On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:43:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

Yep, good emotional label to use for people old enough to vote for president,
drink alcohol, kill for their country, die for their country, get married, have
children, and do everything else anyone who's reached the age of majority can
do.
I prefer to avoid emotional arguments like that, especially when discussing
logical questions.

No, we need more emotional things like terror levels with color charts. We need
more of that. We need more of a government who controls people through Patriot
Act 2, and who can fly their friends out of the country, while organ donations
were not permitted to fly to their destination, causing many deaths. It's a
very deep thing. It's not this flippant thing you want to make it seem to be.
It is not emotional, it's factual.

Speaking of facts, we pay less tax than most countries in the world. I would
think everyone would be willing to pay the tax so elders could have medicine and
children could have health care. So women could have prenatal care. I guess
caring for people is disgusting. Oh well.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

In article ,
says...
* *If there were*no independent or third party candidate
running for the 2004 presidential race,* I*might decide not to
vote.**Because between a chicken hawk**such as Bush and
a*chicken**politician like yourself, there is very little choice.*

There hasn't been a choice for a long time. All politicians will
support with speeches and votes, whatever will get them elected. People
like Nader, who haven't a chance of actually getting elected, are the
only ones with the freedom to say what they like.

It's really simple. Every time a politician takes a stand on an issue,
he ****es off some voters. The solution is not to take a stand on
anything you can avoid.

It's not a coincidence that the frantic drive to ensure that everyone is
a registered voter started in the same time frame as TV marketing. TV
is a powerful influence on voters, and the stupider they are, the easier
they are to influence. That's when politicians really started waffling
on the issues.

I don't have a solution, but we could do as good as we do now by drawing
names out of a hat :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Larry Blanchard wrote:

It's really simple. Every time a politician takes a stand on an
issue,
he ****es off some voters. The solution is not to take a stand on
anything you can avoid.


How true.

There is virtually nothing that either candidate can say or do between
now and November to gain additional votes. All they can do is loose
votes. "I was supporting X, but then I found out Y, but there's still no
way I'm voting for Z."

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:12:50 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:45:22 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:14:29 GMT, wrote:

if you take all the speeches he said and quoted out of context you could make him
sound like he was selling his mother into slavery if you wanted. it is called cut
and paste. it is made up. it is a lot of bushwa.

So when he's quoted one time saying the exact opposite of what he said the other
time it's made up? If that was true, it would be easy to deal with. The question
on his message forum doesn't seem to think it's quite that easy to deal with.
They seem to think there is some justification for the perception that he has
been Flip Flopping. Of course, they are his campaign people. What do they know?


If you are talking about voting for this war, you would be skating the issue.

That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on.

Most who voted for this Iraq occupation and war did so under the guise of there
absolutely being an existence of WMD. Clearly, Collin Powell said to the UN
there absolutely were nuclear weapons, along with biological and chemical
weapons and they knew they had them. Facts are, they knew no such thing.

There are currently many in the position of having a say who have concurred
today that, they never would have voted for this occupation and war based on
this non-specific reason. There are no WMD. None.

You mean WMD's like the Chemical Weapon Sarin or the Chemical Weapon Mustard
Gas, which have been used in Iraq?

They'd have been used by
now.

Yes, they have. I know many people want to change the meaning of Weapons of Mass
Destruction to no longer include Chemical Weapons, but I'd prefer not to do
that. That would seem too much like lying to me, and since everybody claims they
want to stick with the truth, I think we should. Some Weapons of Mass
Destruction have already been found in Iraq, which indicates that there are
probably others there. Records from before the war indicated that Saddam Hussein
buried tons of chemical weapons. Burying them does not destroy them. It just
stores them for later retrieval.

Many of the members of Congress voted for the 87 million dollars who are now
saying they never would have approved that package if they knew then what they
know now.

20/20 hindsight is handy, but nobody has it available at the time decisions are
made. We all have to make decisions with the information that's available at the
time.
It ain't what you know that gets you. It's what you know that just ain't
so.-Josh Billings

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:26:20 GMT, wrote:

Rules of critical thinking

1. who is quoting the text? what do they have to gain from quoting that text?
2. read the quoted speech in its entirety.
3. Apply ALL rules of critical thinking to ALL sides equally.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:57:40 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
Hooboy, I gave you a resource for dozens of Vietnam war memorials, few of
which are for the dead only, except the cemetery memorials which weren't
on the resource list I linked you to.

Yes, and NONE of them addressed the point I was referring to, which was what
this COUNTRY did for the returning veterans.

If you actually gave a fat dog's ass
about honors paid to vets you'd've at least looked at the link.

I appreciate all the efforts each state makes, but don't think that makes up for
the country's ignoring them(at best). The states didn't send them to Vietnam.

