Were trailers full of hot air?
 

John on the Poco Loco inquired:

Do you honestly believe SH
was a good guy in disguise?

Gosh, do you think I probably do?

Suppose that's why the post you responded to included this line:

((Hussein probably is/was a real *******, I'm not
disputing that, only pointing out

Where I come from, "real *******" and "good guy" are not synonymous.

Must be different back on the Chesapeake.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:18:01 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
You go girl!!

Thanks, but I didn't realize I was posting here. I noticed the
crossposts to several groups a few minutes ago and just wanted to
come in and apologize for intruding on rec.boats.

If ya'll would like to continue the discussion, try
news:misc.news.internet.discuss .

Thanks and again, sorry for the intrusion.
Stick around rec.boats, we need some rational thinkers. It may help our image!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
Stick around rec.boats, we need some rational thinkers. It may
help our image!

lol, thanks. Do I have to make an oblig boat comment each time?
g


--


Regards of the NW,
Kathy

"The liberty we cherish is not America's gift to the world. It
is God's gift to humanity."
(Pres. George Bush, March 26, 2003)

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

So did we. "Hello. President Jiang? I'm calling to apologize on behalf of
the U.S. for that errant missile that hit your embassy in Kosovo." :-)



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Israel knew how to handle these things, with a wink and a nod. Remember?

"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
No, it's not "manipulative". According to ours and the Brits'
intelligence
services, Hussein has been trying to get his hands on nukes for years.
MI6
has said that he tried to acquire uranium from Niger. CIA couldn't
confirm
nor deny that specific report. However, the CIA's position was also
that
he
was actively trying to maintain and enlarge his stock of
WMD's...including
nukes.

Unfortunately, when dealing with nukes, you can't wait for the mushroom
cloud as "proof" that the guy was up to no good.






"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Make that your immagination. Because that's all you have to speculate
with right now.

Dave

Dave, Dave, Dave. Is there any hope for you at all?

Read the friggin speech. Just run a search engine for State fo the
Union
Speech. In the last 40% of the speech he associates
SH with nuclear weapons at least a half dozen times. Don't take my
word
for it,
go look at the actual words of the POTUS. Read what he said, not what
Rush
Limbaugh now tells you he said.

The implications are repeated, and deliberate. You think a reference
to
a
"mushroom cloud" isn't manipulative?

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

According to Websters:
Lie (n): alternate name for that ****in' idiot named thunder.

Question: "Where's the lie?"
Answer: "Responding to my post with a stupid retort"






"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:54:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


*Pretend* I'm open-minded...then answer my question: "Where's the
lie?"

It depends on what the meaning of the word "lie" is.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sorry this reply is so long.
But you asked:

"Where's the lie?"

We probably need a working definition of lie, or at least you should
understand
the definition I am using in my reply.

A lie is a false statement, made not out of ignorance of the truth but
rather
made to conceal the truth and to manipulate the listener in a
predetermined
fashion.

What "truth" was he concealing?


I will also call attention to some of the more obvious, standard, very
cheap
and tacky, propaganda techniques incorporated by the authors of the SOTU
speech
for purposes of deceiving and manipulating the nation.

snip non-applicable stuff


"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our own
country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our
people
and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and
ports of
entry, posted more than 50,000 newly-trained federal screeners in
airports,
begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are
deploying the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect
biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to
field
a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles. (Applause.)"

Fact is, the smallpox inoculation program was dead in the starting gate.
Much
of the serum is being thrown out. No significant numbers of people we
vaccinated against small pox. However, this sets the tone for the big sale
to
follow-by raising the spectre
of "plague" unleashed by terrorists. The war he refers to is, by previous
paragraphs, the war on terror. In the last sentence he implies that we
must
protect our country from "ballistic missles" fired by terrorists!

"I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to
add
to our future security with a major research and production effort to
guard our
people against bioterrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send
you
will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective
vaccines and
treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and
plague. We
must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we
must
act before the dangers are upon us. (Applause.)"

