John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm

"Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
claims."

Kerry is a liar.

His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

"To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
"exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
to law."

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...

Vietnam POW Praises Kerry

"I think that Sen. Kerry has proved his service to our nation, and his
ability as an accomplished debater and a person who knows the issues."

"I think that the best Americans from both parties should be the nominees of
their parties, so that the American people would have the very best to
select from, and I would certainly put Sen. Kerry in that category."

"I have enormous respect for him as a person and I like him."

-John McCain
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/.../mccain.kerry/


--
-My Real Name

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:00:03 -0800, "Mr. N"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google. com...
>
>Vietnam POW Praises Kerry
>
>"I think that Sen. Kerry has proved his service to our nation, and his
>ability as an accomplished debater and a person who knows the issues."
>
>"I think that the best Americans from both parties should be the nominees of
>their parties, so that the American people would have the very best to
>select from, and I would certainly put Sen. Kerry in that category."
>
>"I have enormous respect for him as a person and I like him."
>
>-John McCain
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/.../mccain.kerry/

that was in 2000, now its a different kettle of fish. Are you a boat
people?

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has painted Kerry
as more liberal than the GOP's favorite whipping boy, Massachusetts
Senator Ted Kennedy. And there's more to come: Many of the GOP's big
guns -- including some in the Senate -- are holding their fire until
Kerry officially wins the nomination.

They're planning to make life for Kerry hell by portraying him as an
obstructionist, according to a recent article in The Hill. Republicans
made that charge in the 2002 Senate elections, costing Max Cleland of
Georgia and others their seats, and regaining a slim Senate majority.
As John McCain, a man who knows a thing or two about running for
president while serving in the Senate, told The Hill, the GOP already
has a "very large dossier" on Kerry.

Senator Rick Santorum predicted that if Kerry is indeed the nominee,
"things are going to get very political around here." (As if they
aren't that way already. Thirty-nine-hour filibusters on judicial
nominees, anyone?) And Republican leaders are likely to schedule key
votes at inopportune times for Kerry, putting him in the awkward
situation of either not voting or of missing campaign events. As
Senator George Allen told The Hill, running for president is "kind of
an unexcused absence." Imagine what the Republicans will say if John
Edwards is the party's vice-presidential candidate.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Patrick t." <patrickthatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6u1l209jklg6v7nhb05s5brts9911b2lg8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:00:03 -0800, "Mr. N"
> <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> that was in 2000, now its a different kettle of fish.

No, not really. McCain, a Vietnam POW and Kerry are friends and colleagues,
and have done a lot of work together in Congress on the POW/MIA issue.

--
-My Real Name

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:57:26 -0800, "Mr. N"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Patrick t." <patrickthatyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6u1l209jklg6v7nhb05s5brts9911b2lg8@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:00:03 -0800, "Mr. N"
>> <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> that was in 2000, now its a different kettle of fish.
>
>No, not really. McCain, a Vietnam POW and Kerry are friends and colleagues,
>and have done a lot of work together in Congress on the POW/MIA issue.

You really don't understand do you? Kerry will never get in that
white house. period, end of story. McCain will never get in that
white house. period, end of story. McCain might have done a lot of
work in Congress, but produce something Kerry has done.

Go ahead, you have an audience.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit


"Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
>
> "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> claims."
>
> Kerry is a liar.
>
> His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
>
> http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
>
> "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
> home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
> describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
> hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
> said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
> was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
> These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
> been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
> She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
> to law."
>

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "BabyKillers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Roger wrote:
>
> Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit

Ah, yes. The obligatory Moonie smear, guilt by association.

If only a few more newspapers owned by red-blooded born in the USA
Americans would stop running in circles like hyenas and stop
publishing fish wrap, the Washington Times would not be so popular.

> "Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
> >
> > "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> > Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> > Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> > children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> > claims."
> >
> > Kerry is a liar.
> >
> > His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
> >
> > "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
> > home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
> > describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> > Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
> > hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
> > said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
> > was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
> > These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
> > been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> > "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
> > She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> > have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> > players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> > careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> > themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
> > to law."
> >

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
news:402BB4A7.AA31D2B6@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> Roger wrote:
> >
> > Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
>
> Ah, yes. The obligatory Moonie smear, guilt by association.
>
> If only a few more newspapers owned by red-blooded born in the USA
> Americans would stop running in circles like hyenas and stop
> publishing fish wrap, the Washington Times would not be so popular.

It's only popular with the Moonies and far right-wing wackos who think that
because it's called "Washington Times" that it's credible.

If it's "so popular," why has it lost $1 BILLION dollars?

