Rude replies

[Scott]

Yes they should. But you know darn well they will be hung in the end.
(pun intended)

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In
order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many
compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes
indistinguishable from a streetwalker." H.L. Mencken

I guess there ain't much sex tourism where H.L. Mencken hails from

------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

R. McCarty wrote:

Sounds suspiciously like Communism. I'm more for individual rights myself.

I think that's part of the original US success formula (leaving aside
the 20th century boost from building kit for large wars held somewhere
else); the balance between individual rights as per constitution, and
democratic governance.

The other biggie is successfully binding most of the continent into a
union, something that tribal Europe is catching up in the last few
decades, and hopefully Africa will do in the next few decades.

You have to be cynical and pragmatic about grand human designs, be it
an operating system or a governance system. This has always been the
disbelief I cannot suspend when considering socialism.

Sure, we have this really great government that represents the will of
the people. Fine, but be careful how much power you give them, and
carry a gun to shoot back if you have to.

Democracy has to be about more than voting for 1 of 2 near-identical
cardboard cut-outs once every 4 years - that ain't hands-on control,
and it didn't stop Hitler from coming to power.

You vote every day with your wallet. Vote wisely.

------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On 6/11/05 10:43:03, Leythos wrote:

Not sure it is possible to reason with those people.

Reason, eh? Did anyone actually read what Bin Laden said, in his "why
we blew up the Trade Center and Pentagon" statements?

One of the greatest disservices GWB did to the US citizenry, was to
tell them what they wanted to hear, instead of what they needed to
hear - "we are under attack because they are jealous of our freedom".

The result; US citizens are at risk to account for policies they may
not even be aware of. Pretty much as Iraqi civillians were, when the
bombing started... I guess US citizens don't mind as much, given that
the risk they face is considerably lower.

But I'm pretty positive that you don't make a good case for your cause
by killing thousands of people that don't have the slightest connection
with those people.

Nope. It didn't work for Bin Laden's cause in the US when his minions
attacked the Trade Center and Pentagon, and it didn't work for the
US's cause when they bombed and occupied Iraq.

What's even more ironic, is the non-linkage between even the Iraqi
government and Bin Laden's attack.

If Bin Laden's beef is with the US military, acting as cat's paw for
big US business, then his attack may have been more on-target than
Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If all that was required was to kill "all Americans", those four
planes could have flown into any highly-populated areas in the city,
and the same attack could have been mounted simultaneously in a number
of US cities. No need to fly off to the Pentagon, or... hey, does
anyone know what the destination of the 4th plane was supposed to be?

------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!

 

[kurttrail]

Yes they should. But you know darn well they will be hung in the end.
(pun intended)

A poor one, since they agreed on a not guilty verdict.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

More so, Janeane & Al are arguably comedians that have used their fame to
espouse their personal opinions. Rush and Sean are professional talking
heads that made their fame by being paid to espouse a certain opinion.

While they all get paid now, I know that Al and Janeane believe their
rhetoric. Sean & Rush are just paid shills hawking the conservative
product that they have been paid spokesmen for.

Really? You *know* that Franken and Garafalo believe their rheotric but
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't? Didn't know you were so chummy with
them all. Franken and Garafalo are a bunch of malcontents. They seem to
despise the very country that has afforded them a lavish lifestyle with so
little work on thier part. Talk about ingrates, these two are poster
children.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

The Duelfer Report isn't legitimate enough for you? According to GWB's
hand-picked WMD inspector, Saddam didn't have any WMD's since the mid
1990's at the latest.

Add to that the Downing Street Memo where the Brits were of the opinion
that the intelligence alone on WMDs didn't justify invading Iraq, and that
the Bush Administration was already committed to invading Iraq, before
going to the UN, and that going to the UN was only ploy try to give
legitimacy to the Iraq invasion, not a serious attempt to resolve the
situation diplomatically, and that pretty much convinces me that Bush and
his Administration pretty much manufactured the justification to invade
Iraq.

