drummer

How many protesters does it take to change a lightbulb?

Oh- protesters never change anything.

How many Punk Rockers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

12. 1 to do it and 11 to talk about how they were doing it before it was cool

There is definitely no solution to the energy crisis as long as selfish interests rule.

There is an utterly fascinating book called The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. Despite the title, Ridley dscribes how economic systems work and don't work, and why. He talks about what traits make them sustainable and which use the resources as fast as possible. Utterly fascinating, and very well written and accessable.

...

It is quite illuminating, though not comforting, to be able to discuss motives with a schizophrenic who is having an episode yet is calm and trusting enough to try to communicate!

...

I think people do not like to think about these issues at length because they lead to uncomfortable places: maybe all criminals are in some sense ill. Is illness just deviation from a norm? How much deviation? Where do you draw the line (if you can)? What is an appropriate (moral, ethical, and/or practical) reaction for society to take to these deviations? Does illness excuse any behavior or even suggest an alternate response?

A very well stated post. I fully agree with your explanation.

I will never forget a friend of mine, and managing schitzophrenic, told mold me during one of his episodes "Yeah, the bugbears are really bad today." As you said, it was illuminating. At least he knew he had a problem, and that the bugbears weren't real. Even then it was tough for him.

The issues you bring up are very interesting. A statistical analysis of prison populations will yeild a very high portion of mentally ill. Would these people have commited crimes if they were mentally stable? Just by virtue of the numbers, you can confidentally say "No'

But there is a much broader problem than just criminal behaviour. Aside from the clear cut cases, there are a great many people who are not thinking clearly (not meant to sound deragotory) Some cannot hold down jobs because they buck under any sort of authority. These people do not get treated, they get welfare. Welfare is a good program, but it doesn't really fix the problem with these particular people.

Do we medicate them? with what? how much? how are they diagnosed? We just don't know! Our current tinking does not help, although we are on a learning curve.

Personally, I can envision a program, (set in the future wehn we know more), where there is a kind of Alcoholics Anonymous routine. I rather suspect that many mental illnesses behave in similar ways, physically, to addictions. I think that when we know more, we will be able to make a system with medications to help in the short term, and meditation to help in the long term.

It would not work in every case, but believe it would in my friend Peter's case.

Personally, I don't think there is any excuse for behavior per se. I do think that you can address the root cause of the behavior, though. I'm all for a solution that involves helping people, not punishing them.

I must admit, though - my moral compass is not clear on this one. At this point I am just applying principles.

Sounds fair.

Let's see some proof of those aligations of "criminal" activity there, drummer!

Proof? You're asking me for proof?

First of all, which one of those allegations do you want me to start with? Which one is the worst, and which one is the least damaging? Pick a couple of 'em, and I'll give you a case for it.

(There are so many, I don't know where to start)

So I have some questions for you, Boon Mee.... 

*What do you think about Bush's insider trading scandal?

*What about Bush's own military record?  he has lied about it,  and has gotten family influence to get him out of serving at all.  Medals or not, Kerry volunteered.  "I sleep better at night knowing George Bush was definding the skies of Texas while I spent 5 years in a POW camp" (republican Sen. McCain)

*Not funding No Child Left Behind (breaking his promises to do so)

*What about his wanting to dump low level plutonium waste in landfills?

*What about his, at best, Bush's total ineptitude handling intelligence that should have prevented 9/11? (at his own admission,  he didn't read the reports given to him)

*What about Karl Rove leaking Amb. Wilson's wife as a covert CIA op?  (5 reporters have said that Rove spoke to them, saying "Wilson's wife is fair game" before finally Novak took the bait)

*What about his locking the government into retail drug prices, forcing many senior citizens to cut pills in half?

*What about the biggest deficit in history- by any country, anywhere, anytime?

*What about the profiteering by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc?

*What about his handling of Afghanistan?  The fighting s worse now than ever.  The Taliban controls the southern half of the country. 

*What about the Project For A New American Century's plan for "constabulary action" to enforce US interests?  Is that a good idea? 

*What about his coke habit and hard drinking days?  (during his first run for the house, he was worried that there were pictures of him dancing naked on the table of his local bar...  he had done this often)

We are waiting for your answers, Boon Mee.

Don't want to respond? I don't blame ya. If I was tasked with defending that, I'd quit.

Thats even the short list ....

You're stretching for the Drudge Report and ducking any kind of answer about ANY of Bush's policies.

When John Kerry went postal last week, the major media's preferred strategy for dealing with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — to ignore them — went down the toilet.

Preferred strategy? Like full page articles in the New York Times? Yeah, nobody reads that stuff anyway.

Hey, Boon Mee - Which charge would you like evidence for?

We are STILL waiting for your answers. tap ... tap ... tap ... *twiddles fingers* ...

Ahem...what's that about crow?  Read it and weep all you Waffles lovers!

I'm already weeping ... from laughter. You're quoting the Drudge Report.

*sigh* no, there's more

Let's see some proof of those aligations of "criminal" activity there, drummer!

First of all, which one of those allegations do you want me to start with? Which one is the worst, and which one is the least damaging? Pick a couple of 'em, and I'll give you a case for it.

(There are so many, I don't know where to start)

So I have some questions for you, Boon Mee.... 

*What do you think about Bush's insider trading scandal?

*What about Bush's own military record?  he has lied about it,  and has gotten family influence to get him out of serving at all.  Medals or not, Kerry volunteered.  "I sleep better at night knowing George Bush was definding the skies of Texas while I spent 5 years in a POW camp" (republican Sen. McCain)

*Not funding No Child Left Behind (breaking his promises to do so)

*What about his wanting to dump low level plutonium waste in landfills?

*What about his, at best, Bush's total ineptitude handling intelligence that should have prevented 9/11? (at his own admission,  he didn't read the reports given to him)

*What about Karl Rove leaking Amb. Wilson's wife as a covert CIA op?  (5 reporters have said that Rove spoke to them, saying "Wilson's wife is fair game" before finally Novak took the bait)

*What about his locking the government into retail drug prices, forcing many senior citizens to cut pills in half?

*What about the biggest deficit in history- by any country, anywhere, anytime?

*What about the profiteering by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc?

*What about his handling of Afghanistan?  The fighting s worse now than ever.  The Taliban controls the southern half of the country. 

*What about the Project For A New American Century's plan for "constabulary action" to enforce US interests?  Is that a good idea? 

*What about his coke habit and hard drinking days?  (during his first run for the house, he was worried that there were pictures of him dancing naked on the table of his local bar...  he had done this often)

the hundreds of Swift boat veterans who oppose their old comrade Kerry, talking calmly and patiently about the facts,

You ready to eat crow? They're starting to recant. Someof them are saying they have no personal experience of Kerry, that they made the accusations based on the stories of others.

Can't say I didn't tell you so.

I guess what annoys me more than anything - Kerry ambition was political from the get go when he went to Vietnam. Why else would one videotape oneself so much and why the ###### would you bring a typewriter with you?    Oh well least I don't have to elect either of them.

I can understand that. He ran for the Presidency in '92, too.

But do you really think that anyone is going to make it to President who doesn't have that kind of ambition? Bush does- he's ran for class president of every school he's every gone to. he's admitted that the reason he bought into the Texas Rangers was to raise his profile to run for Governer. Just the nature of the beast. Nader, too. Clinton did, too. JFK, LBJ, DWE, HST et al.

Dollars to doughnuts its not confined to American politics...

.... its not the ambition I fault Bush for - I fault him for being a criminal.

Have your open eyes see your path before you, have your heart feel it's right and use your mind to work out the practical details.

He:) Hey I like that. I may have to steal it.

The allegations are numerous, well documented and quite serious. . . .

If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.

We have questions, senator. We're ready for your answers.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/23

(1) not well documented. Actually, they AREN"T documented. Well, not until 2004, anyways. The allegations are hypocritical. Would *you* take that sitting down?

(2) serious allegations? Try insider trading? Treason (the leak of Am. Wilson's wife's covert status is treason)? Those are a fiar bit more serious than lying about ones war record, which, btw, is thing Bush *has* done.

Yes, he has made it a keystone of his campaign. But Bush has made the War the top issue. hmmmm.... war record .... war ... sounds familiar ....

So I have some questions for you, Boon Mee....