Your heart
might be in the right place, but when you spout off without even an ounce
of knowledge, you sound like a nut. When the information is before you &
quite easy to check, & you say you SERIOUSLY can't see that any of these
many memorials exist, it shows you're reacting from a position of
blindness & distaste for the facts, justifying your position by remaining
unaware of reality, rather than basing your positions in sound reason &
factual information. So just try to believe it. There is NO SHORTAGE of
Vietnam war memorials. Who knows, you might even bite the bullet & vote
for Kerry if you'd replace kneejerkism with knowledge. There are plenty of
things vets have every reason to be righteous about; lack of memorials is
hardly one of them.

I can't bite the bullet enough to vote for Kerry. He's already shown me enough
of himself that I don't think he's fit to run a Dog Pound.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:39:19 GMT, wrote:

http://www.thewall-usa.com/

the three soldiers .... now, I always thought memorials were to those who died so
how many memorials are there to those who served in WWII?

Isn't the new memorial they just dedicated on July 4th for those who served in
World War II?

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:47:54 GMT, escapee wrote:

(snip)
You gave me one example of your belief of his lying, but he didn't lie.

No, he just "selectively told the truth". That's even better than outright
lying.

If he
is so glaringly lying, there'd be a lot more on the tip of your tongue. It
wouldn't be a labor to find the lies in your mind. They'd be right up there.
If you think Michael Moore is dishonest, you have to come up with a lot more
than an opinion to convince me. You didn't see Fahrenheit 9-11, yet, you say he
is dishonest in it. Interesting.

Nope. Read my post again. I didn't see Farenheit 9/11, yet, I say he is
dishonest. Got it? If you can quote me saying he's dishonest in Farenheit 9/11,
go for it. I'm usually more careful than that. If I had to guess, I'd probably
guess it's full of blatant lies, half-lies, and "selective truths", along with
lies of omission, but since I don't have to guess, I'll just go with what I do
know. I know he lacks integrity.

Bush wasn't incompetent. He orchestrated the attacks.

The facts are that Bush had predefined plans on attacking Iraq.
Bush knows where the Anthrax came from. The Anthrax came
from the Army Base in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Furthermore,
the Anthrax was delivered ONLY to Democrats. Why ?

Condoleeza Rice and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial
aircraft in July 2001. Messages were being passed up to the
Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden was getting ready
to attack the World Trade Centers. Messages were being passed
up to the Bush administration that bin Laden associates were in
the United States planning to fly airplanes into World Trade
Centers. After all, Rice and Ashcroft stopped flying on
commercial airliners in July 2001. It all adds up to one thing.

It was orchestrated by the White House. The well recognized
"chatter" started making a widespread happenstance on 9/1/2001.

Putting the blame on the lack of communication between the FBI
and the CIA is a cheap shot by the President. The ONLY lack
of communication that continues to go on, starts from President
Bush. Bush knew it was going to happen. Bush supported it. The
lack of communication still occurs, because Bush doesn't want
folks to know. He has something to hide.

Name two things that Bush did in 2001 ?

He vacationed the first 9 months of 2001 ? He knew he needed
a vacation for what was going to happen ?

He took a trip all of a sudden on 9/11/2001 to Florida to read
a story about goats to children and visit his brother Jeb Bush ?
How many times has George Bush performed this procedure ?
What is he trying to cover up ? He did this for one specific
reason and it wasn't the children he was thinking about. After
all, God chose Bush to kill 100,000 people starting with the
first 3000 people in the World Trade Center ?

Something isn't right with the story. Of course Bush will find
weapons of mass destruction now. He knows how to do this
now.

Bush wasn't incompetent in no means. He orchestrates
everything. He is the conductor.

The buck starts in one place. It stops in one place. And thats
the way it is.

Again, the strain of Anthrax found in those letters originated from
one United States Army Base... in Fort Detrick, Maryland. And
Bush has conveniently forgotten about the details of the Anthrax.
He can now find that Anthrax anywhere in Iraq that he wants to
find it. He knows how to do this. Can he be trusted ?

Something isn't right.

http://www.911forthetruth.com/


"Vox Humana" wrote:

Nice summary. Maybe the Iraq invasion was a good thing in one
respect. Now that we know how duplicitous and incompetent
the Bush administration is, I doubt that they will be handed authority
to make war on other countries. Just think how bad the situation
would be now had Bush picked Iran instead of Iraq.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:33:02 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

I consider one of America's biggest national black marks the way we(as a
country) treated the veterans WE sent to fight in Vietnam



More hype and blather from a know nothing. As a part of the "Vietnam
Veterans Against the War" campaign I saw NONE of the idiocies
overblown by blowhards and republican chicken hawks! What was
outstanding was the war mongers republicans inability to deal with
agent orange. That was the real slap in Vietnam veterans faces! Not
some highed out hippy!

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:47:52 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:58:18 GMT, escapee wrote:

(snip)
I will wait forever to hear the three things I ask for. Just three out of all
Moore's books, films or articles in featured magazines or interviews.

