Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:It is you who have failed to back up your arguments with hard evidence. I
:hate blind partisanship, and that is about all I ever get from
:conservatives. Or libertarians.

Or Dick Morris....

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

In article ,
says...

Yep (depending on which insurgents you mean). Most of those folks are
like carrion crows - they will go wherever there is trouble and try to
stir up more trouble.

Hold on a minute... I thought they were there due to what you characterised as
the brilliant "flypaper strategy" cunningly devised by Bush et al. It
certainly seems to be working well...

Cheers,
dba

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:I am not a "lefty" - I am a moderately conservative independent.

Hogwash! Do you frequently feel compelled to lie about your actual
affiliations? If so, why?

I'll simply note your use of the phrase "what we [the Democrats] were
asking for was..." and you constant personal attacks on anyone who
isn't part of the political left.

I think your actions show your politics in a much more trustworthy
fashion than your self-serving claims.

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:36:19 +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:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: : Canceling 9/11 would have been a popular decision in the US, but it wasn't a
:: :: :: :: : decision Bush could make.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: One could argue that had he paid more attention to Clarke, he may have
:: :: :: :: been able to prevent 9/11.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: Not very convincingly. Of course, you can't argue even reasonable
:: :: :: :: propositions convincingly...
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Who was president when 9/11 occurred?
:: :: :
:: :: :: Gee, that makes a lot of sense. NOT.
:: :: :
:: :: :Also, 9/11 was pallned why the GOPHouse was hungup on Clinton's BJs.
:: :
:: :: And while Clinton was spending his time getting them rather than doing
:: :: something effective.
:: :
:: :The House adulterers were investigating Clinton's adultry.
:
:: His perjury about it.
:
:Yes, about adultry of which they had no right to ask.

Sorry, but given the issues they had every right to ask it or it
wouldn't have been allowed in the deposition. The suit was, after
all, about sexual harassment and the question went to pattern, so it
was perfectly admissible.

:Clinton's mistake was not lying,

No, lying wasn't a mistake. He perjured himself on purpose. That's
the PROBLEM, Eric.

:it was not telling them to go to hell for asking.

Sorry, but "You go to hell" is not considered responsive to a question
and pretending to be offended doesn't excuse one from answering.

:: :: [Move away from the bong, Eric....]
:: :
:: :Yes, you want it of course.
:
:: Well, if I'm going to follow your rambling logic, it's going to take
:: drugs!
:
:Yeah, you're straight.

Avoiding the issue of your rambling logic, are you?

:: :: :: :: Funny how JFK took responsibility for the BOP yet Bush is blameless for
:: :: :: :: 9/11.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: Because Bush didn't order 9/11...
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Correct, but he ignored terrorist warnings from a Clinton holdover, mostly
:: :: :: :because he, Bush, didn't appoint the guy. That attitude makes Bush
:: :: :: :accountable, Rice as well.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Interesting that the big furor didn't start until someone had a book
:: :: :: to hawk, don't you think?
:: :: :
:: :: idn't change that fact that Clarke's warnings were ignored by this
:: :: :administration.
:: :
:: :: And the one that preceded it.
:: :
:: :No, Clinton DID try to get bin Laden and came closer than Bush, who
:: :appears to have lost interest (his words!) in bin Laden, who continues to
:: :threaten the US to this very day.
::
:: Came closer by firing millions of dollars of missiles at empty camps?
:: Yeah, that's the kind of 'effective' action that encouraged bin Laden
:: to go for bigger and better things.
:
:Bin Laden is still alive thanks to Bush.

Really? More of your warped thought processes, no doubt. Can I say
that thousands of people are killed in car accidents because of you,
Eric? I mean, after all, you didn't STOP THEM, did you?

:: Now those camps are gone and bin Laden is making cassette tapes in
:: hiding. Yeah, the Clinton policy of "look but don't touch" was EVER
:: so much more effective.
::
:: snicker
:
:Snicker all you want as Bush is an empty suit in a 10 gallon hat..

And he beat your candidate ... TWICE.

Think about what that says about YOUR positions.

:: :: :: Oh, what am I thinking. Of course you don't.
:: :
:: :: And you're still not thinking, I see.
:: :
:: :I think you're still a jerk...
:
:: See what I mean about you still not thinking?
:
:Besides bug people, what do you do?

