Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:25:00 GMT
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:39:47 -0600, "John Galt"
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:23:32 -0600, "John Galt"
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:23:11 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:52:05 -0500, Gary <none@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:07:28 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:45:02 -0500, Gary <none@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Did you catch the episode of "Nightline" in which
six or seven of the guys spoke who were actually with
Kerry in the incident the Swiftboaters were focussing
on? They all said that they might have been dead
if it weren't for Kerry's actions. These were not guys
thousands of miles away, these were the guys who
were actually getting shot at along with Kerry.
There were also six or seven guys who served with Kerry who were with of
the
Swifties. Deuce.
No, they weren't at the scene. They may have served
with him elsewhere or just met him once, but they weren't
in the swift boats getting shot at. All the guys on the
nightline segment WERE in the swift boats with him.
Not deuce, just another piece of the swift boat lying.
Others differ on this reality. Besides, the Swifties had more than just one
issue, IIRC.
This was the issue at hand. We differ only because, despite
the fact you claim not to be a Republican, you're consistently
extremely eager to repeat or manufacture the most egregious
distortions favouring the Republican party and its allies, such as
this one about the Swift Boat people, and then retreat into
calling it just a matter of opinion when your attempts to defend
the distortions with such specious argumentation is successfully
thwarted. Sorry, but that is very plainly how it looks to me by
now, and I suspect to many other people by now too.
<snip>
Do you really think the Swifties think they have been lying, all those
years?
Yes. They weren't lying about hating him, and they
weren't lying that they felt he didn't deserve his medals,
but they were lying about his actions where they weren't
present.
Your choice.
See above. I explained plainly the reason, and now again,
instead of conceding, you just abandon the attempt to defend
and instead retreat into calling it just a matter of choice.
<snip>
Ultimately, however, Kerry's big mistake was not releasing all of his
service records. One can talk about whether the Swifties were right, or
fair, or liars, until you're blue in the face,
Oh, they were liars. See above, about the Nightline show.
but the fact remains that
they (1) had been after Kerry since the day he entered politics, so the
DNC
couldn't raise the "where was all this for the last 25 years" objection,
and
Yes, they were mostly arch-right-wingers who were upset
with Kerry for his outspoken opposition to the war after he
came back from Nam. It was the Bush people who
financed them and gave them more attention than they
deserved, though.
That's politics as usual. Nothing a political party likes more than to
find
someone to fight a proxy war for them.
No, that's politics at an unusually low and despicable
level, even for politics.
It's reality, and why I mentioned Daley. What is more despicable than
stealing an entire election? How can you set the bar lower?
I can't and won't defend Daly, except that as far as I know,
the whole 1960 election wasn't swung by Daly in Chicago,
I could be wrong - as I noted I was only 15 then. Even if it
was swung by Chicago though, that doesn't justify Bush.
There is no doubt that the whole elections of 2000 and 2004
were swung by very shady goings-on in Florida and Ohio.
Not that I don't fault Gore and Kerry for not winning by the
wider margins that I feel they should have, so as to make
"stealing the election" nearly impossible. Obama, if nominated,
has said publicly that he intends to win by so wide a margin
that it will be impossible for anybody to steal the election.
<snip>
I don't know much about these service records, but
Kerry's commanding officers supported him and did say
he deserved his medals, with one exception if I recall
aright. I agree it would have been wise for Kerry to
release the records, but I also feel he maybe didn't want
to give ammunition to a bunch of thugs who might use
it in unexpected ways against him. That's why most
people don't open up their affairs to the public even if
they have nothing in truth to hide.
His call, his funeral, as it turned out.
It's everybody's funeral who doesn't post their tax
returns and all their financial dealings in the post office
for everyone to inspect. Nobody does that, of course,
for the reason I already stated. You're shifting blame
onto the wrong entity, again in any tack that looks
like it might be sellable in defense of shady dealings of
the Republican party and its affiliates.
<snip>
I think there were a lot more in Congress willing to play along than you
realize, and from both parties.
Yes, because they took the president at his word, and also
believed what he or his team said about the vote, that it was
to strengthen the president's hand in negotiations, and that
war would only be the last resort. Bad mistake to hand over
such power to a bad president. Bush effectively suspended
all negotiations once he had the power, cut off Hans Blix who
had already shown that the intelligence from America was
systematically wrong, and launched into preparation for war
without further ado.
"There's no good business with a bad man." Bush is a
bad man.
Every president is the Worst President Ever. Currently , we are in the
process of electing the next Worst President Ever. I'm used to it. The
desire to go into politics is genetically linked, it seems, with an
inability to do the job properly.
No, I didn't say that about any president until Reagan,
not even about Nixon I think, and since I didn't think
Bush 1 was clearly worse than Reagan, I didn't say it
again until Bush 2.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: John Galt
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- References:
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: John Galt
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: John Galt
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- From: John Galt
- Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Fed bails out banks .. . again
- Next by Date: Re: Editorial: Global warming 'consensus' a fiction
- Previous by thread: Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- Next by thread: Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
- Index(es):