"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in
message
...
(Unnecessary background snipped)
When you have your own house in order (i.e., until you
recognize
that
your
earlier accusation was false and are big enough to admit it),
you
can
start
working on decorrupting the rest of us. My comment to Mary was
questioning
whether her concerns for disenfranchisement were only in
relation
to
the
likely democcratic supporters--her answer indicated that
indeed
was
the
case. Hell of a view of democracy IMO...
Brooks
snip further bellyaching
That's amazing! Some people can put a spin onto anything. I
suppose
being a Tory must mean never having to be wrong. Must be
wonderful...
John
By George, you've hit the nail on the head! Being a George, I
would
know,
wouldn't I? If you followed the thread, I'm sure you noticed how
hard
he's
trying to change the subject to me and what I may have or have not
said
about
other things. All I'm trying to do is to hold his feet to the
fire
and
force
him to be responsive to the dialogue he was having with Mary
Shafer.
I
won't
be sucked into a debate by him on any other topic until such time
as
it
suits
me, if it ever does. It seems to be giving him some heartburn,
because he
keeps
on trying (without success) to get me engaged so that he can walk
away
from the
can of worms Mary Shafer uncovered without addressing any of them.
It
won't
work, but he keeps trying. (^-^)))
You are admittedly very good at walking away from things that don't
agree
with your previous farsical pronouncements, on that I'll agree.
Brooks
And you still are trying to talk to me instead of Mary Shafer. You
get
high
marks for persistently trying to wiggle out of the hot spot.
You have to expand your reading there, George--already been addressed in
this same thread. Mary's idea that it was A-OK to kick those absentee
ballots out because she thought they were "late" was full of
holes--namely,
the democrats were contesting them on the basis of other technicalities,
and
the same state courts that proved to be so sympathetic to Gore in other
respects ended up turning down their request to quash them. I guess you
don't like that, seeing as how you apparently find the idea of
disenfranchising those who tend to vote democrat repulsive, but doing so
to
servicemembers and others who tend to lean towards the republican side
is
apparently just peachy. I believe you voiced the concern that my
bringing
this comparison up was somehow off-topic and inappropriate according to
your
earlier comment?.....
You believe wrong. Show me where I voiced concern over any part of your
discussion with her about the election in Florida. I only took part in
your
discussion after you started ducking being responsive and, even then, it
was
only limited to pulling your chain about not responding.
No, your first post, in response to my FIRST post in the thread, included:
"You, OTOH, need to stop changing the subject in order to avoid having to
address the points she made." Odd, in that my first post was merely to point
out that the alleged disenfranchisement effort attributed to Ms. Harris was
not the only such effort during that election in Florida. I did not attack
her claims--merely wanted to see how evenhanded she was in accessing the
situation. Her subsequent responses indicate that, like you, even-handedness
is not a priority.
......Well, it seems that the absentee ballot situation dealt
with the same topic Mary was introducing (disenfranchising voters in
Florida
during 2000), and it is a hell of lot closer to being on-topic than the
original post since at least it entered the military side into the
equation
in some fashion. Now George, have you gathered the gumption required to
admit that your earlier accusation that GWB never volunteered for
overseas
service was incorrect, or are you still going to be all mealy-mouthed on
that one?
It doesn't require gumption to say anything on any subject on the usenet.
You're just trying to drag me into a discussion of positions I've taken in
the
past based upon personal knowledge of how rated personnel can be grounded
at
their own instance. I don't see that I can learn anything about that
subject
from you, since I've forgotten more about it as a retired military pilot
that
you ever knew. So call me mealy-mouthed if that's what rings your
chimes.....it
makes no never-mind to me.
No, the issue in that discussion was your bold faced claim that Bush never
volunteered for overseas duty, period. Which was not the case, as he
reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert. You can't even bring yourself to
admit that, can you?
Have a nice Holiday Season.
Same to you, and may you not be cursed with the same flu that I am currently
enjoying (for Tarver's benefit; he apparently needs to learn that even
heated Usenet exchanges do not have to drop to the level of wishing death
upon our temporary foes).
|