"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:36:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

jps wrote:

In article ,
jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:52:06 -0800, jps
wrote:

In article ,
jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On 4 Mar 2004 09:06:46 -0800, (basskisser)
wrote:

03-04) 05:10 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended
commercials
using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including
wreckage
of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election
about
public
policy and the war on terror.

Good idea, b'asskisser. Cut and paste. Then no one can say a
word
about your spelling and grammar.

Bush did a superb job of providing leadership to the country
during
a
time when panic could have reigned supreme.

Kerry's ads are taking advantage of a conflict in which,
according
to
Kerry, thousands of innocent women and children were raped,
killed
or
mutilated.

Which is worse?

John H

Well then, using another "defining moment" in our history, why
shouldn't
Kerry use images of our American dead and wounded coming back
from
Iraq?

That's a real equivalent in bad taste and emotional blackmail.

jps

Would those images somehow portray a job Kerry has done? Seems
like
he
voted to send them, but then voted not to resource them.

You're talking about images of the World Trade Center?

Uh, the "job that was done" in that case was American-trained
Saudis
flew American planes into a symbol of American capitalism.

I'm hoping Bush didn't arrange that just as I'm certain you hope
that
Kerry didn't arrange for dead and wounded kids to come back from
Iraq.

jps


Herring will leave no stone unturned in his flaccid attempts to
rationalize the behavior of George W. Bush, probably the worst
president
in the history of the United States.

Bush and his cohorts have done more to harm this country than the
9-11
terrorists. He's failed to capture any significant number of
terrorists,
he's lied about his reasons to invade Iraq, he's sold the future of
our
children and grandchildren down the river, he's poisoned the
environment, he's divided Americans along a half-dozen fault lines,
he's
done nothing to alleviate the misery of the long-term unemployed,
he's
allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate, and the list goes on and
on
and on.

But Bush's failures matter not to Herring and other flat-line
Republicans like him. They'll vote for Bush not matter what, utter
foolw
that they are.

And here I've been singing your praises and telling John Smith that
most people aren't name-callers.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Krause, bb, basskisser and jps cannot reply to anyone with opposing
view
without insulting them first. You generally don't see that on the
other
side of the fence.

I will admit that I have sunk to their level a couple of times, but
only
after being insulted several time in the thread.

It is indeed a shame that they cannot carry on a civil discussion
without
having to resort to those childish name calling.



You're just right-wing trash, Dennis, and therefore not worth a civil
discussion. I've posted any number of times I am NOT interested in
"debates" or lengthy "discussions" with the right-wing trash here.

Thanks for proving my point Harry.

Have a nice night.


It's not *your* point, dummy. It is my oft-stated position.

Thanks once more for proving my point Harry.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:06:15 -0500, DSK wrote:


Please also note that Republicans mostly disliked FDR, and the
right-wing
branch of the GOP actively hated and undermined him, and spread
the
most
awful rumors they could think of. Some were outright Nazi
sympathizers.

Don't forget the attempted coup against FDR.

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr399-fdr.html


It is a vast right wing conspiracy. We have secret meetings every
night.
We even have a secret handshake and special decoder rings.

I do not believe I have every read a conservative here stating he
wished
to
kill Clinton. I have, however, read about wishes to kill Bush by
a
couple
of loony lefties here, including the clown prince Krause.

Uh, sorry, crap-for-brains, but all I wish for Bush is a speedy
retirement this fall, and perhaps, if we're lucky, a tar and
feathering
of the idiot as he leaves town.

Sorry Krazy Krause but you cannot deny the death wishes you made on
our
President, along with a couple of other crazies from your lefty loony
crowd.




Sure I can. Never made any. Sorry.

Easy to say now that you have deleted your old posts.


I've not deleted anything, crap-for-brains. In fact, I don't even know
how one would do that, since doing so is of no interest to me.

Thanks for making my point (the fact that you always reply to those
disagreeing with you with a childish insult) once again.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:02:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

Given the situation that day, I would not have wanted the President,
no matter who it was, in the White House. To suggest he should have
returned to the White House is ridiculous.

Earth to John, nobody suggested he should have gone back to the White
House. I'm sure the president has the capability to broadcast from
places other than the White House.

bb

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:31:02 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
John H wrote:
Not cheerleading, stating a fact. Your 'hiding out' argument is
specious and ridiculous, as mentioned earlier.

In other words, as far as you're concerned, what happens in real life,
in the real world, is 'specious and ridiculous.' OTOH everything that is
bragged about by the BushCo advertising moguls is 'stating a fact.'

