Odd interaction with a road rager

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:34:39 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:37:46 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

I was referring to the 2000 Democrat attack on Bush's military
record, until the GOP began to bring up Clinton's dodging of the
draft, and Gore's rear etchelon job he got through his daddy. Then the
subject died down quickly since none of the three was any kind of
warrior.

Fair enough.

Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
on the line in a war zone.

Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.

Congratulations.

See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
away.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:45:07 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

And, did you see what happened when he went to Britain?

Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
the population because he is so universally reviled.

Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
crowds?

Of course they had to have security.

But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
hostile.

It wasn't that they were frightened that he would be attacked, it was because he
wanted the trip to show him as a popular world statesman, and if he had not been
shielded from the populace, it would have been made very obvious that was far
from the case.

And that would have suited neither him, nor his poodle, the British prime
minister.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:45:28 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:20 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

Fair enough.

Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
on the line in a war zone.

Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.

Congratulations.

See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
away.

I didn't try to worm my way out of anything. The president has
been saying that all along.

I meant that you and others of you ilk have been trying any tactic to try and
imply that the comparison between Bush and Kerry was not what it seemed, when it
clearly was, but is pretty much irrelevant today.

When you stop trying to do that no one can come back with "end of the day blah
blah blah".

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:09:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
claims:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)"
wrote in message :

Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour

Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
not even mastered English yet? ;-)

I am saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently.
BTW, is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
As in having "two tongues"?

No, that's called growing with experience.

Or, possibly, being a two faced hypocrite.

But that's something each person has to decide for themselves by taking a long
hard look at the circumstances. They shouldn't base their opinion simply on the
fact that someone has changed their mind.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:55:38 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:30:38 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
the population because he is so universally reviled.

Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
crowds?

Of course they had to have security.

But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
hostile.

I think Mr. Bush will be happy enough with his growing lead in
the polls. And it does not help your case to refer to Mr. Bush with an
animal name. Rather juvenile, I think, worthy more of playground
arguments.

Well, he does look like a chimp, (I quite like the look of chimps), and this is
a bit of a playground.

Still, if it makes you happy:

But the Bush wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
hostile.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)"
wrote in message :

is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
As in having "two tongues"?

OK, by that definition they probably both are, then :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

wrote:

I'm saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently. BTW, is another
meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a belief, then after a little
while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?

It's so sad when people cannot do this, isn't it? It renders debate pretty
much pointless.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?

I wasn't trying to settle anything

That is up to the population of the United States of America.

Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?

I wasn't trying to settle anything

That is up to the population of the United States of America.

Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.

Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
electoral votes will be raising his hand

Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
their votes for

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:54:22 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:12:42 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, (Muttley)
claims:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wrote:

Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?

I wasn't trying to settle anything

That is up to the population of the United States of America.

Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.

Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
electoral votes will be raising his hand

Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
their votes for

Sure I can guarantee that. Just not in the United States.
Bolivia, for instance.

What a crying shame that the US has to look to Bolivia for lessons in democracy!