Text 13469, 307 rader
Skriven 2008-03-24 12:03:22 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13364 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Stupid Liberals...again Was; 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 has been upheld in spite of what you
liberals want. During the Clinton administration, it was denied many
times.
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 them 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, to
the denial of FDR.
JB> and terrorist groups taking a hold in Iraq now that we're screwing it
JB> up.
You must be wallowing in 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 of Egypt, Jordan and Isreal to create a
diversion from the fact that they're 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 more 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 your motives.
JB> You're making him out as next to God.
You're making him out as the devil...I'm seeing it from neutral ground,
while you've missed totally.
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 admissable because it doesn't relate to the truth.
Typical liberal logic is to admit it anyway.
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 anything truthful.
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 in that case.
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 fast 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 because I'm such a 'loyal fan'...
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. McCain will need someone who understands economics and executive
administration. Mitt Romney is his man, but alas, they don't like each
other.
JB> I honestly am surprised you guys let McCain surpass him though.
Since I voted for Obama, I had nothing to do with it. McCain has yet to
convince me that he's Presidential material. The other two, Hillary and
Barack, surely aren't.
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, racist
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)
|