Why, I point out the errors in your thinking, Eric. Not that that is
particularly hard, given the magnitude of your errors, but then again,
if it took any time to deal with your idiocy I'd have killfiled you
long ago.

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

"Dick Morris" wrote:

:Ad hominem attacks are all they've got, because they can never get used to
:the fact that anyone can honestly disagree with them.

Talk about your ironic statements!

Oh, just by the way, Dick, "all they've got" is the White House,
Congress, and the vast majority of Governorships. This ought to tell
'you' something more about 'them' than the diatribes and personal
attacks that seem to be your stock in trade. Sadly (for both you and
the Democratic Party) it does not. All it tells you seems to be that
'they' "must have cheated".

A Democratic pundit gave the following three 'Stages of Denial' that
are typical of the Democratic Party after every losing Presidential
election:

1) Blame the candidate. If he had run his campaign better he would
have won, since our ideas are clearly so superior that no one could
possibly disagree with them if they were properly explained.

2) Blame the voters. If so many of the voters weren't so stupid, the
Republicans wouldn't be able to keep fooling them into voting for
Republicans instead of Democrats.

3) Civil War.

a) If only we ran closer to our core positions we would have won.

b) If only we ran further away from our core positions we would have
won.

How that last one works out usually depends on just how badly the
Democratic candidate gets beaten.

Clinton was at 3b) in 1992.

You appear to not have made it to 1) yet.

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

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (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.

But Dick provides references to back up his claims. All you have is
opinions.

: 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.

Man, have you always been a whiner?

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

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:36:19 +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:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: : Canceling 9/11 would have been a popular decision in the US, but it wasn't a
: :: :: :: :: : decision Bush could make.
: :: :: :: ::
: :: :: :: :: One could argue that had he paid more attention to Clarke, he may have
: :: :: :: :: been able to prevent 9/11.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: Not very convincingly. Of course, you can't argue even reasonable
: :: :: :: :: propositions convincingly...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Who was president when 9/11 occurred?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: Gee, that makes a lot of sense. NOT.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Also, 9/11 was pallned why the GOPHouse was hungup on Clinton's BJs.
: :: :
: :: :: And while Clinton was spending his time getting them rather than doing
: :: :: something effective.
: :: :
: :: :The House adulterers were investigating Clinton's adultry.
: :
: :: His perjury about it.
: :
: :Yes, about adultry of which they had no right to ask.

: Sorry, but given the issues they had every right to ask it or it
: wouldn't have been allowed in the deposition. The suit was, after
: all, about sexual harassment and the question went to pattern, so it
: was perfectly admissible.

Who paid for Paula Jones nosejob?

: :Clinton's mistake was not lying,

: No, lying wasn't a mistake. He perjured himself on purpose. That's
: the PROBLEM, Eric.

No, he should have told the GOP House to go to hell.

: :it was not telling them to go to hell for asking.

: Sorry, but "You go to hell" is not considered responsive to a question
: and pretending to be offended doesn't excuse one from answering.

Sure it does. What could they have done?

: :: :: [Move away from the bong, Eric....]
: :: :
: :: :Yes, you want it of course.
: :
: :: Well, if I'm going to follow your rambling logic, it's going to take
: :: drugs!
: :
: :Yeah, you're straight.

: Avoiding the issue of your rambling logic, are you?

You're devoid, yet again, Fret McClod. Have you always been a jackass that
votes for the elephant?

: :: :: :: :: Funny how JFK took responsibility for the BOP yet Bush is blameless for
: :: :: :: :: 9/11.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: Because Bush didn't order 9/11...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Correct, but he ignored terrorist warnings from a Clinton holdover, mostly
: :: :: :: :because he, Bush, didn't appoint the guy. That attitude makes Bush
: :: :: :: :accountable, Rice as well.
: :: :: ::
: :: :: :: Interesting that the big furor didn't start until someone had a book
: :: :: :: to hawk, don't you think?
: :: :: :
: :: :: idn't change that fact that Clarke's warnings were ignored by this
: :: :: :administration.
: :: :
: :: :: And the one that preceded it.
: :: :
: :: :No, Clinton DID try to get bin Laden and came closer than Bush, who
: :: :appears to have lost interest (his words!) in bin Laden, who continues to
: :: :threaten the US to this very day.
: ::
: :: Came closer by firing millions of dollars of missiles at empty camps?
: :: Yeah, that's the kind of 'effective' action that encouraged bin Laden
: :: to go for bigger and better things.
: :
: :Bin Laden is still alive thanks to Bush.

