OT:The Perfect Political Campaign Button '06

[Johnny Sunset]

dgk wrote:
> ...
> The electorate isn't dumb, well, 50% is below average I guess....

Maybe, maybe not.

However, 50% of the electorate is below median intelligence.

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Dane Buson wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc di <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Question for Di: Do you think the war in Iraq is going well, or can
>>> ever go well?
>>
>> I don't think it's going as well as it could, but It's not going as
>> bad as you are duped into believing, it depends who you talk to if
>> it's going well or not. Talk to the soldiers that have been there,
>> it's going pretty well,
>
> You and I are evidently not talking to the same soldiers. The ones I
> know vary between resigned to try and finished a totally SNAFU
> situation, and ones who think we never should have gone and should get
> the heck out. I do know a couple who've gone back as contractors, but
> even they don't think the war is a good idea.
>
>> listen to the American Media, it's a disaster. Turn off NBC, ABC,
>> CBS, CNN, & New York Times, talk to people, you just may be
>> surprised.
>
> Actually, I get most of my news from places like the BBC and other
> world news sources. If anything they paint an even grimmer view.

The BBC is way left-leaning (sounds nicer than virulently anti-American).

HTH

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per Bill Sornson:
>>> PS, Pete: Upon reflection I think you meant "worrisome" in a
>>> partisan, pro-Dem way and not the way I initially read it:
>>> worrisome (troubling) in a /sociological/ way. So I take back the
>>> hypocrisy charge. Unless, of course...
>>
>> It was more of a comment on how dumb somebody thinks the electorate
>> is.
>
> Well then my original point stands: why wasn't it "worrisome" when it
> appeared that HIGH gas prices were going to affect the election? Or
> is it only "dumb" of the voters now?

Pete, can you re-post your reply to that? My server's acting up, eating
posts. (I just syncronized it and the problem seems to have ceased.)

Thanks.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>> Per Bill Sornson:
>>>> PS, Pete: Upon reflection I think you meant "worrisome" in a
>>>> partisan, pro-Dem way and not the way I initially read it:
>>>> worrisome (troubling) in a /sociological/ way. So I take back the
>>>> hypocrisy charge. Unless, of course...
>>>
>>> It was more of a comment on how dumb somebody thinks the electorate
>>> is.
>>
>> Well then my original point stands: why wasn't it "worrisome" when
>> it appeared that HIGH gas prices were going to affect the election? Or is
>> it only "dumb" of the voters now?
>
> Pete, can you re-post your reply to that? My server's acting up,
> eating posts. (I just syncronized it and the problem seems to have
> ceased.)
> Thanks.

Bzzt! Now it's there again (just read it). Sorry.

Bill "never mind" S.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:14:20 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Their front-page story TODAY was designed to slam the Bush Admin (actually,
>Congressional Republicans but when you can blame it on Bush, do it) for
>posting this stuff on the web -- NOT to confirm that Saddam had an active
>nuclear program after all. They just sort of /missed/ that part.

Dumbass, you sort of missed the part about the NYTimes trying to
report what is important and true, and not designing things to slam
the govt.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:17:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The BBC is way left-leaning (sounds nicer than virulently anti-American).

What does that mean? That they report reality?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:21:39 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>> Per Bill Sornson:
>>>> PS, Pete: Upon reflection I think you meant "worrisome" in a
>>>> partisan, pro-Dem way and not the way I initially read it:
>>>> worrisome (troubling) in a /sociological/ way. So I take back the
>>>> hypocrisy charge. Unless, of course...
>>>
>>> It was more of a comment on how dumb somebody thinks the electorate
>>> is.
>>
>> Well then my original point stands: why wasn't it "worrisome" when it
>> appeared that HIGH gas prices were going to affect the election? Or
>> is it only "dumb" of the voters now?
>
>Pete, can you re-post your reply to that? My server's acting up, eating
>posts. (I just syncronized it and the problem seems to have ceased.)

Check Google or any of a number of archives.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

di wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 17:21:40 -0600, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:29:57 -0600, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> How about talking about the truth and not making stuff up. Who are
> >>> these soldiers that say the war is going well?
> >>
> >>Careful dipshit, you're loosing your cool, you wouldn't know or
> >>acknowledge
> >>the truth if you heard it. Your brain has been brainwashed to the point
> >>of
> >>no return.
> >
> > Interesting that rather than responding to my charge, you attack me.
> > But in fact, the strongest attack on me would be evidence of what you
> > say. But since it's a lie you can't do that.
> >
> > Nice. Well done.
> >
> > --
> > JT
> >
>
> Yep, you've lost it. Where do you get the idea I have to do anything you
> say. Whatever I said you wouldn't believe, your brainwashed mind is made
> up and there's no changing it.

!!POW!!! There goes another exploded Irony Meter!

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:17:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The BBC is way left-leaning (sounds nicer than virulently anti-American).
>
> What does that mean? That they report reality?

I believe it means:
1) the BBC (and other news agencies around the world) try to
foil bias with counter-bias in their reporting, in an attempt
to achieve something called "Balanced Reporting".

2) The post-British Empire UK is walking a very thin and
delicate diplomatic line wrt their "Middle East" policies,
which respond to things that aren't so apparently and
simply "black & white" as they may be to Americans.

In a nutshell, the establishment of the State of Israel in
1947 kinda threw a complicating monkey wrench into the works
of British "Middle East" (Near East?) policy. The Brits
wanna retain conciliatory relations with their former ersatz
"colonies" in the region, without drawing ire by being too
flamingly pro-Israel. In the meantime, they also don't want
to raise ire in the US by apparently being too flamingly
anti-Israel, hence the thinness and delicacy of their
diplomatic line. How does one take sides, without taking sides?

Throw in the British penchant for this thing they call:
"Compromise Solution" with this British approach tom &
view of the Middle East, and you've got a news agency that
might appear to some Americans as "way left-leaning," or
even "virulently anti-American," when they're just being
pro-UK, just as Americans are pro-USA.

It sure wouldn't hurt if people were just pro-people. That
would spare us a lot of stupid, useless, hurtful ********.
But that's too much to ask or hope for.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[damyth]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> damyth wrote:
> > di wrote:
> >> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>> For those who don't wish to register if it won't display as is, a
> >>> few snippets:
> >>> "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports
> >>> written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in
> >>> charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms
> >>> programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time,
> >>> Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom
> >>> bomb, as little as a year away."
> >>>
> >>> "Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq's program to
> >>> make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.
> >>>
> >>> At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised
> >>> alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission,
> >>> which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional
> >>> arms, save the nuclear ones."
> >>>
> >>> "On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, "Summary of
> >>> technical achievements of Iraq's former nuclear program." It runs
> >>> to 51 pages, 18 focusing on the development of Iraq's bomb design.
> >>> Topics included physical theory, the atomic core and high-explosive
> >>> experiments. By early October, diplomats and officials said, United
> >>> Nations arms inspectors in New York and their counterparts in
> >>> Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do."
> >>>
> >>> No wonder Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official
> >>> policy of the U.S.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> They won't want to hear this, it doesn't fit the agenda, so
> >> therefore it must be nothing but rightwing lies and deceit out forth
> >> by Bush just to get control of the world supply for his cronies in
> >> Texas. It's unfortunate that history has not been taught in public
> >> schools for the last 30 years or so, instead of being replaced with
> >> political correctness.
> >
> > Like I already said before, I love how you right wingnuts talk out
> > both sides of your mouth at the same time. You claim NYT has a
> > "liberal bias" while ignoring Judith Miller's uncritical "reporting"
> > of Iraq's WMD (with Chalabi as her source), which was largely
> > responsible for turning public sentiment FOR the war in the run-up.
> > Judy Miller was acting as the mouthpiece for the Bush administration
> > before the Iraq War.
> > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
> >
> > The NYT has since apologized for not being more critical of Judy
> > Miller's reporting and administration claims (re the aluminum tubes).
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/i...&en=94c17fcffad92ca9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
> >
> > NYT "Liberal Bias?" Ha! Hardly.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Their front-page story TODAY was designed to slam the Bush Admin (actually,
> Congressional Republicans but when you can blame it on Bush, do it) for
> posting this stuff on the web -- NOT to confirm that Saddam had an active
> nuclear program after all. They just sort of /missed/ that part.

NYT didn't miss anything in that article. It is you who seem to seeing
things in the article that aren't there. You assert (both here and in
an earlier post) that the article implies that Saddam had an ACTIVE
nuclear program in 2002, right before the (current) Iraq War.

Here is the quote from the article in context (Stuff in brackets my
additions):
"...But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that
weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of
Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The
documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an
atom bomb.
.....[snipped]....
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in
the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making
sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the
Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time [of the 1991 Persian
Gulf War], Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an
atom bomb, as little as a year away."

The NYT article does not imply in 2002 Saddam had an active nuclear
program. The Iraqi reports for UN inspectors were prepared in 1991 and
2002, that's _all_.

I don't see why you seem to think this NYT article is slamming the Bush
administration. Non-proliferation people like IAEA and others are
concerned about this sensitive "recipe" on making atomic bombs used by
Iran and the like. How is this a slam against the Bush administration?

Sure , it's a slam against the likes of Representative Peter Hoekstra
and Senator Pat Roberts and _some_ people in the Bush administration
who _still_ believe Saddam had reconstituted WMDs (in 2002), despite
repeated reports by several US weapons inspectors that there was no
evidence of reconstituted WMDs in Iraq. Hoekstra and Roberts are still
in deep denial, and that's definitely news fit to print.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>
> The BBC is way left-leaning (sounds nicer than virulently anti-American).

At this point, most of the world is anti-American, although I'm not
sure about the "virulently" part.

I was in England on 9/11/01, and trapped by the shutdown of air travel.
The outpouring of sympathy was amazing and heartwarming. We had the
world's sympathy, and if we'd used it properly, we could have achieved
great things.

Instead, we defied world opinion, constructed excuses to invade not
Saudi Arabia (home of almost all hijackers) but its enemy Iraq,
insanely fantasized that we would be welcomed with open arms, turned
billions of dollars over to Cheney's friends at Halliburton, botched
beyond belief any reconstruction, and are now in an almost impossible
mess. We are widely reviled by societies that grow terrorists out of
desperation and hatred, and held in suspicion by more civilized
societies. We've lost the high moral standing we held for so, so long.

I should edit that. "We" didn't do that. The handlers of GWB did
that.

But at this point, I'd hate to have to walk into a British pub and try
to defend what that neo-con crew did.

Fortunately, I wouldn't have to. I'd be agreeing, and correctly saying
it's not my fault; I never voted for them.

But I _would_ feel compelled to apologize for the ignorance of my
countrymen.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> I was in England on 9/11/01, and trapped by the shutdown of air
> travel. The outpouring of sympathy was amazing and heartwarming. We
> had the world's sympathy, and if we'd used it properly, we could have
> achieved great things.

Except that the desire -- nay, compulsion to undermine Bush was already
forming here at home. The far left /despised/ him for "stealing the
election" in 2000, and there's no frigging way they were going to let him be
seen as a strong leader. So while opinion surveys indicated broad approval
(hell, what was not to approve of the way he handled the aftermath of 9-11),
simmering already were plans to bring him down. (Just catch Hillary rolling
her eyes when he addressed both houses a few weeks later.) Then, when he
still managed to win re-election, it became an all-out obsession. Leak
classified info to the Times? No problem. Make wild accusations (targeting
civilians for assassination, manipulating intelligence, torture, etc.)? No
problem.

> Instead, we defied world opinion

UN resolutions mean nothing?

> , constructed excuses to invade not
> Saudi Arabia (home of almost all hijackers)

We should have invaded SA?!? How laughable.

> but its enemy Iraq,

Not because it had anything to do with 9-11, of course. It was a known
state sponsor of terrorism AND all the intelligence sources available all
said it had WMDs and active programs. Those same Dems would have crucified
Bush if he hadn't acted and it turned out the intelligence was right.

Ask yourself this, Frank. If Bush is emboldening the terrorists and they're
winning (hearts and minds as well as on the ground), then why do they ALL
want the Democrats to take power here?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

At least they (the terrorist leaders) are willing to come right out and say
it. Why have Pelosi and Reed (land $$$ man) been in freaking SECLUSION the
last 2-3 weeks? Because they're afraid to let people know what they stand
for (and against).

Glad we could clear all this up in 10 minutes.

BS (well, yeah!)

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think it's going as well as it could, but It's not going as bad as
> you are duped into believing, it depends who you talk to if it's going well
> or not. Talk to the soldiers that have been there, it's going pretty well,
> listen to the American Media, it's a disaster. Turn off NBC, ABC, CBS,
> CNN, & New York Times, talk to people, you just may be surprised.

Princess, could you give us some examples of what you would consider evidence
that things are *not* going that badly? If anything, it's going far worse than we
hear on the American media (and a quick one for Mr. Sornson: no, the media is not
"biased" to the left). Would you consider 80 murders a day acceptable in New York
City? 2-1/2 hours of electricity a day? An hour's worth of running water per day?
Fewer hospitals open than before the war? By **every** measurable way of looking at
it, Iraq is in a hellish downward spiral. The oil production is nowhere near what it
was before the war. Fewer kids are able to go to school now than before the war. As
I mentioned there are about 80 murders a day just in Baghdad. People are terrified
to come out of their homes. Soldiers coming back are talking about doing "clear out"
ops in neighborhoods and within a day of them leaving, things are just as bad as
before they went in. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they painted a school over there. Huh, too
bad the teacher got his head sawn off in front of the students (it did happen, and,
for the dim ones, that statement was ironic). There areso many bodies turning up in
Baghdad that the morgue can't keep up. And people are afraid to come claim bodies
because they'll get slaughtered by people waiting for them outside the morgue.

