Jeff Rigby wrote:
The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.


You mean like a "lier" who would say 'my social security plan should
stand on it's own merits' while spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars under the table to wage a publicity campaign to drum up public
support for his social security plan? A person who would say 'we *will*
get Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack
in history' and then pull thousands of troops away from the hunt for Bin
Laden so as to stage an invasion of another country that had zero
involvement in anti-US terrorism? You mean like a person that would tout
his plan to preserve the environment while dismantling the EPA?

I could go on, but I bet you've got the idea.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff Rigby wrote:
The person who wrote this article is either an idiot who can't read or a
lier who has no regard for the truth.


You mean like a "lier" who would say 'my social security plan should stand
on it's own merits' while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars under
the table to wage a publicity campaign to drum up public support for his
social security plan? A person who would say 'we *will* get Osama Bin
Laden, the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history' and
then pull thousands of troops away from the hunt for Bin Laden so as to
stage an invasion of another country that had zero involvement in anti-US
terrorism? You mean like a person that would tout his plan to preserve the
environment while dismantling the EPA?

I could go on, but I bet you've got the idea.

DSK

My statement is an objective questioning of facts used in an argument. The
facts as stated in his argument were WRONG, in fact SO WRONG as to make him
appear to be an idiot or a lier

Your statement while I disagree with it and find it somewhat biased is not
wrong. It quotes no facts in error.