*What do you think about Bush's insider trading scandal?

*What about Bush's own military record? he has lied about it, and has gotten family influence to get him out of serving at all. Medals or not, Kerry volunteered. "I sleep better at night knowing George Bush was definding the skies of Texas while I spent 5 years in a POW camp" (republican Sen. McCain)

*Not funding No Child Left Behind (breaking his promises to do so)

*What about his wanting to dump low level plutonium waste in landfills?

*What about his, at best, Bush's total ineptitude handling intelligence that should have prevented 9/11? (at his own admission, he didn't read the reports given to him)

*What about Karl Rove leaking Amb. Wilson's wife as a covert CIA op? (5 reporters have said that Rove spoke to them, saying "Wilson's wife is fair game" before finally Novak took the bait)

*What about his locking the government into retail drug prices, forcing many senior citizens to cut pills in half?

*What about the biggest deficit in history- by any country, anywhere, anytime?

*What about the profiteering by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc?

*What about his handling of Afghanistan? The fighting s worse now than ever. The Taliban controls the southern half of the country.

*What about the Project For A New American Century's plan for "constabulary action" to enforce US interests? Is that a good idea?

*What about his coke habit and hard drinking days? (during his first run for the house, he was worried that there were pictures of him dancing naked on the table of his local bar... he had done this often)

Start with any one, and work your way through. Were waiting for your thoughts, Boon Mee.

drummer...what do you make of this?

When Kerry came back from Vietnam, he said:

We are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.

But now he sounds rather proud of what he did in Vietnam, when he proclaims:

We fought for this nation because we loved it . . . I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.

Please tell me which statement was true. If we believe Kerry's statement from thirty years ago that the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with the preservation of freedom, much less with the defense of America itself, then how can we possibly take him at his word now when he brags constantly that he "defended this country" by fighting in that war? Isn't that exactly the kind of assertion that young John Kerry called "criminal hypocrisy."

But old John Kerry has never retracted young John Kerry's claim that the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with the defense of America's freedom. To the contrary, when given the opportunity to explain what he meant back then, old John Kerry contends that young John Kerry's claims were "honest"?

Too see the hypocrisy,

(1) Look at the stated reasons for war,

(2) look at who stated them,

(3) look at what other reasons they would have done what they did (LBJ made a ton of money from going to war, for example)

(4) look at what other recourses were possible.

Also, you might want to look at the effects on the ground. Did we have Vietnamese interests at heart? The war used more firepower than every other war before it put together.

The intentions of the soldiers who went was largely good. But they obviously did and saw things done that were not consistent with what they thought were "defending freedom"

For example, a friend of mine served in Vietnam. One one occaision, he killed a bunch of vietnamese and piled their bodies so he could carry his injured buddy over a trench.

Maybe you think Americans don't do things like that. They do. People do. The Vikings, the Sudanese, the Japanese, everyone does nasty stuff in war. its the same with the Abu Graib abuse scandal.

You seem to be doubting that anything like that ever happened, or could happen.

It is my belief that you can love your country without it being perfect. patriotism does not mean you agree with everything. I love our country, but it is not perfect. It is made up of people, and people <deleted> up from time to time. Some of them are even criminals. It is your duty are a patriot to make this country the best it can be. The Founding Fathers gave us the Right of free speech for a reason.

Plain fact is that war did absolutely nothing to protect our freedom, and was significantly detrimental to the freedom of the Vietnamese. To say that it was because "this is America, and America is always right" is hurtful. You gotta live in the real world if you want to make effective decisions.

Bush in particular is just a lying, cheating, stealing criminal.

Bit strong mate- this is what I refer to - you are making the same egregious allegations that you are complaining about. W has been smeared probably worse than what Kerry is getting - so in my eyes Faire is Faire! (payback)

It is very strong. I do not refer to the swiftboats ads. I refer to

(1) his very extensive record of shady contributions, connections to shady people, deals, and business practices.

(2) His 1 million USD insider trading deal, which, while the case is still open, the prosecutor (appointed by his dad) found "insufficient evidence" I could also say his coke habit or his partying days, but I really don't believe thats actually relevant. (He had a coke conviction expunged from his record, though)

(Considerably worse than what Martha Stewart is serving jail time for)

(3) His record of consistently putting forth legislation that does nothing but benefit business owners. For example, forbidding the Govt. to negotiate volume based discounts for prescription drugs- thats not running government like a business, thats running govt for business. He's bought and sold like noone since Pres. Grant.