Let's see - Hussein claimed to have WMDs, he used them on his own people, he
did not provide the proof required by the UN that he disposed of his WMDs.
You are the type of guy who would be very happy to see Hussein still in
power so that he could continue to murder, rape, and torture his own people.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Bush didn't lie to anyone you dufus - his intel was provided TOO HIM. He
only repeated the information that all of the advisors provided to him.
You can't really think that he made it all up and then convinced the
military and others of something that was just in his head?

If Bush lied then all of the liberal heros like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton,
Ted Kennedy, etc., etc., did also. They all claimed that Huseein was a
threat, some of them did so years before Bush took office and continued to
do so. But only Bush lied.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Quote them saying exactly that. Give links with dates of statements
quote.

You are showing yourself to be nothing but an apoligist for the left. For
someone who claims to be well-versed on this subject it is shocking that you
are unaware of any of this:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: --
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,
2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I have no doubt that you'll dismiss this and continue to be disingenuous.
The facts are that all of the Congressioanl leaders and the White House had
the same inteliigence that led to the decisions made. If Bush lied then the
others must be telling the truth which, oh well, means Bush was telling the
truth since they all have the same story to tell.

 

[kurttrail]

message


Really? You *know* that Franken and Garafalo believe their rheotric
but Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't? Didn't know you were so
chummy with them all. Franken and Garafalo are a bunch of
malcontents. They seem to despise the very country that has afforded
them a lavish lifestyle with so little work on thier part. Talk
about ingrates, these two are poster children.

Franken and Garafalo were espousing liberal causes long before they were
paid to do so. Rush and Hannity are just paid talking heads that will
say anything for ratings.

And you are the one that sounds like an envious malcontent.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

message


Let's see - Hussein claimed to have WMDs,

Yeah so? North Korea actually has a very active Nuclear program. The
Pakis have a bomb, had their nuke scientist selling nuke hardware and
knowledge to the highest bidder, and he is not in jail!

he used them on his own
people,

Were you there? There are some that believe that it was an Iranian gas
attack. But even accepting that it was Saddam gassed the Kurds, he did
it while Iraq was being supported by the US, before the first Gulf War.
Let's dig up Ronnie Raygun, and blame him for not attacking Saddam back
then for it!

he did not provide the proof required by the UN that he
disposed of his WMDs.

Well, that is not quite true. He tried to make an accounting for it.
Let inspectors in, gave the CD. The US regime didn't accept the proof
provided. It certainly wasn't enough for the UN to authorize force for.

And don't forget the pre-war rhetoric of the Bush Regime. They said
they KNEW where the WMDs were! ROFL! Of course they did, it was in
their imaginations!

You are the type of guy who would be very happy
to see Hussein still in power so that he could continue to murder,
rape, and torture his own people.

No, but there are plenty of countries that we haven't attacked for doing
that to their people. And the Bush Regime didn't go to war to help the
Iraqi people, if that was the reason, then they would have planned
better for running the post-war Occupation.

Bush and his war criminal regime gave two main reasons to invade Iraq,
WMDs, and the War on Terror. No WMDs, and all we have done is help
recruit more people to become terrorists!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Rctfreek]

A poor one, since they agreed on a not guilty verdict.

Yep another Star buys his freedom with all his fame and money. (See
also O.J. Simpson)

The only way he would have been convicted was if someone had secretly
videotaped it (and then they would have found some way to throw that
out too)

 

[kurttrail]

message


You are showing yourself to be nothing but an apoligist for the left.
For someone who claims to be well-versed on this subject it is
shocking that you are unaware of any of this:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb.
17, 1998

Did Saddam reject peace? The seems to have been the Bush Regime that
rejected peace.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue
state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or
our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline
Albright, Feb 18, 1998

And the what actually happened with the Paki Nuke scientist was a
greater danger than Iraq! And he ain't even in jail!

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998

If we took him off sanctions and lifted the no-fly zones.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton,
signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Notice the missing call to invade Iraq?

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Well at that time he had refused to let weapons inspectors in. Notice
the use of the past tense in the sentence, "Saddam Hussein has been
engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction . . . ."

