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

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

The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.


Right. Anything to avoid discussing Kerry's record since he left the Navy.


That will be there as well. And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

That will be there as well.


Not if the Democrats can help it.



And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

That will be there as well.


Not if the Democrats can help it.


Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.

We shall see soon enough.


And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


Q. When did Bush become president?
A. January 2001

Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
A. a few days after 9/11


Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?

A second bonus question....

Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?

A. Never.



The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?



--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.

What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly large.
If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you would have
claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House. Furthermore, not
visiting and ignoring are entirely different matters. The inverse is also true.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.

What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly
large.
If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you would
have
claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House.


We don't need that to make that claim true. Nobody is saying he should
visit everywhere...but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding? We're not talking Topeka here. He also rarely comes to the
largest state in his country and has never set foot in SF.

We've seen the pattern from Day 1: he snubs the areas of the country
which voted against him. A president needs to rise above juvenile
pettiness and represent everybody....not just the people who think he's
not an idiot.


--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8 months. Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months? And once
again, I don't believe you ignore a part of the country just by not visiting
there and conversly I believe you can visit an area of the country multiple
times and ignore their needs.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8 months.
Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?


I never really paid attention to it in the past. Living in SF, I noticed
that Bush avoided (and continues to avoid) facing 3/4 of million people
he is supposed to represent. Then I took a look around and figured out
he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.


It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
capital of the West Coast, although he has come as close as 50 miles
from here (San Jose) and then conspicuously avoided coming to NorCal's
real urban center. Do you find that not odd?

A president needs to rise above that pettiness.

And once
again, I don't believe you ignore a part of the country just by not visiting
there


Not just by that, but couple it with actions like Bush saying nothing
and refusing to get involved while his buddies at Enron were royally
fleecing California on electrical power.



--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported
him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.

What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly
large.
If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you
would
have
claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House.


We don't need that to make that claim true. Nobody is saying he should
visit everywhere...but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

No.

We're not talking Topeka here. He also rarely comes to the
largest state in his country and has never set foot in SF.

Why should he go to Alaska very often?
And not setting foot in San Fran is, well, only good taste.

We've seen the pattern from Day 1: he snubs the areas of the country
which voted against him. A president needs to rise above juvenile
pettiness and represent everybody....not just the people who think he's
not an idiot.

Ah, he should run around kissing up to those who didn't vote for
him the first time so that they might do so the next time. Like
a democrat would?

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.


Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


You need to find better sources of information.




Q. When did Bush become president?
A. January 2001

Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
A. a few days after 9/11


Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?

A second bonus question....

Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?

A. Never.



The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?


Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.

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

Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.


Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.


We'll see who is saying that after the first debate.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


You need to find better sources of information.


I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
to be incorrect???


The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?


Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.


I see your pattern of resorting to insults when you are incapable of
responding with facts (an all too frequent occurrence) is alive and well.


Why bother even jumping in on a thread when you have nothing to add but
juvenile retorts and insults?


--Mike