Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

"BOB" SD wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...
- Steven P. McNicoll -
Explain.

- Nehmo -
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040825_74.html
"Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign,
disclosed
that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group
challenging
Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service."


So his clients include the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans.
So
what?


If you don't see anything wrong with that then you must just be another
Bush boootlicking lapdog and neocon wingnut. Figures.


What do you see wrong with it?

"BOB" wrote in message ...

They've already pointed out that there's no connection between the Bush
campaign and the SBVT ads.

What? Where have you been? Check out the news.


There's no connection between the Bush campaign and the SBVT ads. That's
been on the news.



Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You want him
to
condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are
anti-Bush,
even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?

I say stop all that are lies.


Who gets to decide which are lies and which are not?

"BOB" wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"forge" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Not that y'know, he's actually going to ****ing DO anything. He just
keeps saying "we need to stop these 527 groups."


What would you have him do?

What everyone's bloody ASKING him to - say he doesn't support
what SBVT is doing. That's all.


They've already pointed out that there's no connection between the Bush
campaign and the SBVT ads.

What? Where have you been? Check out the news.

Then you should have no problem providing a source.





He still hasn't actually said that, he just keeps
saying "we need to stop them all" without any specifics.


Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You want him to
condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are anti-Bush,
even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?

I say stop all that are lies.

Why are the anti-Kerry groups less entitled to free speech than the
anti-Bush groups?

Because the anti-Kerry groups are lying for Bush?

Provide proof that Bush is behind any lies.

"Osprey" wrote in message
...

Why are the anti-Kerry groups less entitled to free speech than the
anti-Bush groups?


Because the anti-Kerry groups are lying for Bush?


Provide proof that Bush is behind any lies.


Better than that, provide proof that the anti-Kerry groups are lying.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...
"BOB" SD wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...
- Steven P. McNicoll -
Explain.

- Nehmo -
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040825_74.html
"Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign,
disclosed
that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group
challenging
Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service."


So his clients include the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans.
So
what?


If you don't see anything wrong with that then you must just be another
Bush boootlicking lapdog and neocon wingnut. Figures.


What do you see wrong with it?

Are you really this stupid, or is this an act? There is supposed to be
no connection between the 527 organization (SBVT) and the Bush
campaign. The fact that at least 2 people officially involved in the
Bush campaign have had to resign because they did indeed have ties to
SBVT certainly gives the appearance that there are real ties between
the two organizations. The fact that the largest contributor (IIRC) to
SBVT is also Bush's largest contributor, and one of the largest
Republican contributors in Texas also solidifies the appearance that
there are indeed connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign.

Do you get it yet? I didn't think so.

--
Dave Fritzinger

"BOB" wrote in message ...

Those '527 groups' that Bush objects to are grass root organizations
that are pooling their and their donor's resources to have a voice in
the political process. Without those groups, then only companies and
rich individuals will have enough money to participate. The Bush
campaign would *love* that.


That describes the Swift Boat Vets.


Except that they sold out to the repugnant party and lost all credibility
by
lying about Kerry.


The Swift Boat Vets are not affiliated with any political party. This is
not a political issue for them at all.



But the Swift Boat Vets have NOT been proven to be lying. Why would
they lie?


Because they are republicans and lying comes with that territory.


Some of them are Republicans, some of them Democrats.

"David Fritzinger" wrote in message
om...

What do you see wrong with it?


Are you really this stupid, or is this an act?


I'm not at all stupid.



There is supposed to be
no connection between the 527 organization (SBVT) and the Bush
campaign.


There is no connection between the SBVT and the Bush campaign.



The fact that at least 2 people officially involved in the
Bush campaign have had to resign because they did indeed have ties to
SBVT certainly gives the appearance that there are real ties between
the two organizations. The fact that the largest contributor (IIRC) to
SBVT is also Bush's largest contributor, and one of the largest
Republican contributors in Texas also solidifies the appearance that
there are indeed connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign.


Nobody HAD to resign.



Do you get it yet? I didn't think so.


I get it. You don't know what you're talking about.

"BOB" wrote in message ...
Gactimus wrote in :

(Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

Osprey wrote:

"Elmo" wrote in message

You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers
stateside while John Kerry fought for his country?

Glad to see you admit that you think National Guard service is
cowardly.

George Bush was cowardly.

Flying a plane is cowardly?

There is nothing brave about flying an airplane, Asshole.

Spoken like a true coward.

You mean like Bush?

Anybody, who can lead a nation and handle the most stressful job there
is...is not a coward.

"BOB" wrote in message ...
Gactimus wrote in
:

(David Fritzinger) wrote in
om:

Gactimus wrote in message
...

forge wrote in
:

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
fight a vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --

But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

Uh.

Huh?

What part did you not understand?

Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've
proven to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools we
are.

This coming from someone who thinks that going after terrorists is
somehow warmongering.

Snubie, considering that the terrorists were *not* in Iraq, the
invasion of Iraq was indeed warmongering.

Maybe you libbies should learn what your silly little buzzwords mean
before you use them. By saying there were no terrorists in Iraq, you
have exposed your ignorance again.

Have you noticed that all of the world media, including Americans, refer
to
the Iraqis that are fighting the occupying American invasion force as
insurgents and not "terrorists". Even a goose-stepping, bootlicking Bush
lapdog such as yourself should be able to comprehend why that is.


The same reason the media refers to vagrants as "the homeless", swamps as
"wetlands", etc., etc., etc. Bias.

"BOB" wrote in message ...
Gactimus wrote in :

BOB wrote in :

Gactimus wrote in
:

(David Fritzinger) wrote in
om:

Gactimus wrote in message
...

forge wrote in
:

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
fight a vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --

But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

Uh.

Huh?

What part did you not understand?

Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've
proven to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools
we
are.

This coming from someone who thinks that going after terrorists is
somehow warmongering.

Snubie, considering that the terrorists were *not* in Iraq, the
invasion of Iraq was indeed warmongering.

Maybe you libbies should learn what your silly little buzzwords mean
before you use them. By saying there were no terrorists in Iraq, you
have exposed your ignorance again.

Have you noticed that all of the world media, including Americans,
refer to the Iraqis that are fighting the occupying American invasion
force as insurgents and not "terrorists".

They're both. I know that's hard for simpletons like you to grasp.

If foreign invaders were occupying the U.S. by force of arms, would you be
considered a terrorist for defending your family and country against those
invaders?


No, but that's not happening in Iraq.