But I have yet to see one direct call to invade Iraq, or "saying the US
needs to take out Saddam Hussein."

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

These pre-911 quotes don't call for the forcible removal of Saddam, nor
the invasion of Iraq by ground forces. And while the quotes do show
these democrats believed the Iraq did have WMDs, the tough
talk,saber-rattling rhetoric was mainly an attempt to get weapons
inspectors back into Iraq.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States
and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Now see the change, Post-911? This statement is based on new "reports."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Now I know this one is taken out of context, and isn't even a true
quote!

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to
use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our
allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it
is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the
administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war
must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that
we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's
case against Saddam Hussein.

"As the President made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.' It means 'America speaks with one voice.'"

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one
reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough
weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work
with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution
setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with
our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If
he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so
with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of
a grave, imminent--and I emphasize 'imminent'--threat to this country
which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our
immediate national security needs." -
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Quote from the same speech:

"In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him
carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose
some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the
right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for
its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today
with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is
grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very
high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not
disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence
briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence
reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller
(D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D,
CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),
Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I have no doubt that you'll dismiss this and continue to be
disingenuous. The facts are that all of the Congressioanl leaders and
the White House had the same inteliigence that led to the decisions
made. If Bush lied then the others must be telling the truth which,
oh well, means Bush was telling the truth since they all have the
same story to tell.

No links? These are quote taken out of context, but you are right about
one thing, the Congress had the same intelligence as the White House,
that evidence that the White House wanted to hear that back up it's
invasion call.

Notice that all the post-911 quotes are after the time of the Downing
Street menu, which said that the Bush regime already made up its mind to
invade, and all it was looking for was the justification for it.

Most of the pre-911 quotes were part of the aftermath of Saddam kicking
out weapons inspectors. None of them called for invasion. Yep, all
based on poor intelligence, but the post-Downing Street intelligence was
for one purpose, to provide a justification for invasion.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

If Bush lied then all of the liberal heros like John Kerry, Hillary
Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc., did also. They all claimed that
Huseein was a threat, some of them did so years before Bush took
office and continued to do so. But only Bush lied.

Bush did mislead. Being a threat is not justification for an invansion.
My shower is a threat to take my life everyday, much more so than Saddam
ever was a threat to take my life, but I still take at least one shower
a day!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Franken and Garafalo were espousing liberal causes long before they were
paid to do so. Rush and Hannity are just paid talking heads that will say
anything for ratings.

I see, you know that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity never espoused their
conservative ideology until they became talk-show hosts. My, you sure get
around , having known these people personally in order to think such a
thing. Paid to hawk the conservative line, you say. You have little
knowledge about how the business works, don't you? It's about ratings and
advertising dollars PERIOD. It happens that more people are interested in
hearing the conservative viewpoint than the liberal one, that's why the
success of liberal talk-shows is dwarfed by conservative ones. Get real,
they are piad well for their opinions because it delvers ratings.

And you are the one that sounds like an envious malcontent.

So I'm an envious malcontent? I won't ask you to waste your time trying to
prove that I've posted anything to indicate I'm either envious or a
malcontent becaue there isn't any. I appreciate what this country affords
me, unlike those like Al Franken and other liberal celebrities who couldn't
enjoy what they have if it were not for what this nation affords them. But
they still try to tear it down under the guise if wanting improvement but
it' shamefully apparent that they only want to see what has made the USA
great be torn down.

 

[kurttrail]

I see, you know that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity never espoused
their conservative ideology until they became talk-show hosts.

I see you don't show anything that disputes my opinion about Rush and
Hannity. I wonder why?

And I never said I "know." Typical Rightard tactic of putting words
into my mouth I never said.

My,
you sure get around , having known these people personally in order
to think such a thing.

I never heard of them until that were paid conservative drones. Franken
and Garafalo I heard speak in favor of liberal cause long before they
had talk shows.

Paid to hawk the conservative line, you say.
Yep.

You have little knowledge about how the business works, don't you?

Actually, about the enterntainment business, I do.

It's about ratings and advertising dollars PERIOD.

