Text 13449, 298 rader
Skriven 2008-03-24 08:36:08 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13364 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
======================================
22 Mar 08 15:03, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> JB> Doesn't help that Bush's military records for that time period
RW>> were
RW>> JB> just so coincidently "destroyed".
RW>> It's in the past and has nothing to do with his Presidency. See
RW>> earlier message.
JB> So if Bush had mowed somebody down in his car while drunk, or raped
JB> somebody, or beat somebody to death, in his past, that would be okay
JB> too?
Apparently it's not ok with the liberals if the person is a conservative,
but it's just fine if the person is a liberal...young Senator Ted Kennedy,
Chappaquidic, 45 years later is still a United States Senator, etc..
JB> Just because it's in his past? If he were a liberal, I doubt
JB> you'd go so easy on him.
LOL! See above.
RW>> JB> If he would do something like that, who's to say he wouldn't
RW>> have
RW>> JB> been the same sort of man once he took office?
RW>> His most recent record...it shows that the man has made a change for
RW>> the better in his life.
JB> With all the criminal acts he's committed as president, then yeah, he
JB> definitely made a change from his old ways.
Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy, after 45 years in Congress, still drinks to
excess, but that's ok, because he's a liberal.
RW>> JB> Not praise him for being the president during 9/11 or anything.
RW>> I tremble and my knees buckle every time I think of what it would be
RW>> like with AlGore at the helm at that time. He'd do absolutely
RW>> nothing, except kiss the ass of Bin Laden and we'd be at the mercy
RW>> of the terrorists until we elected someone with the guts to tell the
RW>> libs to fuck off and get the job done right.
JB> Just like how we're not at the mercy of terrorists now?
Have you noticed how many of them are still flying airplanes into
buildings here today.
JB> We lost a bunch of our rights,
We? I still have all of mine. In fact, the USSC just confirmed that the
most important Constitutional right to me, has been upheld. During the
Clinton administration, it was denied.
JB> the very thing Bush said we're fighting to protect in the first
JB> place,
I havn't noticed any of my rights to be infringed upon...perhaps you can
enlighten me so I can get it back.
JB> not to mention thousands of lives lost,
We lost a lot more lives during FDRs war...not to mention that the
situation was similar; terrorists bombing ships rather than flying into
buildings. And communists abounded in our government at the same time.
JB> and terrorist groups taking a hold in Iraq now that we're screwing it
JB> up.
You must be reading more of that liberal bullshit again. Since they're
losing their ass in Iraq, Osama's #2 man has called for more attacks on
neighboring countries to create a diversion from losing.
JB> And yet Osama is still out there.
Who's afraid of a cave rat? Liberals!
JB> "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"
Many times over.
RW>> If liberals had any brains, they'd be conservatives.
JB> Yawn, heard it before. Also heard "independents are democrats in
JB> denial".
Yawn...you should have paid attention.
RW>> I've seen him proved wrong, once...he took it with a grain of salt
RW>> and offered an apology. He's not the ogre you paint him to be.
JB> In ten years of episodes, there's no way you can convince me he's
JB> only been proved wrong once.
The point that you so obviously missed was; he accepted the fact that he
was wrong and apologized for being so. Not the picture you want to paint,
but I understand.
JB> You're making him out as next to God.
You're making him out as the devil...there must be some neutral ground
there that you've missed.
JB> No journalist, and certainly no blowhard discussion show host, has a
JB> track record that good.
Especially the one from MSNBC.
RW>> JB> They weren't even criticizing him in the incident I showed.
RW>> JB> Somebody merely wrote in to say he got the Malmedy thing
RW>> backwards.
RW>> JB> Then he pulled out an O'Reilly bald-faced lie and said he had
RW>> been
RW>> JB> talking about something totally different.
RW>> Without the entire segment of that episode, what you have here is
RW>> merely hearsay...which is unbelievable.
JB> Hearsay would be me telling you without you being able to see for
JB> yourself.
Hearsay is not telling the truth. Typical liberal.
JB> If you watched what I showed you, regardless of what
JB> channel it aired on or what site it's hosted on, you'd have seen not
JB> only the letter from the guest but O'Reilly's response to it.
All taken out of context. Next.
JB> There is no context and there is no unbelievability about it, except
JB> for you alone.
Yeah...I'm not a liberal, so I'm not as easily swayed as you.
JB> It's easy for a guy like O'Reilly to get away with things like this
JB> when he's got such loyal fans who will deny any wrongdoing,
JB> regardless of proof.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it...if he were as bad as you say, he
wouldn't be as popular for telling the truth, as he is...
