RCow

Allen is heartened by the fact that W won. Means anyone can get elected President. Well, anyone who's Daddy's been president anyway. I guess a football coach's son is close.

Yep, them an' all 'em N lovers, too - eh, Boomer? Can't be too careful 'round here. Rumor has it there's some of them money changers as well, ya know what I mean. Keep yer eyes open, thems no good peoples is everywhere.

Oh, yeah, sarcasm. Ha, ha. Hil-lar-e-us. Guess ya got to be dumber then the Prez to miss that . . .

VA how can people take you seriously when you criticize others for parroting smears when you KNOW that Bush and Cheney said the EXACT same thing? The board has corrected this smear many times yet I guess if you repeat something enough . . .

This just in: Sports fans watch ESPN! Catholics watch the Catholic network! Children watch the Cartoon Network! Or look at it another way: it's fair to say most of the 22.1 million people who tuned in were Republicans yet 77 of 100 did not tune into the GOP, uh, Fox News.

Yes, be sure to take your test Nov. 4. I'll take mine Nov. 2. BTW, the teacher is a nut job with zero credibility with anyone but hardcore Republicans. The GOP would have been better off skipping his speech b/c he gives everone else the creeps. Two very scary words: "President Cheney."

I love hot weather (Maryland) but didn't get a single work day off. Worked most weekends, too. I'm bummed. Played golf twice this year: February and April.

I'll take that bet. Hyperbole aside, Democrats had the same criticism of MSNBC, it's much more "entertaining" to critically analyze than to simply repeat speeches and allow guests to spew unfettered talking points. Just because they don't praise speeches or will question statements and policies it doesn't make them liberal -- they did the same thing during the DNC.

What post are you addressing? A bit of a non sequitur but I'll reply. Yes, he did and it's pretty clear what he said: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html]Kerry speech - Oct 2002[/url] Nothing "unfair" about what I said. Now at least tell me to what you are referring.

After reading post game stats, drive summaries, etc on CBSsportsline the Bills/Colts gamed looked like a complete disaster. I turned on the NFLTV telecast Sunday night with trepidation b/c I did not want to watch a pasting. However, I was surprised. Besides special teams the team didn't play all that bad. The defense was stout. After the Clements fumble they held, the blocked punt was not against the D, the first TD was really one big play on an unusual 4th down on the Bills' 42 (besides you'd have to expect one big Harrison play a game though I did wonder were the safties were) the long KR led to the other FG. Overall the Defense played well against a good offense. The first team offense didn't do nearly as bad as the stats indicated. I thought Bledsoe played very well. The one sack I remember was not his fault, I recall two of his three incompletes in the first half were spikes and he made good decisions. McGahee ran OK but clearly doesn't have a burst at the line yet and not making cuts to find the hole. Wills is still open field fast but not yet start stop fast. By far the biggest weakness was from Sullivan's LT spot. Just seemed his man beat him every play and Bledsoe knew he didn't have time from his backside. All breakdowns appeared to come from the left side, though on more than one occaision the Bills didn't pick up on a blitz (on the one sack and at least two runs). WR: all played well but where's Evans, is he having touble getting off the line? He's clearly fast but perhaps not physical enough? Just didn't see him much. Would like at least one bomb to see what he can do. OLine - would like to see them together, they clearly missed their best lineman on Saturday so his return is encouraging. Same with Travis -- who certainly didn't lose his job. Special teams - oy vey. Clements muff not a team problem but not sure he should return anyway. Reed and McGee should be fine. Blocked punt - couldn't tell what happened. Long KR - nice run but looked like they lost containment after they forced the blocking to the sideline. (Wire looked like a guilty party). However, it looked like many new faces on ST after two weeks of "starters." Perhaps they wanted to give a few guys the chance to show something (hint: didn't work). Overall: the return of Jennings and Travis may change things. The Defense is still solid (though Milloy's absence hurts) and hopefully they'll have the best players on ST come opening day. Expect to confirm my worst fears Sunday night but in the end I felt a lot better.

Someday you'll have to come up with another response to people who disagree with you rather than parroting the same old: "they are all stupid pollys. " The irony is that your posta read like RNC talking points or the Rush Report for his dittoheads.