A bit more scare tactic, cleverly positioned to create a sense of
increasing
uneasiness
in the audience before the big sale begins a little later


Oh my! Still no "lie" (concealment of the truth)...





"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing
America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for
blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those
weapons
to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

This is a real payoff paragraph. It's effectiveness might be lost on
somebody
not used to dealing with manipulative communicators. I particularly
thought the
phrase "outlaw regimes that seek *and* posses nuclear, chemical, and
biological
weapons" was cleverly used.

Iraq and Iran seek...N. Korea possesses...



Remember, in January the ideas "outlaw regime,
chemical weapons, and biological weapons" were closely associated in the
public
consciousness- and associated with Iraq. Adding "nuclear weapons" to the
mix
pries the door open for the more specific incendiary misstatements and
phony
allegations to follow.

Still haven't seen any lies!




"This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th
century,
small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and
arsenals,
and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case,
their
ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions
of
Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free
peoples,
by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States
of
America. (Applause.)"

I'm still looking for an official definition of "Hitlerism." He must have
meant
National Socialism. Either his proof readers are idiots, or he is talking
down
to an audience he doesn't respect. Neither is a good thing.



"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared
again,
and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation
and
all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world
of
chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety
of our
people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.
(Applause.)"

Technically not a lie, but surely a manipulation. Our enemies seek to
acquire
weapons of ultimate terror. The garden snail seeks wings and a tree-top
nest.
Every warring entity on the planet would want nukes if it could get
them--- the
line gets crossed when we push the implication that people have them.

The next two paragrpahs are interesting:
In the second paragraph, Bush immediately refutes everything he said in
the
first. They cannot both be "true." (We now know that the second paragraph
was
more true than the first)

"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these
dangers. We
have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its
demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International
Atomic
Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around
the
world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in
the
former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the
production
and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a
process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the
civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and
catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing
so.
Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.
(Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I
will
defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Now, in all reality, if Bush had built his case around the following
paragraph
his speech would be heralded as frank and forthright. He says that Iraq is
strategically located and is a source of great potential wealth. That is,
really, the reason for our invasion.

"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula
and
not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator,
with a
history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great
potential
wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the
United States. (Applause.)"

The following parpagraph once again puts SH's nuclear threat on the same
plane
is his chemical and biological threat.

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty
in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of
all
weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically
violated
that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even
while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him
from
his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from
the
civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military
facilities."

In the following paragraph, things get pretty curious. Bush says the UN
inspectors aren't doing their job and Hussein is in violation because
Hussein
hasn't been able to produce large caches of hidden weapons and the
inspectors
haven't been able to find them. Odd thing though, the inspectors kept
sending
back reports that said as far as they could tell, to that point,
SH was substantially in compliance. Post war events have, so far, proven
the
inspectors right and GWB wrong. But that's hindsight. GWB faults the
inspection
process as flawed, but only becuase it wasn;t producing the results he
hoped it
would.

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam
Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt
for the
United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors
were
sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden
materials across a country the size of California. The job of the
inspectors is
to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show
exactly
where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world
to
see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

Here's a fairly specific lie in the speech. Remember the accounting of WMD
that
Iraq sent at the December deadline? It was dismissed as bogus by the
Administration
(although, again, post war events make it seem more credible), but Bush
goes so
far
as to claim that "no accounting" has been made.

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough
doses to
kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's
given
no evidence that he has destroyed it."

Bush then repeats the "no accounting" charge, in spite of the December
reports.

Even Blix's report said there was "no accounting" for a bunch of the
anthrax.


snip remaining paragraphs that failed to show even one "lie" in the speech

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create.

The entire state of Texas, where Bush softened or did not enforce
environmental standards, especially, but not limited to, Houston. A
dirty bomb tends to "dirty" a limited area. Bush sullied an entire
state, and a big one at that.



Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?

See the above.


