>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 10/21/2004 3:12 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041021151255.00243.00001545@mb-m26.aol.com>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: helicon@eircom.net (helicon)Date: 10/21/2004 9:01 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <a9c1bada.0410210801.5f2ddef@posting.google.com>"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in messagenews:swhite-EE0780.12594020102004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <a9c1bada.0410200504.5b64aac1@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: > However, Bush the Despicable and his greedy, lying cohorts will be > long remembered for their efforts to permanently destroy the good > name of America around the world. Bush will also be remembered for ensuring that there will be an America well into the future.An America that has been wrung out and left looking over its shoulderfor a long time to come.

Ambiguous enough. Whatever that means.
The only things that Bush and his cohorts (and the Haves and the Have Mores)

If you're looking for the Have Mores, try the other side of the political
ledger. The next best thing to Having More is Marrying More. Much Much More.
Want some ketchup with those fries?
will be remembered for are how they have trashed your economy,

Bush inherited a recession when he took office. The dot.com bubble was bound
to burst - I don't blame Clinton for that. Then 9-11 hit and we lost a
million jobs in one month alone. I guess that was Bush's fault, too.
sullied your country's good name in the eyes of the world,

I frankly don't care what "the world" thinks of us. Do you form (and post)
your opinions solely to gain the favor of others on this board? I know you
better than that, Helen.
and for sending decent young Americans out to kill other decent people - and
to bekilled, maimed, psychologically damaged or jailed for following orders in
this immoraland illegal war.

Well, only time will tell if the war benfited the Iraqi people over the long
haul. I am sure you will continue to blame Bush for every little bump in the
road along the way.

How 'bout those elections in Afghanistan, Helen? Do you give Bush credit as
easily as you lay blame?

< snip >
So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen.

Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?

Dad

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/21/2004 2:16 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041021171648.22466.00001254@mb-m06.aol.com>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 10/21/2004 3:12 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041021151255.00243.00001545@mb-m26.aol.com>

<snip>
< snip >So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen. Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?Dad

An intact voting ballad with no broken chads. :-)

What a horrible reason for anyone to think the other candidate might be better.
Have you noticed that Bush's biggest critics rarely ever have anything to say
good about Kerry? They usually avoid the subject entirely. Who could blame
them?


Kathy

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 10/22/2004 1:00 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041022130020.05051.00005134@mb-m24.aol.com>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/21/2004 2:16 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041021171648.22466.00001254@mb-m06.aol.com>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy )Date: 10/21/2004 3:12 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041021151255.00243.00001545@mb-m26.aol.com><snip>< snip >So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen. Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?DadAn intact voting ballad with no broken chads. :-)What a horrible reason for anyone to think the other candidate might bebetter.Have you noticed that Bush's biggest critics rarely ever have anything to saygood about Kerry? They usually avoid the subject entirely. Who could blamethem?


My momma always told me, "If you can't say anything good about someone, at
least have the decency to be vague."

Delusional paranoid conspiracists like Marcy who know nothing but to spew
anti-Bush venom have the same effect on me as obnoxious car dealership ads.
Yea, they get my attention... but they sure don't get my business.

Dad

In article <a9c1bada.0410220926.605c9a3e@posting.google.com>,
helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote:

Bush has made enemies everywhere. He doesn't give a damn. He has lots more young men and women to use as cannon fodder, and he'll never get so much as a speck of blood on his golf shirts. Now his *hands* however...


He has made some enemies. Frankly, I don't care either. If the French
want to oppose us, let them. If Ireland wants to cast its lot with the
French, sure, go right ahead.

What IS wrong is for the president of the United States to inflate his own and his pals' already vast wealth by waging an illegal, pre-emptive war on an innocent people, at the expense of his own citizens' health and general welfare. In doing so he has made the world a very dangerous place *for all of us*.


C'mon Helen, that's just leftist boilerplate. It's tripe, it's
unoriginal.

You can do better than that.

Dubya's net worth is precisely known (his trust has to file financial
statements every year). He is not getting rich. Both Kerry and Edwards
have a larger net worth, in fact.

The war is "illegal" only in the minds of those who think a UN blessing
is absolutely required. That is a peculiar line of reasoning since the
UN is not a world government or a legislative body, but rather an
apparatchik organization whose members look out for each other.

The UN was the organization that made Libya chair of the Human Rights
Commission, and Iraq and Iran the chairs of the Disarmament Commission.
What's next: Zimbabwe in charge of economic development?

A side note: the UN blessed the 1991 Gulf War. Kerry still opposed it.

Inheriting a recession should have galvanised him to turn the economy around - in part-fulfilment of his election promises.


He did. We've had six quarters of solid growth. Unemployment is falling,
per capita GDP is up, and the economy is moving ahead.

America would have had the support and respect of the whole world in its fight against the perpetrators of 9/11.


No we wouldn't.

An illustrative point: remember the Le Monde article a few days after
9/11 that proclaimed how "we are all Americans"? The same week, the same
newspaper was running its usual virulent, anti-American cartoons. This
is freaking Le Monde, remember.

No, what we had in 9/11 was a lot of Europeans (and others) who secretly
enjoyed what happened to us. They thought we deserved it. They were
hoping that we would ask "why did we deserve this" as a way of calling
us to INaction, not action. That we would talk, and think, and
contemplate, and argue, and talk some more, becoming so ennervated that
the thought of DOING something about 9/11 would grow more distant.

They should have known better. We're Americans.

Bush however thought more of his own interests and those of his friends, and went after Saddam Hussein instead of going after Osama bin Laden, destroying a country that was not a threat to the US in the process.


Again, you're simply reproducing boilerplate here. Look carefully at the
data.

We DID go after Osama. We deposed from power his sponsor, the Taliban.
We destroyed a big chunk of his terrorist organization. We denied him
the use of Afghanistan as a staging ground for large-scale attacks. We
put him on the run and killed a lot of his compatriots.

I personally think he's cranberry jam in a cave near Tora Bora. Some
disagree. I won't believe he's alive until a see a video of him holding
up a copy of tomorrow's Guardian.

*You* might not care. (I am surprised that you are so parochial.) It is a dangerous and sad day when we don't care about our friends' opinion of us.


France is not our friend.

Russia is not our friend.

They have their interests, and their interests don't coincide with ours.

Some European countries (and people) seem to want to condition their
friendship -- they say to America, "be like us or we can't be friends."
Well, fine, I guess we can't be friends.

Well, only time will tell if the war benfited the Iraqi people over the long haul. Those who survive "the long haul" will remember those that didn't. They will hate you for it.


That's clearly not happening. A very interesting thing has been going on
in Iraq -- much of it is pacified. In 13 of the 18 provinces, not a
single coalition soldier has been killed this year. A big chunk of Iraq,
particularly the Kurdish region and the southern/south-central Shi'a
region, is busy rebuilding. They're too busy to hate, to plant IEDs, to
stage ambushes. Do they like being occupied? Of course not. But they're
working to bring about the day foreign troops can leave by BUILDING
their country.

That seems pretty smart to me.

He (or Bush Senior) could easily have taken out Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic sons, but expediency and the love of oil, money and power took precedence.


Bush tried taking them out the very first night of the war, remember?

And saying that Bush could have "taken out" Saddam is disengenious. You
might want to read about the extreme security precautions Saddam took.
He literally never slept in the same place twice. Lots of doubles. Food
tasters. Hand-picked security details. Odd hours, random movements, etc.
The man was a pro at staying alive.

How 'bout those elections in Afghanistan, Helen? How 'bout them? As well as could be expected, Dad. Everyone knew that Karzai would 'win' this one. He was a shoo-in. It was nearly as flawless as your own Florida ballots. Of course most women were disenfranchised, but then what's new?


Four million women voted. As far as I know, not a single one was
executed in a soccer stadium for doing so.

I find it curious that the feminists of the world, previously shrill in
their denunciation of how the Taliban treated women, can't find it in
their hearts to say "thank you" to the man who liberated those women.

It'll be the parliamentary and local elections next year that will show how things are going, particularly as a quarter of the seats in the House of the People are reserved for women. Now THAT will be interesting.


I'm looking forward to it.

Do you give Bush credit as easily as you lay blame? I blame him for not concentrating on Afghanistan in the first place, and for taking his eye off the *real* culprits, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.


That is simply a recitation of a Kerry talking point. Afghanistan is
doing as well as anyone could ask.

Bush is a pariah; a liar and a cheat who - far from being re-elected - should be brought to account for his crimes against humanity. IMHO.


How about Saddam?




steve

In article <20041022130020.05051.00005134@mb-m24.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote:
So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen. Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?Dad An intact voting ballad with no broken chads. :-) What a horrible reason for anyone to think the other candidate might be better. Have you noticed that Bush's biggest critics rarely ever have anything to say good about Kerry? They usually avoid the subject entirely. Who could blame them?


That point is well made by national polls.

About 85% of Bush voters are positively motivated to vote for Bush, the
remaining 15% are voting against Kerry.

Only about 55% of Kerry voters are positively motivated to vote for
Kerry, the remaining 45% are voting against Bush.





steve

"Steve White" <swhite@you.still.don.t.get.this> wrote in message
news:swhite-8A8245.18093222102004@news.uchicago.edu... In article <20041022130020.05051.00005134@mb-m24.aol.com>, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy ) wrote:>So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen. Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?Dad An intact voting ballad with no broken chads. :-) What a horrible reason for anyone to think the other candidate might be better. Have you noticed that Bush's biggest critics rarely ever have anything to say good about Kerry? They usually avoid the subject entirely. Who could blame them? That point is well made by national polls. About 85% of Bush voters are positively motivated to vote for Bush, the remaining 15% are voting against Kerry.

Well, I hang with a bunch of Constitution Party weirdos, and they are voting
for Peroutka as (a) a moral vote and (b) against Bush and Kerry. And I know
plenty of other rightwingers who loathe Bush who they consider a liberal,
who are voting for him as the sucks less candidate. Only about 55% of Kerry voters are positively motivated to vote for Kerry, the remaining 45% are voting against Bush.

What's wrong with voting AGAINST Bush? I don't think I've ever voted FOR a
presidential candidate--at least one who has a chance of wining. My vote
has always been AGAINST somebody. Kerry is a neolib. He'll keep up our S&M
relationship with Israel, he'll keep the war fires burning, he'll play the
statist quo game, but he's not a religious nut and a woman hater, and he is
still based in reality, unlike the current resident.

Marley steve

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: Steve White swhite@you.still.don.t.get.thisDate: 10/22/2004 7:07 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <swhite-588B10.18074822102004@news.uchicago.edu>In article <a9c1bada.0410220926.605c9a3e@posting.google.com>, helicon@eircom.net (helicon) wrote: Bush has made enemies everywhere. He doesn't give a damn. He has lots more young men and women to use as cannon fodder, and he'll never get so much as a speck of blood on his golf shirts. Now his *hands* however...He has made some enemies. Frankly, I don't care either.

<faulty reasoning Steve, you should care, we live on a very small planet, and
allies are important when fighting terorism


If the Frenchwant to oppose us, let them. If Ireland wants to cast its lot with theFrench, sure, go right ahead.


again, faulty reasoning What IS wrong is for the president of the United States to inflate his own and his pals' already vast wealth by waging an illegal, pre-emptive war on an innocent people, at the expense of his own citizens' health and general welfare. In doing so he has made the world a very dangerous place *for all of us*.C'mon Helen, that's just leftist boilerplate. It's tripe, it'sunoriginal.You can do better than that.Dubya's net worth is precisely known (his trust has to file financialstatements every year).

Duby's friends are the big corporations that we just gave another 168 billion
dollar tax cut to, your kid will be paying this off, have you no shame?


He is not getting rich. Both Kerry and Edwardshave a larger net worth, in fact.

you missed the point

The war is "illegal" only in the minds of those who think a UN blessingis absolutely required. That is a peculiar line of reasoning since theUN is not a world government or a legislative body, but rather anapparatchik organization whose members look out for each other.

once again, you missed the point, the war is illegal because we occupied a
foreign country for it's oil, world domination is not mission of the U.S.

The UN was the organization that made Libya chair of the Human RightsCommission, and Iraq and Iran the chairs of the Disarmament Commission.What's next: Zimbabwe in charge of economic development?A side note: the UN blessed the 1991 Gulf War. Kerry still opposed it. Inheriting a recession should have galvanised him to turn the economy around - in part-fulfilment of his election promises.He did. We've had six quarters of solid growth. Unemployment is falling,per capita GDP is up, and the economy is moving ahead.

Bull****, you are in complete denial about the economy, people are broke.
Corporate profits are up, they are not using their profits to hire, they are
using them for executive perks. Corporations are still downsizing, unemployment
and loss of benefits are at an all time high. You are a Dr. aren't you alarmed
about the cutbacks in medicaid. Florida kids are being dropped from medicaid
and kidcare in record numbers.
America would have had the support and respect of the whole world in its fight against the perpetrators of 9/11.No we wouldn't.An illustrative point: remember the Le Monde article a few days after9/11 that proclaimed how "we are all Americans"? The same week, the samenewspaper was running its usual virulent, anti-American cartoons.

Wonder why?


Thisis freaking Le Monde, remember.No, what we had in 9/11 was a lot of Europeans (and others) who secretlyenjoyed what happened to us. They thought we deserved it.

They hate the arrogance of Bush, of course they enjoyed it.

,
They werehoping that we would ask "why did we deserve this" as a way of callingus to INaction, not action. That we would talk, and think, andcontemplate, and argue, and talk some more, becoming so ennervated thatthe thought of DOING something about 9/11 would grow more distant.

Right out of Rush's mouth, don't you listen to anything else beside right wing
claptrap?

They should have known better. We're Americans.


That's not such an admirable thing right now, for the first time in my life

Bush however thought more of his own interests and those of his friends, and went after Saddam Hussein instead of going after Osama bin Laden, destroying a country that was not a threat to the US in the process.Again, you're simply reproducing boilerplate here. Look carefully at thedata.We DID go after Osama. We deposed from power his sponsor, the Taliban.We destroyed a big chunk of his terrorist organization.


Terrorists have never been stronger. Bush set up what looks like a rush week at
a frat house for terrorists.

We denied himthe use of Afghanistan as a staging ground for large-scale attacks.

Bull****, we just handed it back to the warlords

Weput him on the run and killed a lot of his compatriots.

The number of terrorists have never been larger, do you read?


I personally think he's cranberry jam in a cave near Tora Bora. Somedisagree. I won't believe he's alive until a see a video of him holdingup a copy of tomorrow's Guardian. *You* might not care. (I am surprised that you are so parochial.) It is a dangerous and sad day when we don't care about our friends' opinion of us.France is not our friend.Russia is not our friend.They have their interests, and their interests don't coincide with ours.

Shame on you Steve, this neocon attitude doesn't coincide with world peace and
cooperation, it does smack of world domination.

Some European countries (and people) seem to want to condition theirfriendship -- they say to America, "be like us or we can't be friends."Well, fine, I guess we can't be friends. Well, only time will tell if the war benfited the Iraqi people over the long haul. Those who survive "the long haul" will remember those that didn't. They will hate you for it.That's clearly not happening. A very interesting thing has been going onin Iraq -- much of it is pacified. In 13 of the 18 provinces, not asingle coalition soldier has been killed this year. A big chunk of Iraq,particularly the Kurdish region and the southern/south-central Shi'aregion, is busy rebuilding. They're too busy to hate, to plant IEDs, tostage ambushes. Do they like being occupied? Of course not. But they'reworking to bring about the day foreign troops can leave by BUILDINGtheir country.That seems pretty smart to me.


Again, you are in complete denial

He (or Bush Senior) could easily have taken out Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic sons, but expediency and the love of oil, money and power took precedence.Bush tried taking them out the very first night of the war, remember?And saying that Bush could have "taken out" Saddam is disengenious. Youmight want to read about the extreme security precautions Saddam took.He literally never slept in the same place twice. Lots of doubles. Foodtasters. Hand-picked security details. Odd hours, random movements, etc.The man was a pro at staying alive. How 'bout those elections in Afghanistan, Helen? How 'bout them? As well as could be expected, Dad. Everyone knew that Karzai would 'win' this one.

Right vote for Karzai or we bomb your house and rape your daughter


He was a shoo-in. It was nearly as flawless as your own Florida ballots. Of course most women were disenfranchised, but then what's new?Four million women voted. As far as I know, not a single one wasexecuted in a soccer stadium for doing so.

Nothing changed for women in Afghanaistan, again don't you read?

I find it curious that the feminists of the world, previously shrill intheir denunciation of how the Taliban treated women, can't find it intheir hearts to say "thank you" to the man who liberated those women. It'll be the parliamentary and local elections next year that will show how things are going, particularly as a quarter of the seats in the House of the People are reserved for women. Now THAT will be interesting.I'm looking forward to it. Do you give Bush credit as easily as you lay blame?

No, he's a criminal. he needs to be executed

I blame him for not concentrating on Afghanistan in the first place, and for taking his eye off the *real* culprits, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.That is simply a recitation of a Kerry talking point.

Only because it's true


Afghanistan isdoing as well as anyone could ask.

within two years, the warlords and fundamentalists will have everything the way
it way before we bombed the **** out of it

Bush is a pariah; a liar and a cheat who - far from being re-elected - should be brought to account for his crimes against humanity. IMHO.How about Saddam?

How about Scott Peterson, what does Sadaam have to do with anything regarding
what Helen is talking about?

steve

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1)Date: 10/23/2004 8:52 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041023085259.08241.00002433@mb-m10.aol.com>

< snip >
How 'bout them? As well as could be expected, Dad. Everyone knew that Karzai would 'win' this one.Right vote for Karzai or we bomb your house and rape your daughter

Who is "we"? The US military? Or does Bush parachute out of the sky to
personally rape Afghani women?

The only retribution for voting in Afghanistan was by those sympathetic to
the old Taliban regime. Of course, that must be Bush's fault.
He was a shoo-in. It was nearly as flawless as your own Florida ballots. Of course most women were disenfranchised, but then what's new?Four million women voted. As far as I know, not a single one wasexecuted in a soccer stadium for doing so.Nothing changed for women in Afghanaistan, again don't you read?

Nothing has changed for women in Afghanistan? Nothing? Lady, either you're
joking or you're friggin' nuts.

I can try to understand the arguments re- the war in Iraq, but are you
suggesting we should not have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown the Taliban
for protecting and supporting Bin Laden?

It's moonbats like you who make me glad to be a Republican. What an
embarassment you must be to your fellow Democrats.

Dad

In article <20041023110451.23043.00002461@mb-m12.aol.com>,
adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:

I can try to understand the arguments re- the war in Iraq, but are you suggesting we should not have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown the Taliban for protecting and supporting Bin Laden?


Oh, she would have supported it -- if President Clinton had done it. Or
a President Gore.

But you can't be a Bush hater and then say that the man did something
right. She'd be drummed out of the Democratic Underground.

It's moonbats like you who make me glad to be a Republican. What an embarassment you must be to your fellow Democrats.


I have a number of friends who are Democrats -- reasonable people who
dislike Bush and think the Iraq liberation was wrong, but can discuss
the matter calmly with logic and conviction.

Marcy sure ain't one of them.





steve

>>So tell us how you feel about Kerry, Helen. Umm, he's not Bush. What do I win?DadAn intact voting ballad with no broken chads. :-)What a horrible reason for anyone to think the other candidate might bebetter.Have you noticed that Bush's biggest critics rarely ever have anything to saygood about Kerry? They usually avoid the subject entirely. Who could blamethem?Kathy

I started the year in the anyone-but-Bush camp, was less than enthusiastic
about Kerry, and less so after he selected Edwards as his running mate. As the
race comes down to the wire, however, I find myself enthusiastic about Kerry,
not because of personality, but because of the clear divisions between him and
Bush on so many issues. The debates, such as they were, clearly delineated
many of those differences.

At this point, I have a hard time believing that there is any eligible voter in
this country both still breathing and undecided about whom they will vote for.


I do know that none of the rest of us are going to convince anyone on the other
side to hop the fence at this point.

Unfortunately, I'm also convinced that the aftermath of this election will be
an even more sharply divided country, regardless of who wins. This is due in
large part to an inability (refusal?) of many to see any merit in the positions
of the opposition.

You'd almost think they got their hands on a shipment of Acme Demonizers.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)Date: 10/23/2004 10:42 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20041023124228.08576.00002764@mb-m07.aol.com>
I do know that none of the rest of us are going to convince anyone on theotherside to hop the fence at this point.Unfortunately, I'm also convinced that the aftermath of this election will bean even more sharply divided country, regardless of who wins. This is due inlarge part to an inability (refusal?) of many to see any merit in thepositionsof the opposition.You'd almost think they got their hands on a shipment of Acme Demonizers.J.


Totally agree, J.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

>Subject: Re: OT Today's paperFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 10/23/2004 12:31 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-D574D3.11310323102004@netnews.comcast.net>In article <20041023110451.23043.00002461@mb-m12.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote: I can try to understand the arguments re- the war in Iraq, but are you suggesting we should not have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown theTaliban for protecting and supporting Bin Laden?Oh, she would have supported it -- if President Clinton had done it. Ora President Gore.But you can't be a Bush hater and then say that the man did somethingright. She'd be drummed out of the Democratic Underground. It's moonbats like you who make me glad to be a Republican. What an embarassment you must be to your fellow Democrats.I have a number of friends who are Democrats -- reasonable people whodislike Bush and think the Iraq liberation was wrong, but can discussthe matter calmly with logic and conviction.Marcy sure ain't one of them.steve

A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who looks them right in the eye and
lies to them about the reasons for invading another country. A moonbat is
someone who votes for a man who throws this country into the greatest deficit
it's ever seen. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who allienates all of
out friends in other countries. I am not the moonbat here Steve and Dad, look
in the mirror.

In article <20041023133529.19211.00003083@mb-m03.aol.com>,
chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:

A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who looks them right in the eye and lies to them about the reasons for invading another country. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who throws this country into the greatest deficit it's ever seen. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who allienates all of out friends in other countries. I am not the moonbat here Steve and Dad, look in the mirror.


You're a moonbat.




steve

In article <20041023124228.08576.00002764@mb-m07.aol.com>,
jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote:

I started the year in the anyone-but-Bush camp, was less than enthusiastic about Kerry, and less so after he selected Edwards as his running mate. As the race comes down to the wire, however, I find myself enthusiastic about Kerry, not because of personality, but because of the clear divisions between him and Bush on so many issues. The debates, such as they were, clearly delineated many of those differences.


I can respect this viewpoint. I favor Bush being fully aware of his
shortcomings and flaws. I think Kerry has many more shortcomings, and I
confess I'm not very excited about his domestic agenda.

At this point, I have a hard time believing that there is any eligible voter in this country both still breathing and undecided about whom they will vote for.


It's hard to imagine, isn't it? I think many of the people who call
themselves "undecided" at this point do favor a candidate but are
wrestling with the mental arguments necessary to come out and say so.

Unfortunately, I'm also convinced that the aftermath of this election will be an even more sharply divided country, regardless of who wins. This is due in large part to an inability (refusal?) of many to see any merit in the positions of the opposition. You'd almost think they got their hands on a shipment of Acme Demonizers.


I hadn't, but where can I find one? :-)




steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-478CDF.15382223102004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <20041023133529.19211.00003083@mb-m03.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who looks them right in the eye and lies to them about the reasons for invading another country. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who throws this country into the greatest deficit it's ever seen. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who allienates all of out friends in other countries. I am not the moonbat here Steve and Dad, look in the mirror. You're a moonbat.

Damn it, why does everyone else get all the best epithets?

Moonbat. Lovely visual...full harvest moon, large fruit-bat flying
across it, silhouetted briefly and then just a dark shape flying
steadily toward the orchards to feed. I insist on being a moonbat.

Y'all can be ducky-pluckers.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0410241656.1d9d6a6d@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-478CDF.15382223102004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <20041023133529.19211.00003083@mb-m03.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who looks them right in the eye and lies to them about the reasons for invading another country. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who throws this country into the greatest deficit it's ever seen. A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who allienates all of out friends in other countries. I am not the moonbat here Steve and Dad, look in the mirror. You're a moonbat. Damn it, why does everyone else get all the best epithets? Moonbat. Lovely visual...full harvest moon, large fruit-bat flying across it, silhouetted briefly and then just a dark shape flying steadily toward the orchards to feed. I insist on being a moonbat. Y'all can be ducky-pluckers. Rupa



You really, REALLY don't want to be a moonbat. I'd never call you one.
But Marcy is a moonbat.





steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-689768.00290725102004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <e5619372.0410241656.1d9d6a6d@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve-478CDF.15382223102004@netnews.comcast.net>... In article <20041023133529.19211.00003083@mb-m03.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: > A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who looks them right in the > eye and lies to them about the reasons for invading another country. > A moonbat is someone who votes for a man who throws this country into > the greatest deficit it's ever seen. A moonbat is someone who votes > for a man who allienates all of out friends in other countries. I am > not the moonbat here Steve and Dad, look in the mirror. You're a moonbat. Damn it, why does everyone else get all the best epithets? Moonbat. Lovely visual...full harvest moon, large fruit-bat flying across it, silhouetted briefly and then just a dark shape flying steadily toward the orchards to feed. I insist on being a moonbat. Y'all can be ducky-pluckers. Rupa You really, REALLY don't want to be a moonbat. I'd never call you one. But Marcy is a moonbat.

You had me worried, so I researched the term. It appears to be,
essentially, the opposite of "Wingnut." (As in Ann Coulter is a
wingnut, Al Franken is a moonbat.)

Wingnut. A term that has much less poetry to it than Moonbat. A small
nut with flanges?

I'll go for "Barking Moonbat," myself. I think it's an irresistable
epithet. I'm visualizing these bats barking at the moon...

Rupa
(Hanging upside down on a bright night - Rowfff!)