I agreed with just about everything you said untill the second to last paragraph, then you lost me. First, Kerry has said he will pull some forces out but they would be substituted with more international forces with idea of creating a true national strategy in the region. He never said we'd have anything close to an immediate withdrawal, nothing close. Kerry has said over and over that a complete withdrawal will take years and years. Second, but more important: you haven't explained how the current policy is working and how it will achieve many of the things outlined in the first few paragraphs. It seems quite inconceivable to many people, including ME experts, who cannot see how the current strategy will weaken fundamentalism in the region. Just the opposite has continued to happen since the Iraq invasion. Moreover, there appears to be NO diplomacy at all. What is the plan? No one appears to be working together, no vision, no idea of what to do next. Explain how Bush's policies are working and what he plans to do next.

By this logic Clinton had a better record than Bush. Fewer casualties. It's not about where we are, it's about where were going. Just because the dam hasn't burst doesn't mean the town should rely on the kid indefinately plugging holes with his fingers. It's much more difficult to stop the flow of water in the reservior but everyone will be better off in the long run. Many people believe that Bush's flawed policies ("strategy" is too strong a word) will reach it's tipping point very soon.

I see a few questions, but correct me if I'm wrong, you have limited the breath of the response, though I'll give it a try. Yes, Kerry did indeed make honorable service a big issue at the DNC and so far there is no HARD evidence he did not serve honorably. Take all the so called testimony by those who want to destroy John Kerry. Isn't it fair to examine the accusers motives and take a critical look at this so-called damning stories? Fact: He could have exercised any number of options if he did not want to go to Vietnam. Listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but he did go. Honorable service. Fact: He did indeed take what was considered a very dangerous assignment. Again, listen to all the "yeah, buts" -- but did take the job. Again, isn't that honorable service? Fact: His OWN crew believed he was a great leader and Captain. Smart, good instincts, fearless and did his duty. Listen to all the "yeah buts" from "other" soliders who DID NOT serve on his boat and often say him only a day or two (30 years ago) -- but those who knew him best said he served honorably. Fact: The very men on his boat recount the story of the Rassman rescue, they have never changed their story, however, there is an incredible amount of evidence that his detractors are not nearly so accurate and have demonstrated clear POLITICAL motives to smear Kerry. Again, his mates and those who were closest to Kerry's actions that day say he served honorably. FACT: the soldiers and officers supported the crew's version of events that day AND recommended a commondation at the time have now changed their story. It's not hard to see they did it for POLITICAL reasons and they have little or no credibility. They had very little reason to lie and give Kerry kudos for bravery and recommend a medal then but have ample reason to change their story now. Again, the men who served by him then say he served honorably. FACT: he WAS wounded. It makes no difference in the severity. You get one for a scratch and you get one for losing three limbs. Kerry didn't make the rules and he got the PH like everyone else. One of four in a boat of twelve? It's that 33%casualties on one boat? Sounds like a nice little skirmish. There is no doubt he honorably conducted himself in the first action. Oh, and he was wounded twice more. That's at least TWO more firefights. The PH and the wounds are no less honorable because they weren't severe. FACT: the scratch is NOT indispute by those who served closest to him. Why so quick to believe his political detractors? For God sakes the guy has scrapnel in his leg and he can't say it? How is this a bad thing? Should you ask yourself why this bothers you so much? May you're the one with the issues? FACT: there is zip, zero credible evidence that John Kerry in any way dishonorably requested special treatment that allowed him to leave the field after 4 months. It makes no difference if the tour was 12-13 months, if he had the option to leave Vietnam there is no reason why he should not take it. The only people who suggest this wasn't honorable are those who do not want him president for ideological and partisan reasons. One point that is missed is that to call Kerry a liar is to call his crewmates liars. To call Rassman and those who served with him day after day embellishers, stooges and dishonorable soldiers. It's a question of who you believe: the men who served with him or people with a clear political agenda? If the commanders and fellow officers who recommended him conduct, gave him PHs and offered him a chance to leave Vietnam thought he was a fine soldier and served honorably then NOW say they lied why should we believe them NOW? What is THEIR motivation for changing their story (hint, hint there's a presidential election maybe?) Do you REALLY want to debate PROBABLE facts? Seems like a pretty loaded accusation for not having evidence at the ready. There is nothing approaching "possible" when it comes to his detractors and those who did not serve on his boat yet you so easily believe them. As for the suggestion he manuevered his way out of Vietnam to run office: there is none. If anyone wants to believe such a lie then there is no stopping his enemies but their is nothing in the record or even someone credibily familiar with his life 30 years ago to back it up. Did he want to run for office: sure he did and no matter what you want to believe that is not akin to planning a crime, it's a career choice. Moreover, his anti-war actions are another issue altogether. If you want to discuss it separately we can but it's even more steep in political agendas and motivations. The only agenda lies with Kerry's political enemies and those who don't want to see a Democratic president. There is still no hard evidence to say that Kerry did not serve honorably in Vietnam. Try as you might to find a reason to hate him you have to ask yourself why you won't give a man who served the benefit of the doubt while so eager to essentially call his crewmates liars.