By the way, when I say there are 80 murders a day, I'm not just talking about
militia members killing each other. They're killing men, women and children of *all*
ages. We aren't talking about something so mundane as simply shooting them, either.

If you truly believe things aren't so bad, then you are seriously delusional. Or
such an ideologue that you can only believe what Bush and Rove tell you is true. Get
your head out of the sand and look into what's going on over there and *you* will be
surprised.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
> The army teaches self-discipline. The army is a route
> to the mainstream, and there is nothing wrong with the
> mainstream.

Damn, I thought I'd make it to the mainstream through rbr.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> >
> > The BBC is way left-leaning (sounds nicer than virulently anti-American).
>
> At this point, most of the world is anti-American, although I'm not
> sure about the "virulently" part.
>
> I was in England on 9/11/01, and trapped by the shutdown of air travel.
> The outpouring of sympathy was amazing and heartwarming. We had the
> world's sympathy, and if we'd used it properly, we could have achieved
> great things.

The Iranians offered their sympathy to us after 9-11 and were snubbed by Bush. A
short while later, they heard themselves called part of and "Axis of Evil." Way to
go...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bus
> h-troops_x.htm

So what do you suppose they think *now*, Bill? That poll is at least two years
old.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Ask yourself this, Frank. If Bush is emboldening the terrorists and they're
> winning (hearts and minds as well as on the ground), then why do they ALL
> want the Democrats to take power here?

Funny, the CIA is on record as saying that bin Laden released tapes before the
'04 election because he wanted Bush to win. From Ron Suskind's book "The Price of
Loyalty":
______________
Deputy CIA director John E. McLaughlin noted at one meeting, "Bin Laden certainly
did a nice favor today for the President." Suskind quoted Jami Miscik, CIA deputy
associate director for intelligence, as saying "Certainly, he would want Bush to
keep doing what hes doing for a few more years."
______________

> At least they (the terrorist leaders) are willing to come right out and say
> it. Why have Pelosi and Reed (land $$$ man) been in freaking SECLUSION the
> last 2-3 weeks? Because they're afraid to let people know what they stand
> for (and against).

Pelosi hasn't been in seclusion, Bill. She's been doing interviews all over the
place and was at a big fundraiser in SF on Thursday. The story that she's been
hiding (that you bought hook, line and sinker) is a product of a group run by Rep.
Boehner, the Freedom Project. Named, apparently for its Freedom from facts...

> Glad we could clear all this up in 10 minutes.
>
> BS (well, yeah!)

How true.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > The army teaches self-discipline. The army is a route
> > to the mainstream, and there is nothing wrong with the
> > mainstream.
>
> Damn, I thought I'd make it to the mainstream through rbr.

No, rbr teaches abuse.

--
Michael Press

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:07:13 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Except that the desire -- nay, compulsion to undermine Bush was already
>forming here at home. The far left /despised/ him for "stealing the
>election" in 2000, and there's no frigging way they were going to let him be
>seen as a strong leader. So while opinion surveys indicated broad approval
>(hell, what was not to approve of the way he handled the aftermath of 9-11),
>simmering already were plans to bring him down.


Here's the thing -- even if it's true that the "far left" "despised"
Bush earlier (which is not true, if by "far left" you mean, say, half
the democrats in the US), the simple fact remains that the Bush
administration has been deceitful (about the reasons for war),
incompetent (in the conduct of the war), power-crazed (in effforts to
roll back the bill of right), greedy (in war profiteering) and
unproductive (in the broader "war on terror").

So whine about bias. Whine about the motivations of people critising
Bushco. But the core truths remain.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:03:15 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Why have Pelosi and Reed (land $$$ man) been in freaking SECLUSION the
>> last 2-3 weeks? Because they're afraid to let people know what they stand
>> for (and against).
>
> Pelosi hasn't been in seclusion, Bill. She's been doing interviews all over the
>place and was at a big fundraiser in SF on Thursday. The story that she's been
>hiding (that you bought hook, line and sinker) is a product of a group run by Rep.
>Boehner, the Freedom Project. Named, apparently for its Freedom from facts...

The statements above about Pelosi are a classic example of Sorni
simply parroting talking points that are lies, and he's either too
stupid to know they are lies, or doesn't care.

Sorni, where do you get your news? Powerline? Limbaugh? Where?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************