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.

"Richard Rongstad" 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.

Roger the right wing wacko clutched at straws and wrote:
>
> "Richard Rongstad" 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.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" wrote:

>"Richard Rongstad" 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.

Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" wrote:
>
> >"Richard Rongstad" 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?

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 wrote in message news:<402DD946.EC31DC7B@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com>...
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" wrote:
> >
> > >"Richard Rongstad" 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?

"Donna Long" 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.