You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

Indeed, that is the reich-wing M.O., along with excusing everything
horrific Bush does.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:23:28 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
Stick around rec.boats, we need some rational thinkers. It may
help our image!

lol, thanks. Do I have to make an oblig boat comment each time?
g

No! Posting stuff about boats could land you in hot water. Do you live close to
Puget Sound? If so, change your signature to read:

Regards of the NW (including Puget Sound),
Kathy

That will be all you need. Then every post will be about 'boating'. ( :


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:00:33 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create.

The entire state of Texas, where Bush softened or did not enforce
environmental standards, especially, but not limited to, Houston. A
dirty bomb tends to "dirty" a limited area. Bush sullied an entire
state, and a big one at that.

Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?

See the above.


You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

Indeed, that is the reich-wing M.O., along with excusing everything
horrific Bush does.

Harry, what did President George Bush do to Texas? Did he ruin the forests by
cutting down both trees? Did he befoul the Rio Grande by dumping more mud
therein? Houston was a mess long before either of the Bush's got into politics.
Now the mess is worse. Part of that is due to the tax dollars being spent on the
care and maintenance of illegal immigrants.

Have you hugged your drain plug lately?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
No! Posting stuff about boats could land you in hot water. Do
you live close to
Puget Sound? If so, change your signature to read:

Regards of the NW (including Puget Sound),
Kathy

That will be all you need. Then every post will be about
'boating'. ( :

LOL. Ya'll have a good sense of humor (well, most of you g).
Just may stick around a bit. After all, I do own a boat and I do
live in the Puget Sound region. ;=)


--


Regards of the NW,
Kathy

"The liberty we cherish is not America's gift to the world. It
is God's gift to humanity."
(Pres. George Bush, March 26, 2003)

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Given the choice, where do you think the brightest and best qualified
medical personell would choose to work? What questions would that raise
about the disparity in healthcare between the two? How long until the
left starts screaming about the unequal healthcare access for the

There is no doubt that somebody would try to make an issue of of the fact that
a Public Health Hospital (once common in this country) didn't deliver the same
level of customized, boutique medical attention available at "Sky's the Limit
Clinic."

Probably as good an excuse as any for the
hard hearted factions on the right to justify
doing *nothing*, (except allowing the private insurance companies they all hold
stock in to remain obscenely profitable and charge predatory rates).

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.



I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star".


I'd rather attract some people to the profession who were interested in the
practice of medicine for reasons not associated with being in the top .01% of
American wage earners.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.


In most communities, you can live in a very fine home, vacation a few times a
year, own a boat, a couple of cars, and put away plenty for an early and
comfortable retirement on no more than $300-400 thousand a year. Why a guy
thinks he needs five times that amount is beyond me.NOT THAT HE SHOULDN"T BE
FREE TO EARN IT IF HE CAN- but it shouldn't be considered normal compensation
for
a 9-5 flu and sniffles pediatrician.

I would be curious of the percentage of doctors, who actually MAKE that
kind of exhorbinant salary. I'd be willing to bet that it's not that
much. Most whom I'm acquainted with, earn 6 figures, but no more.

Dave

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"? The
statement makes no sense.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"?

Who said they have "zero"? You've already acknowleged, (And it was this
revelation which was partially responsible for this splinter thread),
that poor people can go to the "ER" for treatment, and that cost is
passed on to real paying people. That's what prompted you to propose
your "two tiered" approach to healthcare, which would therefore make it
glaringly obvious, and actually seem to be promoting, that we have
seperate classes of healthcare.


The statement makes no sense.

It does if you follow your own logic.

Dave

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:02:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:

According to Websters:
Lie (n): alternate name for that ****in' idiot named thunder.

Question: "Where's the lie?"
Answer: "Responding to my post with a stupid retort"

LOL, didn't work for Clinton either. But it was only half in jest.
Even if the statement was technically true, if the American voter
decides the President was deceitful or deceptive, the President has
a problem. This isn't about perjury, it's about whether the
President was honest with his constituents.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:54:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


*Pretend* I'm open-minded...then answer my question: "Where's
the lie?"

