More Rain In Spain

"Matt C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:avcdf.706$7A.228@fed1read04...

Quoted message said:

It's an imperfect world, deal with it moron.

ROTFL!

B. Lafferty said:

Wasn't that the racing yacht that Kunich captained before he headed off to
invent the Internet?

Dumbass,

Congratulations on being the first person ever to confuse Kunich with Al
Gore.

This is POTM material.

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Wasn't that the racing yacht that Kunich captained before he headed off
to invent the Internet?

Dumbass,

Congratulations on being the first person ever to confuse Kunich with Al
Gore.

This is POTM material.

No it's not. Do a google search on rbr for "Kunich, Arpanet"

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Wasn't that the racing yacht that Kunich captained before he headed off
to invent the Internet?

Dumbass,

Congratulations on being the first person ever to confuse Kunich with Al
Gore.

The disputed claims of Gore and Kunich were previously discussed here at
rbr.

Quoted message said:

This is POTM material.

Actually, Gore never claimed he invented the internet. It's all a big
confusion that Republicans like Kunich probably like to trot out to
make Gore look stupid (like he needs any help on that front), but this
is one thing that he actually never did. Check it out:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Tom

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actually, Gore never claimed he invented the internet. It's all a big
confusion that Republicans like Kunich probably like to trot out to
make Gore look stupid (like he needs any help on that front), but this
is one thing that he actually never did. Check it out:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Tom

So that means it was invented by Kunich??

Carl Sundquist said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

Wasn't that the racing yacht that Kunich captained before he headed off
to invent the Internet?

Dumbass,

Congratulations on being the first person ever to confuse Kunich with Al
Gore.

This is POTM material.

No it's not. Do a google search on rbr for "Kunich, Arpanet"

Truth really IS stranger than fiction.

Oh BS! Gore said that it was HIS foresight that made the internet what
it was. That was pure unaduterated BS and you know it. The fact is that
Arpanet was the internet and all Gore's "support" did was to fund
larger servers at selected university sites.

And "snopes" is not a debunking website since they have strong biases
and often don't check their own information. snopes has often checked
two of a hundred cases of something (such as Clinton's murders) and
then declared the entire list null and void because two very select
members of the list were obviously incorrect.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

And "snopes" is not a debunking website since they have strong biases
and often don't check their own information. snopes has often checked
two of a hundred cases of something (such as Clinton's murders) and
then declared the entire list null and void because two very select
members of the list were obviously incorrect.

Hmmm, maybe not, Tom. Check the whole list and their rather thorough
debunking of it here.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

--------------------------------------

"Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly
"suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F.
Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to
create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:

Quoted message said:

List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your

subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to
your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the
less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of
the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about
the death of Clinton's mother's chiropractor.

Quoted message said:

Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All

accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition
accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death
discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide," to imply just the opposite.
When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none
was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make
liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you
can't contradict with hard evidence.

Quoted message said:

Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is

offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it
may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the
physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You
don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that
the missing shoe "can't be explained."

Quoted message said:

If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to

explain why the people who claim to have the most damaging goods on Clinton
Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky,
Kenneth Starr are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players
have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.

Quoted message said:

Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you

can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death
contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your
chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to
check up on this stuff . . .

--------------------------------------

Unsurprisingly, you don't like Snopes, as they do shoot holes in a few of
your pet obsessions - namely Clinton = Evil. Anything that even hints at Clinton
(or someone associated with him) being/doing some "bad" thing gets eaten up by
you, hook, line and sinker, no matter how tenuous it is - the "Clinton Body
Count" list being but one example.

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck says...

Quoted message said:

Unsurprisingly, you don't like Snopes, as they do shoot holes in a few of
your pet obsessions - namely Clinton = Evil.

You mean Clinton's not evil? I thought that was the foundation of his appeal?
Damn, what can I find to like about him now that he's no longer evil?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

And "snopes" is not a debunking website since they have strong biases
and often don't check their own information. snopes has often checked
two of a hundred cases of something (such as Clinton's murders) and
then declared the entire list null and void because two very select
members of the list were obviously incorrect.

Hmmm, maybe not, Tom. Check the whole list and their rather thorough
debunking of it here.

You mean Clinton DIDN'T frame the White House travel staff and fire them?
You mean that law suit that he lost was all a sham? You mean that all those
FBI files didn't disappear? You mean that Monica NEVER existed? Let me
guess - you believe that Clinton never settle out of court on the Paula
Jones case? Oh, wait, you honestly believe that Juanita Broderick was lying.
Well, if SHE was lying then so must have been Eileen Wellstone.

