Why Conservatives Should Vote for Kerry

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:53:07 +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:


: 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!

It's stupidly hilarious little gems like this that keep me from
killfiling Eric.

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

: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
pinions.

Well, no, Dick doesn't do any such thing.

:: 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?

You misspelled that, Eric. In my case, it is spelt 'winner'.

You were the one whining about someone wanting to "stifle his free
speech" and such. Hell, you're still whining about the 2000
election....

--
"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:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :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?

Who gives a ****? Another Eric non sequitur.

:: :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.

Uh, you're a bit confused about events, aren't you? The deposition
wherein he committed perjury was from a court, not from the GOP House.

:: :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?

The judge could have found him in contempt of court, automatically
found against him, disbarred him (which happened due to his perjury
anyway), fined him, or ordered him jailed.

:: :: :: [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?

I've told you before, El Chimpo, that I voted for Clinton in 1992.
Pull your butt cheeks up a bit so you can see out.

:: :: :: :: :: 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.

Non sequitur. AGAIN.

:: :: 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.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt....

:: Think about what that says about YOUR positions.
:
:Not a damn thing...

And so Eric demonstrates that he can't find a clue even if someone
slaps him across the face with it.

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

Not much, since I voted for him the first time he won. Then it became
obvious how much he lied about his positions. The second time he won,
Dole just wasn't a very good candidate. Clinton is very smart and
plays very dirty.

However, YOU got some 'splainin to do, Eric, since YOU are wanking on
about how much better the LOSERS are and what a stupid ****e Bush is.

If he's so stupid, how come he cleaned your clock TWICE?

:: :: :: :: 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!

You really need to back off on those steroids, too. Just because you
don't have to worry about the side effects (since you already suffer
from all of them) doesn't mean you can abuse them until you actually
grow a muscle.

Perhaps you should try spinach?

[Eating it, not smoking it.]

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(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.

People with the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent arguments do
not engage in ad hominem attacks.

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.

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"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]".

There *were* obvious problems. For one thing, during the original count in
Volusia County, "16,000 votes were mysteriously subtracted from Gore's
tally. Anouther 8,642 votes appeared out of nowhere for Bush" (Sammon, "At
All Costs..", p 58). For another, Gore picked up a net of some 700 votes
during the mandatory machine recount - about twice as many votes as the
remaining margin - largely due to the famous "hanging chads". Gore also
asked for manual recounts in the largest counties that used the punched card
ballots. Had the partial recount changed the outcome of the election, Bush
would have asked for, and gotten, a statewide recount. Gore certainly would
not have objected to that.

: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.

The US Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of partial recounts
because the case before them concerned a *statewide* recount. Their opinion
had to do with a perceived "equal protection" violation due to the fact that
different counties had different standards for casting and counting
ballots - as authorized by Florida law. Had the Florida Supreme Court
established a statewide standard for the recount, that would indeed have
amounted to "changing the law after the fact", as Republicans are so fond of
charging. Had the FSC done so, the Republicans would no doubt have based
their appeal on that.

If you want to argue the US Supreme Court ruling, then I'm afraid you're
going to have to actually read it, and quote the relevant passages.

: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?

Bush could have requested to extend the recount statewide at any time up to
the point where the election was certified. He did not do so. Gore offered
to do it for him. He declined. The Florida Supreme Court ordered it done
and Bush appealed to the US Supreme Court to get it stopped. If you can
show me where Bush made any overt attempt to get a statewide recount started
I would like to see it.


: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.

Yes, they actually did, and I have never said that those votes should have
been counted for Gore. Nor did Gore for that matter, IIRC. "Wrong" in this
case means "somebody other than *my* candidate".
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"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.

I have never blamed the Republican Governor of Florida for anything, and the
fact that the ballot was designed by Democrats is irrelevant. The point was
that if a Democrat had been Governor, Gore's name would have been listed
first on the ballot, as required by Florida law, and the voter errors that
apparently cost the Democrats thousands of votes would not have occurred,
and would instead have been committed by Republican voters.

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

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"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....

I am not a partisan at all - I vote for the candidate, not the party. I
used to be a partisan, though, and until about 10 years ago I had never
voted for a Democrat - just Republicans. Live and learn.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"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?

How exactly do you know what my actual affiliations are? If you can find
any examples of where I have argued in favor of leftist political dogmas
then feel free to point them out. I *have* argued in favor of conservation
and environmental protection, but those issues are not "leftist" in any real
sense. Preserving the health of the biosphere is a profoundly
"conservative" thing to do.

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.

"We", in that case, meant "Gore voters". And in contrast to you, I do not
engage in personal attacks (except, on rare occasions, in self defense).

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"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".

I was not referring to Republicans in general, but to individuals that I
have encountered on the internet.

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.

No I have not, since I am not in denial. And just for the record, many
Democrats *are* in denial, and have been for a long time. (Many
Republicans, of course, are also in denial - about
conservation/environmental/population issues for example).
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

As somebody who voted for Kerry, I think the main problem the left has is
that it has forgotten how to talk to anybody who is not already on the left.
The right once had this problem but apparently has corrected it. The left
needs to do the same.
What I don't the Left realised is that the GOP has two different approaches:
The Red Meat Limbaugh strategy for the Faithful, and a more moderate message
for the Undecided. The Left went for the red meat approach but did not get
out a more moderate sounding message along with it. This whole "Let's be a
Left Wing Limbaugh " approach was a mistake.