>
> > "Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
> > >
> > > "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> > > Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> > > Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> > > children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> > > claims."
> > >
> > > Kerry is a liar.
> > >
> > > His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
> > >
> > > http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
> > >
> > > "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
> > > home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
> > > describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> > > Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
> > > hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
> > > said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
> > > was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
> > > These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
> > > been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> > > "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
> > > She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> > > have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> > > players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> > > careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> > > themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
> > > to law."
> > >

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "BabyKillers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Roger wrote:
>
> "Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
> news:402BB4A7.AA31D2B6@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> > Roger wrote:
> > >
> > > Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
> >
> > Ah, yes. The obligatory Moonie smear, guilt by association.
> >
> > If only a few more newspapers owned by red-blooded born in the USA
> > Americans would stop running in circles like hyenas and stop
> > publishing fish wrap, the Washington Times would not be so popular.
>
> It's only popular with the Moonies and far right-wing wackos who think that
> because it's called "Washington Times" that it's credible.

(1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.

(2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
part of your wacko theory is out the window.

(3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
Washington Post and NY Times.

(4) In other words, the Washington Times is good because the others are
so bad.

> If it's "so popular," why has it lost $1 BILLION dollars?

Damned if I know, and damned if I care. Rev. Moon can keep
throwing his money into it as far as I am concerned, if
they just keep churning out good reporting on stories that
balance what Wash. Post and NY Times do such a poor job with.

Good journalism is not measured by good accounting or getting
the blessing of the media elites with their noses and asses
in the air. I suggest it is foolish to dismiss Washington Times
on the basis of red ink and a controversial owner that doesn't
pass certain litmus tests.

A propaganda mill can operate efficiently and profitably due
to good management and sharp accountants but it is still a
propaganda mill.

> >
> > > "Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> > > > Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> > > > Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> > > > children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> > > > claims."
> > > >
> > > > Kerry is a liar.
> > > >
> > > > His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
> > > >
> > > > "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
> > > > home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
> > > > describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> > > > Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
> > > > hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
> > > > said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
> > > > was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
> > > > These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
> > > > been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> > > > "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
> > > > She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> > > > have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> > > > players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> > > > careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> > > > themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
> > > > to law."

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
news:402C9073.5426C321@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> Roger wrote:
> >
> > "Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
> > news:402BB4A7.AA31D2B6@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> > > Roger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
> > >
> > > Ah, yes. The obligatory Moonie smear, guilt by association.
> > >
> > > If only a few more newspapers owned by red-blooded born in the USA
> > > Americans would stop running in circles like hyenas and stop
> > > publishing fish wrap, the Washington Times would not be so popular.
> >
> > It's only popular with the Moonies and far right-wing wackos who think
that
> > because it's called "Washington Times" that it's credible.
>
> (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.

It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
credible.

>
> (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> part of your wacko theory is out the window.

You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.

>
> (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> Washington Post and NY Times.

If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing wacko.

>
> (4) In other words, the Washington Times is good because the others are
> so bad.
>
> > If it's "so popular," why has it lost $1 BILLION dollars?
>
> Damned if I know, and damned if I care. Rev. Moon can keep
> throwing his money into it as far as I am concerned, if
> they just keep churning out good reporting on stories that
> balance what Wash. Post and NY Times do such a poor job with.
>
> Good journalism is not measured by good accounting or getting
> the blessing of the media elites with their noses and asses
> in the air. I suggest it is foolish to dismiss Washington Times
> on the basis of red ink and a controversial owner that doesn't
> pass certain litmus tests.
>
> A propaganda mill can operate efficiently and profitably due
> to good management and sharp accountants but it is still a
> propaganda mill.
>
> > >
> > > > "Hanoi Jane Kerry" <hanoijanekerry@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> > > > > Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> > > > > Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> > > > > children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> > > > > claims."
> > > > >
> > > > > Kerry is a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to
return
> > > > > home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years)
and
> > > > > describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> > > > > Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should
"not
> > > > > hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars."
Fonda
> > > > > said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been
tortured
> > > > > was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been
tortured.
> > > > > These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who
had
> > > > > been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> > > > > "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she
asserted.
> > > > > She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> > > > > have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> > > > > players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> > > > > careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> > > > > themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals
according
> > > > > to law."

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Count the bodies and get back to us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

And just WTF does THIS website have to do with the subject??????????
PLONK!!

"Joe Myers" <monkeyhawk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VT0Xb.12168$%44.7551@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om...
> Count the bodies and get back to us.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html
>

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"John W. Hart" <chahta@chahtatushka.org> wrote in message
news:7a1Xb.2434$WW3.1332@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> And just WTF does THIS website have to do with the subject??????????
> PLONK!!
>
> "Joe Myers" <monkeyhawk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:VT0Xb.12168$%44.7551@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om...
> > Count the bodies and get back to us.
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html

The truth hurts, huh?