Thanks VA, that cleared it up. BTW, what are you talking about? Care to explain? I'm willing to discuss any specific topic but I've yet to hear anything except your constant references to how stupid Democrats are. You know, those real conversation starters.

Sorry, I not sure which part of "exactly what I saying" you meant. I'm not a mind reader. Please tell me what I haven't addressed or engaged and I will answer all your questions. Fire away.

Seriously, you need a life. Step away from the computer and do something productive. Maybe read a few more presidential issue papers to help make your all important decision. The best part is that you claim you don't care what people think about you but people easily get under your skin. Oh, come on, don't deny it. It just kills you that your such a phony and you need 50 posts of daily affirmation to convince yourself you are superior. I guess for you it's like hanging out in an a typical dark, dingy bar with people who will make you feel better about yourself. Yeah, kind of like a bar, a place to hang out because you have often nothing else better to do, it's not very productive, pretty much a waste of time, everyone has the same exact conversations over and over again, and every once and while people will walk in get under their skin, which makes things a little too uncomfortable, but never fear - it's a mutual admiration society wherby the regulars have convinced themselves that everyone else is stupid. Yep, a lot like a depressing bar, but of course, it's over the internet making it just a bit more sad. (btw, let me just say "thanks," these little discussions are a great stress reliever. Oh, and before I forget, you didn't like the "cucumber bread" line? - I thought it was pretty funny. Guess you didn't get it. People at the Dead and I think the Phish shows sell things like bread and I suppose sticks and twigs to finance their tour . . . uh, nevermind, I don't believe you really don't care. Anyway, which part of "paid" was not supposed to be taken literally? Looked pretty straightforward, (maybe you meant they were "paid" in cucumber bread or a healthy dose of good karma) but since you've yet to be wrong I'll recind the satire and turn back to regular programming; perhaps you'll explain it in one of your 25 posts tomorrow. )

Honestly, after I downloaded SP2 the computer froze then would not completely restart afterward. It would turn on, power up and just before it hit the welcome window (XP with user names) it would shut itself down -- a never-ending loop. Microsoft and Dell had no idea - but my wife swears she heard one of the 6 tech guys say "not again" under his breath. Result: dead computer. Dell or some other computer shop would essentially have to strip out most of the software and memory, including all our files (thankfully all financial and important docs were backed up - though not many pixs of the family) and refit it as a "new" computer. Screw that, I'm not paying way over $200 for something that they would not even guarantee to work. Obviously I can't prove that SP2 killed my computer but it's an awfully strange coinciendence since I never had a problem beforehand.

Yeah, Ok, El Presidente. Let me know when you come up with something specific, I mean, it's not like you to make a vauge attack. Usually you just say "me too."

Wow. They pay all those people. Must sell a lot of cucumber bread.

Sorry, Ken, do you have anything specific? I usually skip over the "me too" posts. How's the campaign going? Winning converts?

Your "indifference" to the smear campaign against Kerry is defeaning. You make accusations about defending racist scumbags but your no better than the GOP smear team since you can back that up. So, I guess your saying you're no better than someone who defends racists -- nice job, AD. I suppose it would be too much for you to take a principled stand on this issue. Figure out who you're voting for yet? Didn't think so, that would mean taking a stand for something or someone you may have to defend. It's so much easier to take pot shots, claim indifference and call people lemmings. Why don't you start leading instead of remaining a useless complainer.

If I remember correctly: I ignored it because I disagreed with the notion that Kerry highlights his distiguished service in Vietnam, his record is smeared and he's supposed to ignore it and stop talking about a defining moment in his life? That makes no sense. Shouldn't the issue be the GOP smear campaign? What about the next issue to come along? Ignore that, too? Actually, you never said why exactly Kerry is "getting asswhipped on the Vietnam issue?" Is it the Republican smear campaigns are effective? Shouldn't the story be: why are veterans condoning the attacks? Would they do the same for a Republican candidate vs. a Democrat with a poor service record?

World Net Daily? I guess the National Inquirer didn't have a good smear against Kerry.

I will respect your answer but I can't help thinking that the question would not pass your lips or get typed on a message board if Kerry were a Republican.