(4) The war- He should have known that Iraq had nothing in their hand, that they were not harboring terrorists - Even the Saudis described him as a "bulwark" against muslim fundamentalism, his report "bin Laden Determined To Strike Within the US", 17 countries + our own that warned us of the event. Our intelligence is not that bad. At least, it wasn't under Clinton. The way I see it, he is either stupid or complicit. I don't think he is stupid. (Either way he's got to go)

This man wants to legalize the dumping of low level **plutonium waste** in PUBLIC LANDFILLS. Please, tell me, how does this benefit the American people?

If you think Bush has been smeared, you don't know his biography.

Did you know 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

1..The measurement between the tip of each middle finger when arms are held out horizontally to the sides equals your height.

2..The measurement from the elbow to the wrist is the same as your foot measurement

Generally speaking, that is. Those are approximate. Some basketball players, for example, have wingspans a foot or more wider than their height ....

my own foot is not quite as long as my forearm (I have unusually long arms- can't get shirts the fit off the rack)

...

#5 is not quite true, either. People say blass you because back in the day, if you got the flu it meant you were gonna die.

...

14. The "sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick" is said to be the toughest tounge twister in the English language.

hahahaha- try getting some Thais to say that one!

...

23. 23% of all photocopier faults worldwide are caused by people sitting on them and photocopying their buttocks.

Wow! Those are some ugly buttocks!

don't know what Unitarian Universalism is though

Well, whatever it is, I'm it to a T. I always thought I was an athiest, but I guess I was wrong I'm only 68% Nonthiest, strangely. I don't know about the Unitarianism, the discription is really not me. Theravada Buddhism is actually a lot closer. Many of the descriptions were pretty accurate. Strangely, the Secular Humanists are even more accurate. Dear Lord- I guess that means I'm a really Roman Catholic!

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)

2. Theravada Buddhism (94%)

3. Secular Humanism (89%)

4. Liberal Quakers (86%)

5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%)

6. Nontheist (68%)

7. Neo-Pagan (66%)

8. Mahayana Buddhism (65%)

9. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (64%)

10. Taoism (62%)

11. Bahá'í Faith (62%)

12. Orthodox Quaker (58%)

13. Jainism (54%)

14. New Age (52%)

15. Reform Judaism (51%)

16. New Thought (51%)

17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (50%)

18. Sikhism (50%)

19. Scientology (49%)

20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (46%)

21. Hinduism (44%)

22. Jehovah's Witness (39%)

23. Islam (34%)

24. Orthodox Judaism (34%)

25. Seventh Day Adventist (30%)

26. Eastern Orthodox (16%)

27. Roman Catholic (16%)

Oops, missed those.

Optimism and pessimism are of the same ilk (a way of presenting one's feelings), and I don't think they can be measured so easily. As a previous poster mentioned, the mindset largely depends the degree to which one is either optimistic about ones future career prospects (for example) or not so.

If you are optimistic about something, you hope. By hoping you risk letting your desire overshadow the reality of a situation. If however you are pessimistic about something (or everything, for that matter) you risk not providing yourself with the necessary drive or determination to achieve your particular end.

How can such things be quantified? Most buddhists I know are eternal optimists, it would hardly be correct to conclude therefore that they all lack a sound grasp of their reality (despite what they will claim to te contrary..).

Hmmmm. I kinda figured they were a mental filter- something that actually colors perception, rather than just a way to present information. Rose colored glasses would be the metaphor.

For my use of the words, there is a difference between optimistic and happy, although they often accompany one another.

I think as long as you know you are optimistic/pessimistic you can adjust for any (most of the) affect on perception, although thats a lot easier said than done

Your questions on how those things can be quantified is a very good one. It is exactly why I didn't not spend much time in sociology classes- its really tricky. You can measure the traits easily enough, but attributing a cause to them is the real problem. When it gets down to it, all you can really know is yourself. (And even that remains a mystery to most people!)