It depends on what the meaning of the word "lie" is.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Harry, what did President George Bush do to Texas? Did he ruin the forests
by
cutting down both trees? Did he befoul the Rio Grande by dumping more mud
therein? Houston was a mess long before either of the Bush's got into
politics.
Now the mess is worse. Part of that is due to the tax dollars being spent
on the
care and maintenance of illegal immigrants.


John, if the state was a mess and the governor personally walks changes in
the laws through the legislature, making it easier for certain industries to
make MORE smog/sludge/whatever, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

snip remaining paragraphs that failed to show even one "lie" in the
speech

Juries decide truth vs. lies. Looks like if we were on a jury deciding
whether
the Bush Adminsitration's SOTU speech contained any lies we'd be voting
against
one another. :)

Hung juries equal acquittal. Guess we're looking at 4 more years.

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

Hung juries equal acquittal. Guess we're looking at 4 more years.

Is that what all this angst is about?
Relax, your guy is in. You just have a little more scrambling to do to hoodwink
the electorate again next year. :-)

GWB will survive all this flack. It might even build his character, which could
stand some improvement, and we'll all benefit as a result.

GWB will survive, and maybe even emerge somewhat stronger, but I'd like to see
Cheney impeached for his role in supplying faulty intelligence to the
POTUS. Impeached, convicted, and removed. Bush may have only a marginal
intellect, but he is manipulated by others who are not only bright, they are
arguably evil as well. The most dangerous person in Washington DC isn't GWB,
it's Dick Cheney. Followed by Ashcroft. But Cheney is the guy to watch,
carefully. He's a heartbeat away from being POTUS. An accident or something
else extremely unfortunate could befall Bush and if that should ever happen,
"we ain't seen nuthin yet!" My fondest, short term, political wish is for the
continuing robust health of George W. Bush......
so see, NOYB? We do have something in common :-)

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

Agreed. That's the only reason this story has any teeth in the first place.
The Dems are trying to give the *appearance* of impropriety...knowing full
well that there really is nothing of substance to the story.

NOYB, are you old enough to remember when Nixon was on the griddle?

All of RMN's supporters, clear up until the very last day when Nixon finally
resigned, would lock arms and shout defiantly, "There's no proof President
Nixon lied! Show us the proof! It's a Democratic witch hunt! You have no
proof!"

Finally, Nixon resigned his office and all the supporters switched from
"There's no proof" to "Your guys have done worse than this in the past, you're
only singling out Nixon because he's a Republican." Apparently when Nixon
finally resigned, the issue of "proof" was rather evident.

Now we should consider whether every inquiry and investigation requires
absolute proof *before* it begins, or whether inquiry and investigation are
conducted to develop proof. It's ridiculous to say that inquiry and
investigation are inappropriate because there is no irrefutable proof.

The sector of the American public outraged over the public manipulation by the
Bush administration is hopping mad that there is
a substantial amount of evidence that this is probably so..Whether the matter
is ever tried before a body to judge whether a "legally defined" deception took
place, anybody able to remember back six or eight months in time can clearly
remember the speeches and publicly announced events that make up the chain of
events cited by the folks who are blowing the whislte on the manipulators.

Who ever told you guys that being the majority party would be easy? :-)

Were trailers full of hot air?
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:00:33 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create.

The entire state of Texas, where Bush softened or did not enforce
environmental standards, especially, but not limited to, Houston. A
dirty bomb tends to "dirty" a limited area. Bush sullied an entire
state, and a big one at that.

Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?

See the above.


You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

Indeed, that is the reich-wing M.O., along with excusing everything
horrific Bush does.

Harry, what did President George Bush do to Texas? Did he ruin the forests by
cutting down both trees? Did he befoul the Rio Grande by dumping more mud
therein? Houston was a mess long before

Technically more like Pasadena, Channelview, Baytown, Texas City,
etc... the pollution-causing industries are located in suburb towns
east of Houston rather than Houston itself...



either of the Bush's got into politics.
Now the mess is worse. Part of that is due to the tax dollars being spent on the
care and maintenance of illegal immigrants.

Have you hugged your drain plug lately?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD