Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:06:36 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Groups providing aid to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs.
:
: Cite?

: The authors say so.

Yes, anyone can lie, even you, and often...

: http://www.suntimes.com/output/laney...t-laney29.html

: Are you accusing them of lying? Where's your evidence?

Check out this site:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...rans_for_Truth

and this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug21.html

Eric, I know that you probably won't understand this, but neither of
those sites has anything to say about where the proceeds of the books
sales are going.

Again, if you're going to slander hundreds of veterans and former
POWs, offer some proof.

Rand, Regnery Publishing Company is a right-wing propaganda outfit. Show
me ANYTHING that they have published that isn't right-wing. They published
Couter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is nothing but a smear
job against Clinton. Regenery is who was used to publish the Swift Boat
people's book.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not the vets and POWs
are directly being enriched by the book sales.

: They just wanted to forget about him--one ineffectual Senator out of a
: hundred wasn't any big deal. But when they found out that he was
: about to become Commander-in-Chief they decided that it was their
: patriotic duty to speak up.

Right as long as someone else would foot the bill.

No, even if no on else would.

: You still didn't explain your stupid question. How would one prove a
: negative?

I am saying they are lying. Simple as that.

Yes, and you offer no evidence for it. Simple as that. And you.

In fact, the only person shown to have lied (or been delusional) is
Kerry (e.g., Christmas in Cambodia).

: What makes you think a pro-Bush faction didn't bankroll the whole
: thing?

: Now you're changing the subject. Obviously many people who were
: against Kerry (though not necessarily pro-Bush) made contributions.

Right one contribution follows another. Do you honestly believe that they
did this for nothing?

Of course not. No one would subject themselves to smears from
low-lifes like you for nothing. I already explained why they did it.

: That's a separate issue from whether or not the people testifying got
: paid to do so, and that their testimony was false. I'm still awaiting
: some actual evidence for that slander (beyond your conspiracy
: ravings).

Who writes a book and doesn't get paid? Again the timing and the publisher
all point to smear job.

Eric, please at least attempt to think. The Swift Boat vets *didn't
write a book*. They had a book written about them.

: : How would I prove a negative? It seems to me that if you're claiming
: : that they did it for money, you're the one who should offer proof.
:
: Well their publisher is Regnery, which a notorrious right-wing publishing
: outfit. They were funded out of Texas.

: Eric, do you ever even try to employ logic, or are you afraid it would
: hurt your brain? I'm still awaiting some evidence that the hundreds
: of veterans who testified against Kerry's account got paid to lie.

Hundreds? Do you have poof of that many?

That's how many are cited in the book, with affidavits.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:30:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Again, if you're going to slander hundreds of veterans and former
: POWs, offer some proof.

You first must prove that hundreds stepped forward to badmouth Kerry.

The affidavits are in the book.

: Rand, Regnery Publishing Company is a right-wing propaganda outfit. Show
: me ANYTHING that they have published that isn't right-wing. They published
: Couter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is nothing but a smear
: job against Clinton. Regenery is who was used to publish the Swift Boat
: people's book.

: Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not the vets and POWs
: are directly being enriched by the book sales.

Sure it does. It shows that SwiftBoat.org is a smear campaign with
political roots with no interest in the truth.

No, it doesn't, and it doesn't show that the vets received money. If
you think it does, then make an actual argument as to how it does,
instead of repeating the same irrelevant points.

: Of course not. No one would subject themselves to smears from
: low-lifes like you for nothing. I already explained why they did it.

They did it to enrich themselves.

And you're still not provided a single shred of evidence to that
effect.

: Eric, please at least attempt to think. The Swift Boat vets *didn't
: write a book*. They had a book written about them.

Sure they did. They came forward and got paid to write a book.

No, they didn't. There are only two authors of the book.

I couldn't have previously imagined that it was possible for anyone to
be as idiotic and illogical as you are, but you begger my imagination
every day.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:30:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Again, if you're going to slander hundreds of veterans and former
: : POWs, offer some proof.
:
: You first must prove that hundreds stepped forward to badmouth Kerry.

: The affidavits are in the book.

: : Rand, Regnery Publishing Company is a right-wing propaganda outfit. Show
: : me ANYTHING that they have published that isn't right-wing. They published
: : Couter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is nothing but a smear
: : job against Clinton. Regenery is who was used to publish the Swift Boat
: : people's book.
:
: : Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not the vets and POWs
: : are directly being enriched by the book sales.
:
: Sure it does. It shows that SwiftBoat.org is a smear campaign with
: political roots with no interest in the truth.

: No, it doesn't, and it doesn't show that the vets received money. If
: you think it does, then make an actual argument as to how it does,
: instead of repeating the same irrelevant points.

: : Of course not. No one would subject themselves to smears from
: : low-lifes like you for nothing. I already explained why they did it.
:
: They did it to enrich themselves.

: And you're still not provided a single shred of evidence to that
: effect.

: : Eric, please at least attempt to think. The Swift Boat vets *didn't
: : write a book*. They had a book written about them.
:
: Sure they did. They came forward and got paid to write a book.

: No, they didn't. There are only two authors of the book.

