In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.

NOYB wrote:

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

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

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of
a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority
to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won
by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) .
And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda
might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede
they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number
of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

If a person isn't "Krazy-Kristian dominated", then he's just a
"mean-spirited asswipe", right? Which means he's a Democrat...like you.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

Kerry isn't allowed to talk with the press with out adult supervision
because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Kerry's latest foot insertion was when he admitted that he had been offered
a briefing on the current national security situation but, that he didn't
have time to take advantage of the offer. The fact that he admitted this on
camera has got to call into question his priorities.

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:27:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.


Something you may not have considered. With more and "Moore" evidence
of negativity and clearly obvious agenda driven negative stabs being
thrown at Bush, the backlash from those adds by people who finally
have had enough, may end up having the opposite effect that what you
pundits are hoping. I've already heard comments about Moore's movie
(Which BTW has all but disappeared from the pop-culture radar), on
some discussion groups, which have clearly put Moore's biased agenda
into the spotlight, and has actually generated some sympathy for
Bush's position.

So be careful with your "anti-Bush" adds. Liberal mean-spirited
actions may likely cause a different reaction from the one you intend.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:



Something you may not have considered. With more and "Moore" evidence
of negativity and clearly obvious agenda driven negative stabs being
thrown at Bush, the backlash from those adds by people who finally
have had enough, may end up having the opposite effect that what you
pundits are hoping.

There hasn't been nearly enough negative information about Bush released
yet. Not nearly enough. Fortunately, Bush is doing himself in these days.

You want agenda-driven? Pushing an amendment to criminalize gay
marriage, opposing stem-cell research, opposing abortion...all pandering
to extreme righties.


I've already heard comments about Moore's movie
(Which BTW has all but disappeared from the pop-culture radar),


Here...choke on this:

New Poll:
Nearly Half of All Presidential Voters
Have Seen or Plan to See Fahrenheit 911

Handful of Theaters in the Midwest Refuse to Show Film, Hindering Reach
to Larger Electorate

Nearly half of the American electorate has seen or plans to see
Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore’s film critique of the Bush
Administration, before the November elections, a new survey revealed today.

The film is the most viewed commercial documentary in American film
history and held at a strong number #2 box office position this week
after breaking records during its opening week.

Movie-goers and intended movie-goers represent a broad and diverse slice
of the electorate and spread across the country, including the so-called
battleground states. Fully 23% of voters who intend to see the film
self-identify as Bush voters, while another 10% say they are supporting
Nader or undecided. Forty one percent of potential movie viewers reside
in battleground states, which mirrors the national average of 40% of
voters residing in battleground states.

A survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research captured data from 1000
likely voters fielded between June 28 – July 1, with a margin of error
of +/- 3 points. Six percent of voters surveyed had seen the movie and
38% say they plan to see it.

“Contrary to Republicans’ claims, it’s clear that voters across the
political spectrum want to see what Michael Moore has to say. The film
has stimulated a conversation in households across America about the
Bush Administration’s decisions and actions,” said Eli Pariser,
executive director of MoveOn PAC.

Some theaters in the Midwest—like Fridley Theaters in Iowa and Nebraska
and GKC Theaters in Michigan and Wisconsin—have refused to show Michael
Moore’s film on their screens. MoveOn PAC has asked its membership to
call these theaters’ owners and ask that they reevaluate their decision.

“As the movie expands to more screens, the reach of the movie and its
message will grow,” said Pariser. “The astonishing and revealing footage
in Fahrenheit 911 has the power to change the course of the 2004
election, and that’s why we’re committed to making sure all American
voters have the opportunity to see the film and decide for themselves.”

###



on
some discussion groups, which have clearly put Moore's biased agenda
into the spotlight, and has actually generated some sympathy for
Bush's position.


Awwwwwww. Foch Bush and the horse he can't ride.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:01:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.


If that were truly the reason, what good would postponing (the
inevitable) accomplish?

Dave