I gave you one already. I may give you some more if I remember them. Aside from
finding Bowling for Columbine a waste of time, I didn't find it particularly
interesting. The only reason I watched it was to find out if Michael Moore was
really as dishonest as I'd heard he was. I'm satisfied that he is. I don't think
I'll be watching any more of his movies.

You gave me one example of your belief of his lying, but he didn't lie. If he
is so glaringly lying, there'd be a lot more on the tip of your tongue. It
wouldn't be a labor to find the lies in your mind. They'd be right up there.
If you think Michael Moore is dishonest, you have to come up with a lot more
than an opinion to convince me. You didn't see Fahrenheit 9-11, yet, you say he
is dishonest in it. Interesting.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:45:22 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:14:29 GMT, wrote:

if you take all the speeches he said and quoted out of context you could make him
sound like he was selling his mother into slavery if you wanted. it is called cut
and paste. it is made up. it is a lot of bushwa.

So when he's quoted one time saying the exact opposite of what he said the other
time it's made up? If that was true, it would be easy to deal with. The question
on his message forum doesn't seem to think it's quite that easy to deal with.
They seem to think there is some justification for the perception that he has
been Flip Flopping. Of course, they are his campaign people. What do they know?


If you are talking about voting for this war, you would be skating the issue.
Most who voted for this Iraq occupation and war did so under the guise of there
absolutely being an existence of WMD. Clearly, Collin Powell said to the UN
there absolutely were nuclear weapons, along with biological and chemical
weapons and they knew they had them. Facts are, they knew no such thing.

There are currently many in the position of having a say who have concurred
today that, they never would have voted for this occupation and war based on
this non-specific reason. There are no WMD. None. They'd have been used by
now.

Many of the members of Congress voted for the 87 million dollars who are now
saying they never would have approved that package if they knew then what they
know now.

V


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:57:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on.

Not a flip flop. He, with many others were duped. Lied to by Collin Powell,
Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney. Name some more.

You mean WMD's like the Chemical Weapon Sarin or the Chemical Weapon Mustard
Gas, which have been used in Iraq?

They never existed. Trace amounts were discovered. Trace. They are not WMD's.
They'd be W'sMD, which is why they are called WMD.

20/20 hindsight is handy, but nobody has it available at the time decisions are
made. We all have to make decisions with the information that's available at the
time.

The current administration gave an absolute statement that WMD definitely
existed and they (Iraq) had them. They knew where they were, they were certain.
That was what they told the Congress. They lied. If they didn't lie, they were
absolutely incompetent and deserving of being fired.



Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Wow, this thread has exploded. I'm not sorry I read my way through it.
Whether or not we are here as gardeners, 9/11, the Iraq war, and this
election may well turn out to be pivotal events of our lifetimes. I want to
address one little issue - WMDs in Iraq. We KNOW (or knew) that there WERE
WMD's in Iraq, because we were one of the suppliers of WMD's to Iraq in the
1980's. (Hence the famous picture of Donald Rumsfield, all smiles, jovially
shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1986). We supplied them to Iraq because
it was fighting a big 10 year long war with Iran in which there were well
over 1,000,000 casualties. People get worked up over the wrong angle of WMD
arguments. The question should not be, and should not have been in 2002/2003
"did Iraq once have WMDs?". The question should have been, "did Iraq have
WMD's in sufficient quantity left after 2 major wars to pose any kind of
threat to the Western world?". The answer, even before the UN weapons
inspectors, and LONG BEFORE David Kay, was "no". The answer was known, and
the CIA issued oodles of caveats in its assessments, which anyone reading
between the lines could have interpreted easily. But there was no will to
interpret facts that way - in fact, there was significant and unrelenting
pressure to read the facts the opposite way. The administration issued a
legal paper before the war to try to cover its butt, about legal
justifications for pre-emptive wars. The ONLY legal justification was/is to
demonstrate an immediate or imminent danger. The paper purported to show
that, since terrorists might get access to WMD's under certain regimes, any
information regarding possession of WMD's by such regimes was adequate to
justify a pre-emptive war, since terrorists act without warning - hence the
imminent danger part. That is why there was such an incredible push to drum
up the quantity of such weapons and the danger they would present to the
western world. Without those weapons in sufficient quantity, the whole legal
justification for the war has evaporated completely, meaning that
essentially we are occupying Iraq illegally, and have been since April 2003.
All the grandstanding by Bush about how evil Saddam Hussein was and how
important it was to get rid of him does not make it any more legal. There
are reasons why the Bush administration has sought every possible reason to
exempt the US from any sort of authority wielded by the World Court. The
reality is that the people of Iraq could sue the US for an illegal invasion
and occupation, and easily win.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:13:29 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

In article , (The
Watcher) claimed Kerry no better than Bush:

Yo, Watcher, Kerry IS better than Bush, the way a dog turd from a
constipated dog smells better than from a dog with diarrhea.

So, if you put a plate with those two choices in front of me, I'm afraid I'll
have to pass on that menu if there are ANY other possible menu choices.