No, no, you mean that you believe the man with the eidetic memory when he
says that he has NO memory of where he got the money to fly to Moscow or
what he did while he was there?

Hmm, do you cry foul about the Iraq war while comfortably forgetting that
Clinton bombed innocent Serbian women and children for day after day after
day after day to keep Monica off the front pages?

Hey, that film of Roger Clinton picking up drugs and saying that they were
for his brother meant nothing at all. All good fun. Roger must have known he
was being filmed and lied about it to protect himself.

Or maybe the fact that Clinton spent his last days in office selling pardons
to the highest bidders means nothing at all?

And maybe YOU can tell us what Ron Brown, the COMMERCE Secretary, was doing
in Yugoslavia?

Hey, I'm with you. Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say
"snow". That was just a misprint.

On 11/18/2005 11:31 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

And "snopes" is not a debunking website since they have strong biases
and often don't check their own information. snopes has often checked
two of a hundred cases of something (such as Clinton's murders) and
then declared the entire list null and void because two very select
members of the list were obviously incorrect.

Hmmm, maybe not, Tom. Check the whole list and their rather thorough
debunking of it here.

You mean Clinton DIDN'T frame the White House travel staff and fire them?
You mean that law suit that he lost was all a sham? You mean that all those
FBI files didn't disappear? You mean that Monica NEVER existed? Let me
guess - you believe that Clinton never settle out of court on the Paula
Jones case? Oh, wait, you honestly believe that Juanita Broderick was lying.
Well, if SHE was lying then so must have been Eileen Wellstone.

No, no, you mean that you believe the man with the eidetic memory when he
says that he has NO memory of where he got the money to fly to Moscow or
what he did while he was there?

Hmm, do you cry foul about the Iraq war while comfortably forgetting that
Clinton bombed innocent Serbian women and children for day after day after
day after day to keep Monica off the front pages?

Hey, that film of Roger Clinton picking up drugs and saying that they were
for his brother meant nothing at all. All good fun. Roger must have known he
was being filmed and lied about it to protect himself.

Or maybe the fact that Clinton spent his last days in office selling pardons
to the highest bidders means nothing at all?

And maybe YOU can tell us what Ron Brown, the COMMERCE Secretary, was doing
in Yugoslavia?

Hey, I'm with you. Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say
"snow". That was just a misprint.

I wonder if Clinton was in Dallas on November 22, 1963 ... And in the Ford
Theater on April 14, 1865?

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

I always liked Bush I.

"Hey let's sell a bunch of missles and jets to the frickin' Iranians,
then we can use the money for whatever we want! Another war, maybe!"
Then when DoJ starts tightening the noose around your neck, pardon
everyone so they can't testify against you, essentially pardoning yourself!

Yeah, Bush Sr - he's the guy!

Tom Kunich said:

Hey, I'm with you. Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say
"snow". That was just a misprint.

Steven L. Sheffield said:

On 11/18/2005 11:31 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> And "snopes" is not a debunking website since they have strong biases
> and often don't check their own information. snopes has often checked
> two of a hundred cases of something (such as Clinton's murders) and
> then declared the entire list null and void because two very select
> members of the list were obviously incorrect.

Hmmm, maybe not, Tom. Check the whole list and their rather thorough
debunking of it here.

You mean Clinton DIDN'T frame the White House travel staff and fire them?
You mean that law suit that he lost was all a sham? You mean that all those
FBI files didn't disappear? You mean that Monica NEVER existed? Let me
guess - you believe that Clinton never settle out of court on the Paula
Jones case? Oh, wait, you honestly believe that Juanita Broderick was lying.
Well, if SHE was lying then so must have been Eileen Wellstone.

No, no, you mean that you believe the man with the eidetic memory when he
says that he has NO memory of where he got the money to fly to Moscow or
what he did while he was there?

Hmm, do you cry foul about the Iraq war while comfortably forgetting that
Clinton bombed innocent Serbian women and children for day after day after
day after day to keep Monica off the front pages?

Hey, that film of Roger Clinton picking up drugs and saying that they were
for his brother meant nothing at all. All good fun. Roger must have known he
was being filmed and lied about it to protect himself.

Or maybe the fact that Clinton spent his last days in office selling pardons
to the highest bidders means nothing at all?

And maybe YOU can tell us what Ron Brown, the COMMERCE Secretary, was doing
in Yugoslavia?

Hey, I'm with you. Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say
"snow". That was just a misprint.

I wonder if Clinton was in Dallas on November 22, 1963 ... And in the Ford
Theater on April 14, 1865?