: Really? More of your warped thought processes, no doubt. Can I say
: that thousands of people are killed in car accidents because of you,
: Eric? I mean, after all, you didn't STOP THEM, did you?

We have a $25million price on his head, you have no equilvalent with your
auo accident scenrio. Again, you show no signs of intelligent life.

: :: Now those camps are gone and bin Laden is making cassette tapes in
: :: hiding. Yeah, the Clinton policy of "look but don't touch" was EVER
: :: so much more effective.
: ::
: :: snicker
: :
: :Snicker all you want as Bush is an empty suit in a 10 gallon hat..

: And he beat your candidate ... TWICE.

Big deal. We all lose. Nixon won twice and we all saw him resign after
Watergate.

: Think about what that says about YOUR positions.

Not a damn thing...

Clinton won twice, what does that mean about YOUR posistions?

: :: :: :: Oh, what am I thinking. Of course you don't.
: :: :
: :: :: And you're still not thinking, I see.
: :: :
: :: :I think you're still a jerk...
: :
: :: See what I mean about you still not thinking?
: :
: :Besides bug people, what do you do?

: Why, I point out the errors in your thinking, Eric. Not that that is
: particularly hard, given the magnitude of your errors, but then again,
: if it took any time to deal with your idiocy I'd have killfiled you
: long ago.

Go ahead, I dare you! You don't have the guts to killfile me!

Eric

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:It is about time you admitted that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

It is about time you admitted that the alien Grays did it.

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: "Dick Morris" wrote:

: :Ad hominem attacks are all they've got, because they can never get used to
: :the fact that anyone can honestly disagree with them.

: Talk about your ironic statements!

: Oh, just by the way, Dick, "all they've got" is the White House,
: Congress, and the vast majority of Governorships. This ought to tell
: 'you' something more about 'them' than the diatribes and personal
: attacks that seem to be your stock in trade. Sadly (for both you and
: the Democratic Party) it does not. All it tells you seems to be that
: 'they' "must have cheated".

So those Republicans don't represent all of us? We Democrats, the losers
we are, are just a wandering bunch of unrepresented people?

: A Democratic pundit gave the following three 'Stages of Denial' that
: are typical of the Democratic Party after every losing Presidential
: election:

: 1) Blame the candidate. If he had run his campaign better he would
: have won, since our ideas are clearly so superior that no one could
: possibly disagree with them if they were properly explained.

: 2) Blame the voters. If so many of the voters weren't so stupid, the
: Republicans wouldn't be able to keep fooling them into voting for
: Republicans instead of Democrats.

: 3) Civil War.

: a) If only we ran closer to our core positions we would have won.

: b) If only we ran further away from our core positions we would have
: won.

: How that last one works out usually depends on just how badly the
: Democratic candidate gets beaten.

: Clinton was at 3b) in 1992.

: You appear to not have made it to 1) yet.

Total BS. What will happen is that we'll take less interest in politics at
the national level and the state level, unless our state is run by Dems,
like Maryland, etc. Bush will be turned off the TV when he comes on. We'll
read about the SOU rather than watch. In general, other things in life,
such as gardening and sports will take precedence over national politics
and life will go on. Greed will overcome the GOP and there will be
infighting as you folks simply don't know how to get along with anyone
including yourselves. Interest in politics will come back as we watch you
shred yourselves as the so-called liberals won't be there to kick around
anymore. That is sort of what happened in the 80s with two Reagan terms.

Wanna bet that the Elvis stamps prove to be more popular than the Reagan
stamps, when they come out next spring?

Eric

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

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :It is about time you admitted that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

: It is about time you admitted that the alien Grays did it.


Well if you eqaute alien grays to CIA/Mafia, then I think you've got it...