Text 7711, 175 rader
Skriven 2005-01-19 17:39:02 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 7683 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Re: Believing
=====================
19 Jan 05 12:47, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

 DP> On 01-19-05, John Hull said...

 JH>> 19 Jan 05 09:31, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> On 01-19-05, John Hull said...
 JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>> Darryl Perry -> John Hull wrote:
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> On 01-18-05, John Hull said...
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>> Darryl Perry -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 JH>>  JH>>  DP>>> On 01-18-05, VERN HUMPHREY said...
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>>>>>> Yes, I hear that Bill Moyers really lost it the 
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>other >> day an
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>>>> let'em
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>>>>>> have it.  Called Hannity political porn. <g>
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>>>>>> Because of telling the naked truth? :-)
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>>>> Heh heh - another good one.  You are just full of 
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>it - >>>>>> uh -
 JH>>  JH>>  DP>>> I mea
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>>>> full of them this evening. <g>
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>>>> I can see Bill now, spewing spit and accusing 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>Hannity of >>>>> "Full frontal truth in prime time, 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>where little children >>>>> can see
 JH>>  JH>>  DP>>> it." :-)
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  EC>>>>> That's a good joke, but not far from the truth.
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>> The liberal media really hate Fox -- and make no 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>bones >>> about
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> it.  Of
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>> course, this is the same liberal media who published 
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>> forgeries
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> about
 JH>>  JH>>  DP>>> and
 JH>>  JH>>  VH>>>> then said, "We hate him, so it has to be true."
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  DP>>> You are a liar.  They never said that.
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>> You've never heard of paraphrasing?  Because they most 
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>> certainly did
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> say t
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>> while the documents might be forged, the content was 
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>true, > and Dan
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> Rather
 JH>>  JH>>  JH>> this day still maintains that is the case.
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> Oh well, we can call it paraphrasing now, but it's not 
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> lying?  I gues
 JH>>  JH>> you
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> are right.  Bush is *not* a liar.  He's a 
 JH>>  JH>>  DP> PARAPHRASER!!!
 JH>>  JH>> 
 JH>>  JH>> But you're still an idiot if you believe Dan Rather and CBS.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP> It's not about whether or not I believe Dan Rather or CBS.  
 JH>>  DP> It's about
 JH>>  DP> whether or not I believe YOU.  You are the one that is lying.
 JH>> 
 JH>> I am not the only one here who said he was right, but you 
 JH>> conveniently cho to ignore THAT fact so you can accuse me of being 
 JH>> a liar.  

 DP> I'm calling YOU a liar because of what YOU said, Bucko, don't try 
 DP> to toss other people into the mess.  I responded to your message becase  
 DP> you were the one who was telling the lie.

 DP> There was no other FACTS to ignore.  You said that the liberal 
 DP> media published forgeries then lied about that same media saying "We 
 DP> hate him so it must be true".  Those were you words, you said (typed) 
 DP> them.  They were a lie, so you are a liar.

I never said any such thing, you imbecile.  Vern is the one who posted the line
you refer to.  YOU called him a liar, and *I* said he was only paraphrasing. 
You're so goddamned ready to get into a spit-spewing accusation that you can't
even keep the facts straight.

Now, for the record, CBS broadcast a story about documents claiming things
about the president that are patently false, and have been proven false more
than four years ago.  At first, CBS said the documents were genuine, then they
had to back off when it was found out they were forgeries.  Dan Rather,
however, said then and still says that even if the documents are fake, the
*content* is accurate.  THAT is what Vern is referring to.  Rather is so
obsessed with getting the goods on Bush that he ruined his own career and made
CBS a laughing stock.


 JH>> You can't have 
 JH>> both ways, slick.  Bush is not a liar, either.  

 DP> If you apply your definition of 'liar', then of course he's not.  
 DP> Apparently you can say 'paraphrased' instead of 'lied'.  If Liar is too 
 DP> strong a word for you WRT GWB, how about 'misleader'.

 JH>> Apparently you're too stupid to understand the difference 

 DP> Obviously you are an idiot if you believe your position is correct.  Hey, 
 DP> look at that!  I can throw around hate-filled names as well as you can!

Hate filled?  I don't hate you, and I'm not the one who has been flinging
appelations of Nazi around over all this crap.  That's been coming from your
side of the fence.  You, and the rest of your bunch, aren't worth expending the
effort it takes to hate.

 JH>> - not a subtle difference either - between sa
 JH>> something in error based on data provided to you by several other 
 JH>> that was incorrect, and saying something is true when you know 
 JH>> beyond a doubt that false.

 JH>> The words "truth" and "integrity" are not part of the liberal lexi
 JH>> But then, you liberals wouldn't say "shit" if you had a mouthful 
 JH>> of it, so shouldn't surprise anyone here when you can't tell the 
 JH>> truth.

 DP> Hell, I could go on and on about you old fogies in here like 
 DP> yourself and how you have no integrity and how you are nothing but a 
 DP> hate-monger.


Old fogies, eh?  Well, what does that make you?  A young punk?  Maybe if you
weren't so ready to play the hate card or the Nazi card, you might learn a few
things from some of us "old fogies."

 DP> You don't ever seem to pull your punches with respect to others who do not
 DP> share your views, and have no compuction about being vile, and vitrialic, 
 DP> and go on personal attacks as well as generalized attacks.  

Why should we pull our punches?  You guys don't do your homework, you don't
know the history of the subject matter, you post boilerplate rhetoric lifted
right out of the DNC talking points, and most of you don't have a working
understanding of basic economics, taxation, business, and other things that all
affect how policy is made and carried out.  And we haven't even covered the
military aspects.  9 times out of 10 when one of you starts complaining about
how he's being treated by us, its a case of him waltzing in here acting like a
know-it-all who proceeds to tell us in no uncertain terms just how old,
out-of-date, and screwed up we are, and then you get pissed when we tell you to
stuff it.

If you are the least bit objective, you can go back through the archives of
this echo for 15 years and find that everybody here was once a "new guy" and
that we all paid our dues and took our lumps.  But you will also find that we
aren't very often wrong in our assessment of the political situation, whether
its left, right, or in the middle.  


 DP> What make YOU the better person?  Where have YOU shown that you 
 DP> exhibit truth and integerity while those who oppose you are liars and 
 DP> cheats?  You certainly don't show it in here.

It isn't a matter of who's better.  Most of you can't articulate an argument
well enough to explain in logical terms why we're wrong - in your opinion.  We
have nothing to prove to you.  Most of us know each other - not only in here as
posters, but personally.  We've been at Stan's house many times over the years.
 We've been to Vern's, and they've been to mine.  We know and trust each other
from long association.  We have no REASON to lie, to you, or to anybody else,
and especially not to each other.

You can take my word or not, I don't care one way or the other.  But you'll get
much the same story from Ed Connell or whoever else you want to ask.  Its up to
you whether or not you want to stop the spit-spewing rants about hate-mongers
and such.  You act like a civil person, and post accordingly, and you'll get
treated the same way.  

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)