Interesting way of looking at things. Do you stub your toes a lot when
you walk around with your eyes squinched up like that? Or do you just
sit at home and take your walks in Bushie fantasy-land?

DSK

You made me laugh out loud, for real.

jps

I'm happy that you're happy!

Thanks.

You're most welcome!

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:53:24 GMT, bb wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:31:04 -0500, John H
wrote:

Bush did a superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme.

Leadership? Let's not forget about him hiding out during a very dark
day for this country.

Kerry's ads are taking advantage of a conflict in which, according to
Kerry, thousands of innocent women and children were raped, killed or
mutilated.

Which is worse?

According to the actual victims, Bush.

bb

You've polled the victims of both?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:34:32 GMT, bb wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:02:54 -0500, John H
wrote:

Given the situation that day, I would not have wanted the President,
no matter who it was, in the White House. To suggest he should have
returned to the White House is ridiculous.

Earth to John, nobody suggested he should have gone back to the White
House. I'm sure the president has the capability to broadcast from
places other than the White House.

bb

What would you have had him do or say? He didn't have a bunch of
people on the scene to provide him immediate information.

Of course, you may be one of those who proclaim he knew about the
attack in advance and was probably involved in the planning. Then I
could understand your position.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

jps wrote:

Well then, using another "defining moment" in our history, why shouldn't
Kerry use images of our American dead and wounded coming back from Iraq?

Ah, a liberal defining moment. NO care for fellow human beings who are
being murdered, oppressed, and tortured beyond belief. No self-sacrifice
in a liberal for a fellow-human being, just empty words and hot air
about how much they "care".

-- Charlie

Jim wrote:


Ummm -- seems to me that The president and VP ran and hid while this was
going on. There was something like 20 min between tower 1 and tower 2
being hit. It was over an hour before the Pentagon was hit, yet no air
defense was prepared. The plane that went down in PA was tracked for
some time, yet not taken out


That plane that went down due to the heroic actions of those on board,
who understood what was happening, is nothing more than knife in your
hand to attack others. How pathetic is that.

How contemptible you are. You'll never rise to level of those on board
that plane who gave their lives for the good of others. Yours is a banal
horizon, the installed in power of some political double-talker who has
beguiled you.

-- Charlie

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:50:31 -0500, Jim wrote:



John H wrote:


Bush did a superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme.


Ummm -- seems to me that The president and VP ran and hid while this was
going on. There was something like 20 min between tower 1 and tower 2
being hit. It was over an hour before the Pentagon was hit, yet no air
defense was prepared. The plane that went down in PA was tracked for
some time, yet not taken out

All in all I'd say the presidents' actions on 9/11 are nothing to brag about

Jim, we had not normally been keeping an air defense battery around
the twin towers or the Pentagon. The closest air defense we had was at
Fort Belvoir, VA. That's about an hour from the Pentagon on a good
day, assuming the troops were loaded and ready to go.

We had not been keeping F-16's on the ready rack at Andrews AFB
either.

Have you ever landed at National Airport in Washington, D,C.? When
landing from the north, planes fly directly above the Potomac River
until they hit the runway. This means they pass within a few blocks of
the Pentagon. The warning time would have been about 4 seconds from
the time a plane left the normal flight path.

It's okay to hate Bush, but try to exercise some reason!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

In article .net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:10:02 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

You're a fool. An assassination threat was made on the President's life
the
same day 4 planes were hijacked, and flown into the WTC, and a building
in
close proximity to the President's residence.

One of the resident Bush cheerleaders, John H, claimed "Bush did a
superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme." Bush is commander in
Chief, but in a very dark day for this nation, he turned into
commander in Chicken. John H's claims about how Bush acted are
outlandish.

So you say it's worse if the victims say it's worse? Ok, then let's
apply
your logic and apply it to what these "victims" have to say:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

You want to use a lunatic right wing fringe group web site to back up
your argument? You may buy into it Nobbie, but the public isn't.

Bush has used 9/11 shamelessly to prop up his failed administration
and it looks like the citizens of this country are getting a little
tired of it.

Let's just see the way enlisted men and veterans vote in November...

Well, since most of the troops who've gone to war in Iraq are not
"enlisted men and veterans" I'd venture a guess that Bush will lose big
time among active troops.

Second, I'd also venture a guess that veterans would probably cotton to
Kerry before Bush. Kerry went to war and fought gallantly while Bush
enjoyed his exclusive status as a political scion.

I expect most veterans can feel that in their bones.