For the Texas-applicant can't check too much as apparently some files were misplaced.

...

Was there no superior at that time who checked the facts of the Navy Lt.?

Can the award proposals and decisions be checked or are they lost as well?

(1) Actually, the files were found afterall. Seems the inital attempts were coming up short because the searchers had wrong information. The records, at least, show that Junior was unpaid during the 2 disputed months.

(2) Yes, there were superiors to Kerry. The Navy does not hand out medals without multiple confirmations of the act of heroism. Those records are not lost. In fact, **all** of the written reports, including the stories by every member of the Swiftboat Vets up until 3 months ago(except John O'Niell), supported Kerry's version. As does the physical evidence ... i.e. bullet holes + rocket launchers.

This is half of why the Swiftboat ads are so eregious. They are as obvious of a lie as the "Sen. McCain's Black Baby ads" from 2000. (he adopted a Combodian orphan and Bush, in the primaries of 2000, put out ads that suggested he was having an affair with a black woman to get a "black baby" I don't care what politics you hold, those kinds of lies are unbefitting an public office holder- whether it be the presidency or the local school board.

In fact, my own politics are in the center. Bush in particular is just a lying, cheating, stealing criminal.

Back to "Two Cheeseburgers" Moore for a sec...the main theme of this thread:

WASHINGTON - Sgt. Peter Damon, who lost his right arm and left hand in Iraq, never set out to be a bit player in presidential politics and is furious at Michael Moore for making him one in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"It ticked me off," Damon said of the 10-second clip in the Bush-bashing documentary that shows him being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

"I just feel it was wrong and I was violated in some way, seeing myself up there on the screen," said Damon, 31, of Brockton, Mass.

Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, the anesthesiologist who treated Damon at the 21st Combat Support Hospital in Iraq and later at Walter Reed, said he also was angered at the Moore film after he took Damon to see it in Bethesda, Md.

"I was appalled. This was Joseph Goebbels-type propaganda," Buckenmaier said, referring to the Nazi propaganda chief.

Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie," Buckenmaier said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/222345p-191015c.html

You're on a roll- "drummer-girl", then "2 cheeseburgers moore"Maybe you could get a gig writing for Leno.

Anyway, I'm afraid you are still missing the point, Boon Mee.

To convince someone, you need to use facts. So...

Good:

M. Moore's use of this scene, this scene and this scene was like Goebbels because A, B, and C.

Bad:

Someone (an Army anestheologist) said M.Moore was a Goebbels type propagandist.

Use facts, not heresay. (The records of the Swiftboats are facts, as are the bullet holes and the rocket launcher he brought back; Kerry's and the swiftboat's statements are hearsay)

Also, I bring everyone's attention to "Damon said of the 10-second clip "

Hmmm.... lets seee, he was shown 10 seconds of the film and decided Moore was a propagandist? Sounds like he was fully informed. As I recall, the parts of the movie filmed at Walter Reed was considerable longer than 10 seconds.

Also, who showed him the clip? who decided which 10 seconds to show? Why did they decide to show only 10 seconds? Was it was because it was they had an illegal copy?

For the final nail in the coffin for y'all in denial re. Waffles and his self-inflicted wounds...

The editor of the Chicago Tribune, who WAS THERE, is going to have his statement appear in tomorrow's Trib, saying SBVfT is lying about the kid in the loincloth incident. Let’s hope somebody finally sets the record straight, because so far as I am aware the Vietnamese don't dress up like they were playing Indians in a John Wayne western, and I'm sick of talking about a loincloth, or is that what VC wear before they wake up and put on their black pajamas?

CHICAGO, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- "There were three Swift Boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."

However, he's only going to say it once, and won't answer any further questions, probably because he's noticed that Kerry's camp has given about a dozen different versions of the incident. They've had the "unarmed lone VC", the "still armed lone VC", the "multiple VC", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons on both banks of the canal, with bullets flying everywhere." I'll bet that his statement makes sure he can still maintain his standing in a room full of journalists.

However the big complaint about this incident is how Kerry blended actions from a few days earlier, that day, folded them all into a story about shooting a lone (or not) VC, and make a career out of it. At this point let’s just give thanks that Kerry accumulated enough self-inflicted wounds to get out in four months, because who knows what dreck we'd have to wade through if he'd stayed for a full tour like everyone else.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....02235783&EDATE=

OK .... I read up on it..... You got your stories mixed up, Bon Mee.