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were"Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
>

[snip]

> > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
>
> It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> credible.

That's incredible.

> > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
>
> You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.

Impossible. I am a Liberal.

> >
> > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> > Washington Post and NY Times.
>
> If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing wacko.

Impossible. I am a Liberal.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> >
> > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> > credible.
>
> That's incredible.
>
> > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
> >
> > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
>
> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
>
> > >
> > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> > > Washington Post and NY Times.
> >
> > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
wacko.
>
> Impossible. I am a Liberal.

Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.

Liar.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were"Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Roger the right wing wacko clutched at straws and wrote:
>
> "Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
> news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> > Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> > > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> > >
> > > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> > > credible.
> >
> > That's incredible.
> >
> > > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> > > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> > > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> > > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
> > >
> > > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
> >
> > Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >
> > > >
> > > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> > > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> > > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> > > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> > > > Washington Post and NY Times.
> > >
> > > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
> wacko.
> >
> > Impossible. I am a Liberal.
>

You obviously crave attention and really need it,
so I'm going to help you.

> Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.

Correct. That's why I haven't read the Washington Times
for over five years, but read stories from New York Times
and Washington Post on a daily basis. The Washington Times
is just not available, because I live in the midst of
liberals.

That's because I am a Liberal.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
>news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com.. .
>> Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
>> > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
>> >
>> > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
>> > credible.
>>
>> That's incredible.
>>
>> > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
>> > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
>> > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
>> > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
>> >
>> > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
>>
>> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
>>
>> > >
>> > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
>> > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
>> > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
>> > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
>> > > Washington Post and NY Times.
>> >
>> > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
>wacko.
>>
>> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
>
>Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.
>
>Liar.
>

Richard didn't say he was a socialist, he said he was a Liberal. You
need to pull your head out of your armpit long enough to learn the
difference.

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were"Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
> >news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com.. .
> >> Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> >> > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> >> >
> >> > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> >> > credible.
> >>
> >> That's incredible.
> >>
> >> > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> >> > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> >> > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> >> > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
> >> >
> >> > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
> >>
> >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> >> > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> >> > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> >> > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> >> > > Washington Post and NY Times.
> >> >
> >> > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
> >wacko.
> >>
> >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >
> >Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.
> >
> >Liar.
> >
>
> Richard didn't say he was a socialist, he said he was a Liberal. You
> need to pull your head out of your armpit long enough to learn the
> difference.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are Liberals,
Josef Stalin and Bill Clinton are not.

He didn't get it any further than his armpit?

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

Heard a joke that said if a man was drowning 20 feet off shore, a
liberal would throw him 30 feet of rope and walk away....a
conservative would throw him 10 feet of rope, hold onto the rope and
tell him to swim for it.

Always thought I was a conservative, but as my "senior moments" become
more frequent, I'd probably forget I had the rope, that I had flunked
the test for my Life Saving Badge, jump in, try to save him and drown
both of us. Guess that makes me an independent with CRS.

Donna Long

Richard Rongstad <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message news:<402DD946.EC31DC7B@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com>. ..
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Richard Rongstad" <rongstad@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com> wrote in message
> > >news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com.. .
> > >> Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> > >> > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> > >> >
> > >> > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> > >> > credible.
> > >>
> > >> That's incredible.
> > >>
> > >> > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> > >> > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> > >> > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> > >> > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
> > >> >
> > >> > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
> > >>
> > >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> > >> > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> > >> > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> > >> > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> > >> > > Washington Post and NY Times.
> > >> >
> > >> > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
> wacko.
> > >>
> > >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> > >
> > >Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.
> > >
> > >Liar.
> > >
> >
> > Richard didn't say he was a socialist, he said he was a Liberal. You
> > need to pull your head out of your armpit long enough to learn the
> > difference.
>
> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are Liberals,
> Josef Stalin and Bill Clinton are not.
>
> He didn't get it any further than his armpit?

Re: John Kerry Never Backed Up His Smears That American GI's Were "Baby Killers" With Any Facts. Smearing Brave Men For Fun & Profit!
 

"Donna Long" <longd88@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b55a4c1b.0402150217.1e287920@posting.google.c om...
> Heard a joke that said if a man was drowning 20 feet off shore, a
> liberal would throw him 30 feet of rope and walk away....a
> conservative would throw him 10 feet of rope, hold onto the rope and
> tell him to swim for it.

A Democrat would throw in 18 feet of rope and pull it everytime he would get
close to grabbin it.