Right, the fellow O'Neill has had a vendeta against John Kerry from back
in 1972 when he was on the Dick Cavett show.

: I couldn't have previously imagined that it was possible for anyone to
: be as idiotic and illogical as you are, but you begger my imagination
: every day.

Loser comments from a loser.

You have a nice day, Rand.

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : Eric, please at least attempt to think. The Swift Boat vets *didn't
: : write a book*. They had a book written about them.
:
: Sure they did. They came forward and got paid to write a book.

: No, they didn't. There are only two authors of the book.

Right, the fellow O'Neill has had a vendeta against John Kerry from back
in 1972 when he was on the Dick Cavett show.

I believe you're missing Rand's point.

"The group" didn't write the book. O'Neill and Corsi wrote the book,
and Corsi doesn't even appear to be a Swift Boat Vets member.

I think Rand's logic is that "The group" didn't benefit from
their attacks directly; O'Neill undoubtedly got some royalties
from the book, but none of the other Swift Boat Vets members did.
They couldn't have been motivated by greed if they weren't
enriched. O'Neill's motivation in writing the book could
have been greed, but given that he's been doing this schtick
since 1972 it's a fair bet that he has other motives.
Getting royalties for it was probably gravy for him,
but not a motivator.


-george william herbert

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 23 Dec 2004 16:05:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
: (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: O'Neill's motivation in writing the book could
: have been greed, but given that he's been doing this schtick
: since 1972 it's a fair bet that he has other motives.

: "Doing this since 1972" is misleading. He did it in 1972, but he let
: the sleeping dog lie until this year, when there was some danger of
: Kerry actually becoming CinC.

Yeah, real dangerous.

Read this part:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht....27evidence.27

On 23 Dec 2004 16:05:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : Eric, please at least attempt to think. The Swift Boat vets *didn't
: : write a book*. They had a book written about them.
:
: Sure they did. They came forward and got paid to write a book.

: No, they didn't. There are only two authors of the book.

Right, the fellow O'Neill has had a vendeta against John Kerry from back
in 1972 when he was on the Dick Cavett show.

I believe you're missing Rand's point.

As almost always. And most others' as well.

On 23 Dec 2004 16:05:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

O'Neill's motivation in writing the book could
have been greed, but given that he's been doing this schtick
since 1972 it's a fair bet that he has other motives.

"Doing this since 1972" is misleading. He did it in 1972, but he let
the sleeping dog lie until this year, when there was some danger of
Kerry actually becoming CinC.

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
:
:: "Dick Morris" wrote in message
:: ...
::
:: You are welcome to present your proof of that, if you have any, and I've
:: seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. I listen to a lot of right-wing
:: talk radio, for example, and I hear plenty of nonsense on a daily basis.
::
::
:: That's not a determination you can make.
:
:It isn't? And why is that? You want to stifle his free speech?

You're not very smart, are you, Eric?

That's not a determination Dick can make because Dick obviously
doesn't have the intellectual capacity to be able to tell what is
nonsense and what is not.

He can spout all the idiocy he cares to (just as you can). All you
accomplish, of course, is to make yourselves look incredibly thick.
Just like you did, above, by not being bright enough to understand
Steve's original comment.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:
:"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:57:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dick
: Morris" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: 1. Bush's lawyers, who went to court repeatedly in an attempt to shut
:down
: the manual recounts entirely in order to prevent the actual winner of the
: election from being known.
:
: No, they went to court repeatedly to prevent *selective* manual
: recounts, which were not required by law, and which were being
: performed not in accordance with normal procedure, in order to prevent
: Gore's voters from stealing the election.
:
:The law required requests for manual recounts to be filed with county
:canvassing boards, and Gore requested recounts in counties where obvious
roblems had occured in the original count.

Gore requested recounts in counties where he thought he would gain
votes, not "obvious problems had occured [sic]".

:The law did not require a
:statewide recount, and selective recounts were the rule rather than the
:exception. The recounts were being done in accordance with procedures
:established by the canvassing boards, as required by state law.

False, which is why the Supreme Court found the decision by the
Florida Supreme Court to be in legal error.

:Bush's
:lawyers went to court to stop the recounts *entirely*, not because they
:actually wanted a statewide recount. When the Florida Supreme Court ordered
:a statewide recount they appealed to the US Supreme Court and got that one
:stopped too.

What planet were you on where this sequence of events actually
occurred?

:Your belief that *voters* can "steal" an election - by voting for the
:"wrong" candidate and actually having their votes counted - is an amusing
:take on the democratic process.

What you say above was part of the GORE premise - that a bunch of Gore
voters had somehow accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Dick Morris" wrote:
:
: :The fact that his brother was a Republican helped a great deal. Had a
: emocrat been governor, the butterfly ballot fiasco would have worked
: :against the Republicans and Gore would have been president.
:
: Dick, you *DO* know that the ballot for Miami-Dade that year was
: designed and approved by DEMOCRATS, don't you?
:
:Yes. And it was Palm Beach County.

Fine, you can have your nit. The point remains that you are trying to
blame the REPUBLICAN Governor for a ballot DESIGNED AND APPROVED BY
DEMOCRATS.

This should tell you something ... but I suspect it won't.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn