Kerry is a pilot?

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Kerry's clowns are now out claiming there was no threat.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Kerry is certainly counting on the gullability of segments of the
population
and you're providing him positive feedback.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Kerry's clowns are now out claiming there was no threat.

Well, that's the media, selectively quoting the Kay report. A report running
hundreds of pages and they pick one or two pages out of contet. Small wonder
they ahve no clue about the military intelligence process. No small wonder
either since they're the ones that sabotaged it (the Intelligence Community)
in the first place.

Hey, since they say no WMD's what was Bubba talking about when he said:"One
way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

And: "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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And what was Kerry talking about when he said:

"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

Kerry's information is as convenient as his military "service".

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's team did.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's team
did.

Would you care to cite any evidence for that assertion?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:El6Tb.153717$Rc4.1208658@attbi_s54...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's team
did.

Would you care to cite any evidence for that assertion?

Numbers from the INS as matched with Social service access around the
country (particularly CA) which runs about 25% of IA's. Transpose that to
voter roles.

Roughly 6M to 19M IA's times 25% usage. If voter roles hold to that
estimate, particularly since the advent of "Motor Voter", it gives the
numbers mentioned.

With all the stink about CA giving IA's drivers licenses it's a moot point:
they already have them.

You didn't think "Motor Voter" was for convenience, did you? And why does
Social Services encourage recipients to use every available service?

Bush's idiotic "amnesty" is generating scrutiny that's indicating the
numbers (estimates only) might be rather LOW. A site called
votefraud2000.com did a study right after the 2000 election, May.June, 2001
(unfortunately it's no longer online) that covered the illegal aliens as
well as voting by dead people, people long since moved from the area, etc.,
etc.

How many DO YOU think voted, and for whom?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Bush's idiotic "amnesty" is generating scrutiny that's indicating the
numbers (estimates only) might be rather LOW. A site called
votefraud2000.com did a study right after the 2000 election, May.June,
2001
(unfortunately it's no longer online) that covered the illegal aliens as
well as voting by dead people, people long since moved from the area,
etc.,
etc.

How many DO YOU think voted, and for whom?

Trotski ruined the Mexican economy and it has been curse since then.

More socilism is what will make America into Mexico, not guest workers.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Bush's idiotic "amnesty" is generating scrutiny that's indicating the
numbers (estimates only) might be rather LOW. A site called
votefraud2000.com did a study right after the 2000 election, May.June,
2001
(unfortunately it's no longer online) that covered the illegal aliens as
well as voting by dead people, people long since moved from the area,
etc.,
etc.

How many DO YOU think voted, and for whom?

Trotski ruined the Mexican economy and it has been curse since then.

What exactly did Trotsky have to do with the Mexican economy?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


Bush's idiotic "amnesty" is generating scrutiny that's indicating the
numbers (estimates only) might be rather LOW. A site called
votefraud2000.com did a study right after the 2000 election, May.June,
2001
(unfortunately it's no longer online) that covered the illegal aliens
as
well as voting by dead people, people long since moved from the area,
etc.,
etc.

How many DO YOU think voted, and for whom?

Trotski ruined the Mexican economy and it has been curse since then.

What exactly did Trotsky have to do with the Mexican economy?

Trotsky destroyed the Mexican economy with socialism.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:El6Tb.153717$Rc4.1208658@attbi_s54...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's
team
did.

Would you care to cite any evidence for that assertion?

Numbers from the INS as matched with Social service access around the
country (particularly CA) which runs about 25% of IA's. Transpose that to
voter roles.

In all honesty, I had to read that twice to convince myself that you're not
joking about the extrapolation to voter rolls. What you say reads like a
parody of right-wing disinformation campaigns.

You cite no evidence whatsoever about illegal aliens voting--not even a
single documented instance! Instead, you mention a statistic about the
percent of illegal aliens who use social services (which you cite no source
for, but let's assume it's an accurate figure). You then propose to PRETEND
that that statistic is a complete different statistic, concerning voter
fraud instead of concerning social-service use. And for some reason, you
call this pretense "transposing".

It just goes to show that if you're willing to forego any semblance of
intellectual rigor, you can convince yourself of pretty much anything you
want to believe.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:SlfTb.207162$na.337411@attbi_s04...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:El6Tb.153717$Rc4.1208658@attbi_s54...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's
team
did.

Would you care to cite any evidence for that assertion?

Numbers from the INS as matched with Social service access around the
country (particularly CA) which runs about 25% of IA's. Transpose that
to
voter roles.

In all honesty, I had to read that twice to convince myself that you're
not
joking about the extrapolation to voter rolls. What you say reads like a
parody of right-wing disinformation campaigns.

Too bad multiple reads don't correspond to comprehension.


You cite no evidence whatsoever about illegal aliens voting--not even a
single documented instance! Instead, you mention a statistic about the
percent of illegal aliens who use social services (which you cite no
source
for, but let's assume it's an accurate figure). You then propose to
PRETEND
that that statistic is a complete different statistic, concerning voter
fraud instead of concerning social-service use. And for some reason, you
call this pretense "transposing".

It just goes to show that if you're willing to forego any semblance of
intellectual rigor, you can convince yourself of pretty much anything you
want to believe.


I said they were ESTIMATES ****head. I also said the ESTIMATES raise
QUESTIONS. Some rigor you achieve in YOUR disinformation efforts.

Go get started in trying to steal the next election.