Mostly, yes. If it was totally about ratings, Howard Stern wouldn't be
moving to satellite.

Rush & Hannity are paid to be controvertial. Controversy is almost as
good a rating grabber as lesbians. And while Rush is in more markets
than Howard, he never comes close to Howard Sterns Ratings. That's why
Rush is on mid-days, not in the morning drive time. Rush could never
compete in the morning drivetime.

Hannity, I know less about. He is so ill-informed on the topics of the
day, and his main debating tool is talking over and louder than his
guest, I just couldn't bother be bothered with him.

Talk Radio has to put something on, and if you check out Rush or
Hannity's rating, you'll see that music radio beats them in almost every
market they are in. So it is not just about ratings.

It happens that
more people are interested in hearing the conservative viewpoint than
the liberal one, that's why the success of liberal talk-shows is
dwarfed by conservative ones.

No. People are interested in hearing a controvertial viewpoint.

Get real, they are piad well for their
opinions because it delvers ratings.

LOL! They get paid to be controvertial. Controversy does get ratings,
but overall they don't get the highest ratings for there time period in
most markets.

So I'm an envious malcontent?

What didn't you understand?

I won't ask you to waste your time
trying to prove that I've posted anything to indicate I'm either
envious or a malcontent becaue there isn't any. I appreciate what
this country affords me,

Like GITMO, and the Patriot Act. I am much more thankful like the Bill
of Rights.

unlike those like Al Franken and other
liberal celebrities who couldn't enjoy what they have if it were not
for what this nation affords them.

And they told you they don't enjoy living here? When? They love our
country, they just don't agree with the direction the Bush Regime is
taking us in. And if you check out almost every poll I seen over the
last couple of years, most Americans don't agree with the general
direction the country is being taken by Bush and Co.

But they still try to tear it
down under the guise if wanting improvement but it' shamefully
apparent that they only want to see what has made the USA great be
torn down.

LOL! When we hold people without due process, limit the rights of our
own citizens, and tear up much of the Bill of Rights with the Patriot
Act, Americas greatness has been torn down, you just refuse to take off
your blinders to see it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Scott]

Yes, I see that now. Hadn't heard the news when I posted.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

I see you don't show anything that disputes my opinion about Rush and
Hannity. I wonder why?

LOL! You made a claim that you cannot substantiate yet you want me to
disprove it, LOL!!! Face it, Franken and Garafalo can't shine Rush's and
Sean's shoes, they'll never be at the top of their game.

And I never said I "know." Typical Rightard tactic of putting words into
my mouth I never said.

Typical left tactic, no sunstantive thing to say so you'll resort to a
personal attack and name-calling by calling me a "rightard". Childish, very
childiish.

I never heard of them until that were paid conservative drones. Franken
and Garafalo I heard speak in favor of liberal cause long before they had
talk shows.

So by your never hearing them before they were radio personalities means
they do not believe what they espouse. This is idiotic.

Actually, about the enterntainment business, I do.


Mostly, yes. If it was totally about ratings, Howard Stern wouldn't be
moving to satellite.

Rush & Hannity are paid to be controvertial. Controversy is almost as
good a rating grabber as lesbians. And while Rush is in more markets than
Howard, he never comes close to Howard Sterns Ratings. That's why Rush is
on mid-days, not in the morning drive time. Rush could never compete in
the morning drivetime.

Hannity, I know less about. He is so ill-informed on the topics of the
day, and his main debating tool is talking over and louder than his guest,
I just couldn't bother be bothered with him.

You know little about Hannity but yet you know he's ill-informed? Try
listening, ill-informed people don't reach the heights he has. I listen to
him quite often and your characterization is wrong, like your others.

Talk Radio has to put something on, and if you check out Rush or Hannity's
rating, you'll see that music radio beats them in almost every market they
are in. So it is not just about ratings.


No. People are interested in hearing a controvertial viewpoint.


LOL! They get paid to be controvertial. Controversy does get ratings,
but overall they don't get the highest ratings for there time period in
most markets.


What didn't you understand?