RW>> JB> Which was obviously crap, cause there was videotape proof of it.
RW>> As
RW>> JB> well as transcripts, before they edited them.
RW>> Oh, so they edited them and now they don't relate to the actual
RW>> episode. Yeah, right.
JB> Since most of his fans think he's the next best thing since sliced
JB> bread, they would never take the time to officially confirm or deny
JB> whether the transcript was modified in the one example I gave.
Because they don't care if you're a liar?
JB> Even if faced with a blatant pile of irrefutable evidence, they
JB> would simply not acknowledge it. O'Reilly would be proud, he taught
JB> his flock well.
See above.
RW>> If the do, they're probably not watching politically biased
RW>> material. If they do, then they're probably doing research into the
RW>> bias of liberals.
JB> You may be half right, most conservatives I've met do tend to shy
JB> away from any political material on the internet, since it has such a
JB> high chance of being accurate.
You misspelled in-accurate.
JB> Who needs facts when they've got Fox News. Fair and balanced!
Apparently liberals do, since they can't come up with any...
JB> An interesting thing to note is that anything I've ever seen which
JB> has to try and convince its public that it has fair and/or balanaced
JB> reporting, always ends up not being. A local evening news show here
JB> tries to do the same thing. And guess what channel it airs on? Our
JB> local Fox affiliate, of all places.
Probably way over your head then.
RW>> Everythink in my 'bookmarks' is not liberal and is not politially
RW>> oriented...there are better things to do on the internet than look
RW>> for more crap from liberals.
JB> Then I'm pleased that you'd take so much time to respond to my
JB> liberal crap!
That time is running out...
RW>> JB> Internet users tend to be more technology-inclined, as are
RW>> liberals.
RW>> LOL! Bullshit.
JB> How many technology bills do you see Republicans trying to pass
JB> compared to Democrats?
More than I see from Democrats.
JB> I mean, I could start listing
JB> Republican-backed bills, but most of them have our buddy Ted Steven's
JB> name on them.
Of course, you would be showing us just his bills...
RW>> JB> Of course there was bias in it, that's why people watch him.
RW>> You mean sickos watch it.
JB> You might hurt my feelings one day with such generalizations.
You're forgiven.
RW>> The difference is that O'Reilly is believable, while Olbermann is
RW>> not.
JB> Different strokes, different folks, etc.
Take another poll...
RW>> Fox News is always truthful, which can't be said of the liberals
RW>> news channels...wish I could, but that's impossible.
JB> If Fox News' daily business is your idea of truthful, I'd hate to see
JB> them when they're fibbing.
I'd hate to see it too...fortunately, that hasn't happened. Although, it's
happened many times, elsewhere. Olbermann comes to mind.
RW>> JB> You're never going to believe me though so I give up.
RW>> Great, you're just wasting bandwidth on it anyway.
JB> It's a liberal plot to deprive you of bandwidth!
Won't work, just like all the other liberal plots to foil the public.
RW>> This is why the NYT, among other liberal biased reasons, is losing
RW>> money...as a liberal, you should be supporting that paper.
JB> Are you buying all of O'Reilly's books?
Nahhh, he gives them to me.
RW>> With RSS, you don't get the complete news as it's reported in those
RW>> papers.
JB> You do when you click the link to the full story, which is what one
JB> pretty much has to do for most anything RSS-related.
Just more mindless crap to fill your computer.
JB> Very few put
JB> out the full item in the feed for bandwidth reasons. I only know of
JB> a couple I subscribe to that do, and they aren't political.
RW>> Biden looks like a pimp and comes off sounding like an ass...Mitt
RW>> Romney would make a better President than any of them.
JB> Mitt Romney was just the Republican prettyboy.
With the intelligence of a President. Not one like Clinton, but one like
Ronald Reagan.
JB> Unless a chiseled jaw alone is going to solve our problems, we're
JB> better off he dropped out.
The better part of valor is to quit when you're ahead, to fight another
day.
JB> I honestly am surprised you guys let McCain surpass him though.
Since I voted for Obama, I had nothing to do with it.
JB> I guess the religious right, the one you say doesn't exist, hated the
JB> Mormon side of him a little too much.
It's no different than creating hatred for a Muslim, even though a person
says they're a Christian...fortunately (unfortunately, if you're a
liberal backing the Muslim, errr, Christian), his America hating preacher
led him astray.
RW>> I make it to the lists because my demeanor isn't acceptable to the
RW>> Fido Whankers and idiots.
JB> What percentage of Fidonet would that be, would you estimate?
A minority. You can count them on one hand and they hang out in this echo.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|