The event where he got his Broze star had "multiple VC", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons on both banks of the canal, with bullets flying everywhere."

The event where he got his Silver Star was with the "unarmed lone VC", the "still armed lone VC" The Swiftboat guys say that he was an unarmed teenager in a loincloth.

However, the damage report from that day, which record new 3 bullet holes, and multiple, corroborated reports from the different boats, say Kerry jumped out of his boat, ran down a VC, killed him, and brought back his B 40 rocket launcher, with a shell loaded.

This would be the "lone VC"

(From the New York Times)

Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue?

ALSO, funding of this group comes largely from a longtime frind and associate of Karl Rove, and from the ... wait for it .... wait for it .... GEORGE H. W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

No wonder Kerry is pressing charges. he's got an airtight case.

For the final nail in the coffin for y'all in denial re. Waffles and his self-inflicted wounds...

The editor of the Chicago Tribune, who WAS THERE, is going to have his statement appear in tomorrow's Trib, saying SBVfT is lying about the kid in the loincloth incident. Let’s hope somebody finally sets the record straight, because so far as I am aware the Vietnamese don't dress up like they were playing Indians in a John Wayne western, and I'm sick of talking about a loincloth, or is that what VC wear before they wake up and put on their black pajamas?

CHICAGO, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- "There were three Swift Boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."

However, he's only going to say it once, and won't answer any further questions, probably because he's noticed that Kerry's camp has given about a dozen different versions of the incident. They've had the "unarmed lone VC", the "still armed lone VC", the "multiple VC", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons", the "multiple VC backed by heavy weapons on both banks of the canal, with bullets flying everywhere." I'll bet that his statement makes sure he can still maintain his standing in a room full of journalists.

However the big complaint about this incident is how Kerry blended actions from a few days earlier, that day, folded them all into a story about shooting a lone (or not) VC, and make a career out of it. At this point let’s just give thanks that Kerry accumulated enough self-inflicted wounds to get out in four months, because who knows what dreck we'd have to wade through if he'd stayed for a full tour like everyone else.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....02235783&EDATE=

Dude - he signed up for ****2 tours of duty****

Also, he won a BROZE STAR that day, not the silver.

There were 5 boats in the water that day, not 3.

PLEASE check your facts.

You are spouting all this drivel, making personal attacks on people who disagree. If your gonna use facts to support your accusations, please make them right. They are easy enough to check.

I am just looking at the facts and making reasoned arguments.

BTW- what about the Washington Post?

***: Just take a look at these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth related polling numbers. They don't look good for the Kerry campaign...

...

book, "Unfit for Command" (Regnery Publishing), by John E. O'Neill

say... 'drummer-girl' .... You have a new one all the time, don't ya? I just can't compete with wits as sharp as yours. I'll stick to not calling you names and using facts and reason to back up my positions.

Sure- and McCain has a black baby and Dukakis raped and murdered a whilte woman in D.C. Oh, and Ann Richards lets 8K inmates out of prison early in Texas whjile she was governer.

Despite the fact that Richards passed MAJOR reforms of the prison system, and every one of those prisoners were let out under her Republican predecessor's laws, Bush ran a NASTY ad compaign that blamed Richards for it. (some 100K got let out early the year before she was elected)

Fact is, most Americans aren't paying attention. When you tell a nasty lie about someone, as long as someone else is telling it for you, it sticks. Bush knows this very, very well.

BTW - John E. O'Neill was originally hired by Nixon to smear Kerry, when he was an anti-war protester back in the 70's. He's PAID EXPLICITLY to say what he says. Was then, is now.

I wasn't thinking of wasting money, but rather that the fly was drinking his beer.

I don't see any inconsistency. If the plane brushed the ground, flying in at low level, it most likely woulda bounced. None of the eyewitness says anything about it skidding. From the eyewitnesses, I got the impression that the wing touched down, and that was probably it. The plane was coming in rather fast, and those marks are probably out of those shots. Look fartehr back a few hindred meters and I'm sure you'd find something.