--
Steven L. Sheffield

You know that if he was, he was too busy scoring some poontang to be
shooting people. Besides JFK had to be his idol. I'd love to see the
tapes of the Kennedy boys chasing naked women around the White House
while Jackie just ignored it all. Damn, talk about Deja-vu.
Bill C

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:31:21 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You mean Clinton DIDN'T frame the White House travel staff and fire them?
You mean that law suit that he lost was all a sham? You mean that all those
FBI files didn't disappear? You mean that Monica NEVER existed? Let me
guess - you believe that Clinton never settle out of court on the Paula
Jones case? Oh, wait, you honestly believe that Juanita Broderick was lying.
Well, if SHE was lying then so must have been Eileen Wellstone.

SNIP

Hey, I'm with you. Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say
"snow". That was just a misprint.

Where did you get your degree in political science from?

Therefore, by Kunich logic, I deem everything you have said as
worthless.

Thanks for stopping by.

D

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

You mean Clinton DIDN'T frame the White House travel staff and fire them?

Yep, he had 'em canned. But framed? Huh????

Quoted message said:

You mean that Monica NEVER existed? Let me guess - you believe that
Clinton never settle out of court on the Paula Jones case?

So Clinton settling with Jones means... what? Is LANCE damned because he
settled with Anderson? Oh, *that's* different...

Quoted message said:

Oh, wait, you honestly believe that Juanita Broderick was lying.
Well, if SHE was lying then so must have been Eileen Wellstone.

Who knows? There isn't any evidence one way or the other, is there? Why
didn't you mention Kathleen Willey? Did you know that Robert Ray was within a
whisker of prosecuting her for perjury? Even Linda Tripp said Willey was full of
[censored].

Quoted message said:

Hmm, do you cry foul about the Iraq war while comfortably forgetting that
Clinton bombed innocent Serbian women and children for day after day after
day after day to keep Monica off the front pages?

Speaking of memories, haven't we established in previous discussions that I
wasn't a fan of the Serbia bombing campaign? Or did you "comfortably forget"
that? Hmmm?

Quoted message said:

Hey, that film of Roger Clinton picking up drugs and saying that they were
for his brother meant nothing at all. All good fun. Roger must have known he
was being filmed and lied about it to protect himself.

Again, who knows? There's no evidence to support it, is there? And you don't
suppose a clown like Roger Clinton would miss a chance to drop a name or two to
make himself seem important?

Quoted message said:

And maybe YOU can tell us what Ron Brown, the COMMERCE Secretary, was > doing in Yugoslavia?

Well, Tom, considering that he was with a group of US business leaders and
execs, as well as several of his staff, I'd say that COMMERCE Secretary Brown
was doing his job: going on a trade mission. Maybe you should tell us what you
think he was doing there.

Quoted message said:

Hey, I'm with you.

Uh, no.

Quoted message said:

Clinton was as clean as the driven snow. Did I say "snow". That was just a
misprint.

You really think all that stuff in any way proves that what Snopes said about
your beloved Clinton Death List is wrong? Or were you simply hoping to distract
people with it in the classic Tom style of changing the subject?

But I must admit, you're at your most entertaining whn you're seething with
righteous indignation.

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steven L. Sheffield said:

I wonder if Clinton was in Dallas on November 22, 1963 ... And in the Ford
Theater on April 14, 1865?

That is just plain weak. It's embarrassing to read as
sorry a `defense' as this. And why even bother defending
some administration?

Having anything good to say about any administration is
selling out ones fellow citizens, and anyone who does so
should be well paid; those who are not are dupes.

I would rather be a shill than a dupe.

--
Michael Press

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You really think all that stuff in any way proves that what Snopes said
about
your beloved Clinton Death List is wrong? Or were you simply hoping to
distract
people with it in the classic Tom style of changing the subject?

Here's the bottom line - if you want to disprove a list you don't disprove
it by cherry picking. You disprove it by citing each case on the list.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You really think all that stuff in any way proves that what Snopes said
about
your beloved Clinton Death List is wrong? Or were you simply hoping to
distract
people with it in the classic Tom style of changing the subject?

Here's the bottom line - if you want to disprove a list you don't disprove
it by cherry picking. You disprove it by citing each case on the list.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

Who says they cherry picked? It looks like they went through and blew almost
all of the claims away, the exceptions being a couple of cases where evidence
and news articles weren't available to prove it one way or the other. But those
cases (like the majority of them) were linked to Clinton in ways so tenuous as
to be absurd. If you really want to believe that list, then you must surely
believe in Bigfoot.

http://www.swtimes.com/letters_to_the_editor/11-07-05/

Of course, you didn't seem to mind cherry picking when it came to WMD intel.

--
tanx,
Howard

The sheriff is near...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?