Bush by a landslide
 

Gould,
If you can not see that both parties are playing with the voters emotions,
you are so blinded by your emotions, you remind me of a Rush "Ditto-Head".

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort to
hurling insults.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
If you can not see that both parties are playing with the voters emotions,
you are so blinded by your emotions, you remind me of a Rush "Ditto-Head".

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather
than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort
to
hurling insults.


Sort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."

Too funny.

ort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."


Exactly. I offered some evidence that two morons were amplifying one another's
insults directed third parties.

Once the insults begin to fly, and I'm mentioned by name, the thread becomes
personal. You, of all people, should know.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."


Exactly. I offered some evidence that two morons were amplifying one
another's
insults directed third parties.

Once the insults begin to fly, and I'm mentioned by name, the thread
becomes
personal. You, of all people, should know.

I do indeed as you normally turn it that way.

Gould 0738 wrote:
ort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."


Exactly. I offered some evidence that two morons were amplifying one another's
insults directed third parties.

Once the insults begin to fly, and I'm mentioned by name, the thread becomes
personal. You, of all people, should know.


Dang it, Chuck...can't you include the name of the poster in your
comments? I can't tell which right-wing moron made that comment...was it
DimwitJimwit, ****edOnFritz, SonOfSkipperSmith, FilBert?




"Bush is smart. I don't think that Bush will ever be impeached, 'cause
unlike Clinton, Reagan, or even his father, George W. is immune from
scandal. Because, if George W. testifies that he had no idea what was
going on, wouldn't you believe him?"
-- Jay Leno

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
If you can not see that both parties are playing with the voters
emotions,
you are so blinded by your emotions, you remind me of a Rush
"Ditto-Head".

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather
than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort
to
hurling insults.


Sort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."

Too funny.

Just standard operating procedure for a liebral.....accuse others of what
you are pesonally guilty of.

Gould,

There are numerous web sites that review campaign rhetoric fact vs. fiction.
I have given you links many times to show that both parties are just as
guilty of making false charges and playing up on emotions and fears.

Here is one of them: http://www.factcheck.org/default.html

Here is an article reviewing some recent emotional tripe by both parties.
http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

My comment concerning "Ditto Heads" was another successful attempt to get
you to declare foul, when I was using your exact same comment you have made
to me many times. You have told me numerous times that I need to stop
listening to Rush and Hannity, and start thinking for myself, even though I
insist I never listen to either one of them. You tell me I am just
repeating all of the lies I hear on right wing talk radio which I absolutely
do not listen to, hence you are calling me a ditto head.

Now when I say you sound like a "Rush DittoHead" just because you are
ignoring the fact that Kerry is just as guilty of playing on emotions, you
scream foul. and say :

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather
than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort
to
hurling insults."

Why is it always acceptable for you to use those words you think are
insulting, but get all upset when it is repeated back at you? You do this
all of the time, and then claim moral superiority in any debate.





"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
If you can not see that both parties are playing with the voters emotions,
you are so blinded by your emotions, you remind me of a Rush "Ditto-Head".

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather
than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort
to
hurling insults.

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message
news:FHced.297764$D%.189880@attbi_s51...
Gould,

There are numerous web sites that review campaign rhetoric fact vs.
fiction. I have given you links many times to show that both parties are
just as guilty of making false charges and playing up on emotions and
fears.

Here is one of them: http://www.factcheck.org/default.html

Here is an article reviewing some recent emotional tripe by both parties.
http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

My comment concerning "Ditto Heads" was another successful attempt to get
you to declare foul, when I was using your exact same comment you have
made to me many times. You have told me numerous times that I need to
stop listening to Rush and Hannity, and start thinking for myself, even
though I insist I never listen to either one of them. You tell me I am
just repeating all of the lies I hear on right wing talk radio which I
absolutely do not listen to, hence you are calling me a ditto head.

Now when I say you sound like a "Rush DittoHead" just because you are
ignoring the fact that Kerry is just as guilty of playing on emotions, you
scream foul. and say :

Once again you reveal your uncertainty about your own opinions. Rather
than
offer any evidence to substantiate your position, you immediately resort
to
hurling insults."

Why is it always acceptable for you to use those words you think are
insulting, but get all upset when it is repeated back at you? You do this
all of the time, and then claim moral superiority in any debate.



Indeed.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
ort of like you just posting this line?

"And you two morons just sit and amplify one anothers' insults."


Exactly. I offered some evidence that two morons were amplifying one
another's
insults directed third parties.

We should start calling you Jr. as in Harry Jr.

Once the insults begin to fly, and I'm mentioned by name, the thread
becomes
personal. You, of all people, should know.

Chuck you are a sissy. When you are confronted with your own hypocarcy you
can't take it like a man and move on, you have to start name calling.

This is priceless:

Chuck you are a sissy. When you are confronted with your own hypocarcy you
can't take it like a man and move on, you have to start name calling.

Yes, somebody really typed just exactly that. Sadly enough, the author has no
idea why the statement is so inconsistent or ludicrous. Maybe such lack of
perception is an act of divine mercy.

Chuck crawl out from under the rock.

Yet another intellectual, issue-oriented remark.

Their used to be employer sponsored
pension programs that most non-military, non-union and non-government people
were eligible to participate in.

And they were never funded by diverting Social Security taxes.



We all know that there is a major problem with the social security system
and Pres. Bush is proposing a solution, while Kerry just wants to let the
problem get worse and worse everyday by not doing anything.

Bush's solution is to take a program that is gasping for breath due to an
imbalance between income and outgo, and cut income substantially. If you had a
headache, and Bush suggested you solve the problem with a guillotine, would you
consider that a "solution"?

By the way, are you and Jon Smith the same guy? Only reason I ask:

Their used to be employer sponsored

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck crawl out from under the rock.

Yet another intellectual, issue-oriented remark.

Their used to be employer sponsored
pension programs that most non-military, non-union and non-government
people
were eligible to participate in.

And they were never funded by diverting Social Security taxes.

Correct, but when the Social Secrity taxes, aren't you supposed to say
contributions like a good socialist, were increased in the eighties the
private employers decided to drop their contributions to your pension plan
and so that they could pay the increased taxes being levied by the increase
in Social Security contributions.

We all know that there is a major problem with the social security system
and Pres. Bush is proposing a solution, while Kerry just wants to let the
problem get worse and worse everyday by not doing anything.

Bush's solution is to take a program that is gasping for breath due to an
imbalance between income and outgo, and cut income substantially. If you
had a
headache, and Bush suggested you solve the problem with a guillotine,
would you
consider that a "solution"?

The guillotine solves the problem, no more headache.

By the way, are you and Jon Smith the same guy? Only reason I ask:

Their used to be employer sponsored

Thanks for the complement!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

Correct, but when the Social Secrity taxes, aren't you supposed to say
contributions like a good socialist, were increased in the eighties the
private employers decided to drop their contributions to your pension
plan
and so that they could pay the increased taxes being levied by the
increase
in Social Security contributions.


Ahh...I have it now. English is NOT your first language.

You have a short memory, I have told you numerous times that I am a product
of liberal, outcome based, educators. You only have yourself to blame for my
poor english skills.