I didn't understand your statement as to my being an envious malcontent.
Please enlighten me as to what I said that leads you to this erroneous
statement.

Again, you make a statement about my character with nothing to support it,
no surprise since this is a typical tactic of a leftist like you. With
nothing truthful or substantive to add, you resort to labels and
name-calling.

 

[kurttrail]

LOL! You made a claim that you cannot substantiate yet you want me to
disprove it, LOL!!! Face it, Franken and Garafalo can't shine Rush's
and Sean's shoes, they'll never be at the top of their game.

I expressed my opinion and I explained why I believe it. You reject
both my opinion and my explantion, yet you have yet to expalain why you
believe Rush and Sean are anything but paid shills. I have heard and
read Franken and Garafalo express their Liberal views long before they
were paid to express them. Can you say the same about Rush and Hannity?

Typical left tactic, no sunstantive thing to say so you'll resort to a
personal attack and name-calling by calling me a "rightard". Childish,
very childiish.

LOL! Again shift from the topic and attack. I did say the I "KNOW."
That is your mischaracterization of of what I said. And I didn't call
YOU a rightard. I said you used a typical rightard tactic. It is in
your mind I called you, not the tactic Rightard.

Again, either you keep purposely keep mischaracterizing what I write as
a tactic to change the subject, OR you are too dumb to comprehend what I
have written. Which is it?

So by your never hearing them before they were radio personalities
means they do not believe what they espouse. This is idiotic.

LOL! I don't much believe anything I hear on talk radio, as most are
paid to be controvertial, not to express their personal belief.

You know little about Hannity but yet you know he's ill-informed?

From what I have seen and heard.

Try
listening, ill-informed people don't reach the heights he has.

LOL! Look where it got Bush! Listen to a montage of your ignorant
president!

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000018.php

I
listen to him quite often and your characterization is wrong, like
your others.

So you think I wrong, it must be true, eventhough you can't explain why!

I didn't understand your statement as to my being an envious
malcontent. Please enlighten me as to what I said that leads you to
this erroneous statement.

I haven't said anything bad about Rush & Hannity because of the views
the express for a pay check. That is their right, part of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You express a motivation to
Franken and Garafalo that you have no way of actually knowing. I know
that Rush and Hannity get paid for what the express, and there is
nothing wrong with that. So it would seem to me, that you have some
personal grudge with Franken and Garafalo for expressing themselves and
their opinion.

I won't ask you to waste your time
trying to prove that I've posted anything to indicate I'm either
envious or a malcontent becaue there isn't any. I appreciate what
this country affords me,

[reinserted for clarity of what you snipped] Like GITMO, and the
Patriot Act. I am much more thankful like the Bill of Rights.

Again, you make a statement about my character with nothing to
support it, no surprise since this is a typical tactic of a leftist
like you. With nothing truthful or substantive to add, you resort to
labels and name-calling.

LOL! You don't appreciate GITMO and the Patriot Act? And that is
name-calling?

[And I am reinserting the rest of my post to show that I never called
you any name! Yet again, purposefully mischaracterizing what I wrote!]

And they told you they don't enjoy living here? When? They love our
country, they just don't agree with the direction the Bush Regime is
taking us in. And if you check out almost every poll I seen over the
last couple of years, most Americans don't agree with the general
direction the country is being taken by Bush and Co.


LOL! When we hold people without due process, limit the rights of our
own citizens, and tear up much of the Bill of Rights with the Patriot
Act, Americas greatness has been torn down, you just refuse to take
off your blinders to see it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Again, either you keep purposely keep mischaracterizing what I write as a
tactic to change the subject, OR you are too dumb to comprehend what I
have written. Which is it?

Too dumb? When you get a few ounces of intelligence and use them then you
can criticize my intelligence level.

[And I am reinserting the rest of my post to show that I never called you
any name! Yet again, purposefully mischaracterizing what I wrote!]

Allow me to quote you "And you are the one that sounds like an envious
malcontent". You refuse to back up your statement. You have no backbone,
you make claims without evidence and then expect others to refute your
claims. BTW, when did you stop beating your wife?