to terrorism.

The Patriot Act effectively guts the constitutional protection against illegal
search and seizure. But I guess that's OK, Bush and Ashcroft have decided we
didn't need that portion of the Bill of Rights, anyway.

Gould 0738 wrote:
The thief was selling goods purchased illegally in Romania, the Netherlands,
Great Britain, an elsewhere. How do you know that it isn't a
money-producing scheme used to fund terrorism?

Thank you for making my point.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no need to establish any link to terrorism,
merely to claim that one exists.

Take search warrants, for instance. Under the Patriot Act, no judge can refuse
to grant a search warrant if the law enforcement agency mentions the word
"terrorist" anywhere in the application for such a warrant. Under the patriot
act, an initially issued search warrant can be used over, and over, and over,
and over again if the police believe the search "could be" related to an
existing investigation that "could be" related to terrorism.

The Patriot Act effectively guts the constitutional protection against illegal
search and seizure. But I guess that's OK, Bush and Ashcroft have decided we
didn't need that portion of the Bill of Rights, anyway.


Righties see the entire Bill of Rights as an encumbrance, not as the
defensive wall between the government and the citizen. In fact, righties
misinterpret the only two elements of the Bill of Rights they "believe
in," their belief that they can own whatever weapons they want, and
their belief they can shove their form of Christianity down the throats
of everyone else.

In the days not so long ago when Conservatism actually had moral and
intellectual underpinnings, such was not the case.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The thief was selling goods purchased illegally in Romania, the
Netherlands,
Great Britain, an elsewhere. How do you know that it isn't a
money-producing scheme used to fund terrorism?

Thank you for making my point.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no need to establish any link to
terrorism,
merely to claim that one exists.

Take search warrants, for instance. Under the Patriot Act, no judge can
refuse
to grant a search warrant if the law enforcement agency mentions the word
"terrorist" anywhere in the application for such a warrant. Under the
patriot
act, an initially issued search warrant can be used over, and over, and
over,
and over again if the police believe the search "could be" related to an
existing investigation that "could be" related to terrorism.

The Patriot Act effectively guts the constitutional protection against
illegal
search and seizure. But I guess that's OK, Bush and Ashcroft have decided
we
didn't need that portion of the Bill of Rights, anyway.

Chuck,
You've effectively managed to change the point of my whole story. Now it's
time to bring you back to reality. The person who stole my wife's credit
card number is using a valid AOL email account to commit his crimes. This
isn't an issue of "protecting the innocent". He/she is guilty. He/she is
continuing to commit the crimes using the AOL account. If the account was
fraudulently created, then the subpoena will at least allow the Feds to shut
it down. If it's legit, then the thief goes to jail. It's a matter of
finally having some legislation that grants law enforcement the power to
pursue criminals that historically have operated outside the reach of
traditional law enforcement methods.

Chuck,
You've effectively managed to change the point of my whole story.

Huh? You summed up your story with a comment about how wonderful it was that
the Patriot Act was being used as a domestic law enforcement device.

Why not just remove all the restrictions from the police? Give them unlimited
discretion to behave any way they want.
Why should we burden them with silly ideas that evidence needs to meet any sort
of standards? Let's just go to "guilty until proven innocent", that should make
the court system run a lot more efficiently.

Chuck,
You've effectively managed to change the point of my whole story.


Gould 0738 wrote:
Huh? You summed up your story with a comment about how wonderful it was that
the Patriot Act was being used as a domestic law enforcement device.

I thought the whole point of NOBBY's story is that 1- he's a weenie who
cannot simply go and break the thief's kneecap... 2- he is really
longing for a tyrannical dictatorship instead of a constitutional democracy.


Why not just remove all the restrictions from the police? Give them unlimited
discretion to behave any way they want.

Well, in reality, that's the case and always must be. Police officers,
marshalls, gov't enforcement agents, etc etc, all can pretty much act as
they please. They have guns, they have authority, they can order people
around.... BUT our system has a set of checks & balances that reward
them for acting responsibly & in the public interest (much of the time)
and punishes them for acting tyrannically (much of the time).

Much of the Patriot Act is about removing those checks & balances. Is
this a good idea?

Why should we burden them with silly ideas that evidence needs to meet any sort
of standards? Let's just go to "guilty until proven innocent", that should make
the court system run a lot more efficiently.

Let's get rid of the courts. Just let the cops beat the snot out of
anybody they think is a criminal or might become one. In fact, let's
take people rumored to be terrorists and/or criminals and do something
really cruel to them, like cut their hands off... maybe we could tie
them to a post and get everybody in town to throw rocks at them...

DSK