PDA

View Full Version : Re: Pol: Bush dishonestly spins Kerry's debate statements


John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 09:03 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>
>Kerry's global test is perfectly reasonable. If you can't "prove to the
>world that you did it for legitimate reasons" your reasons are obviously not
>legitimate and you shouldn't do it.

What is the burden of proof and who determines that burden? Therein
lies the real issue.

DRS
October 2nd 04, 09:05 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:54:43 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>

[...]

>>> Sure you hate America. You're dripping with hate in nearly every
>>> post. Hell, you hate more than America. I think you even have a
>>> lot of self hatred.
>>
>> Typical ultra-right wing nutcase bull****. I say day, you say I
>> said night. I didn't do anything of the sort. When I refuse to let
>> you get away with telling lies I'm not expressing hatred of America,
>> I'm simply refusing to let you get away with telling lies.
>
> No lies whatsoever.

Lies left, right and centre.

> Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
> strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't hesitate
> but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the time,
> this would be impossible and he knows it.

That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet you
persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a simple
reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate reasons
then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
"impossible", it's practical and necessary.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Jeff Harper
October 2nd 04, 09:59 PM
> > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
> > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't hesitate
> > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the time,
> > this would be impossible and he knows it.
>
> That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet you
> persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a simple
> reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate reasons
> then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
> "impossible", it's practical and necessary.

You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using "global
test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global poll)
shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush supporter
who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Jeff Harper
October 2nd 04, 10:01 PM
"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message
...
> > > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> > > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
> > > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't hesitate
> > > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the time,
> > > this would be impossible and he knows it.
> >
> > That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet
you
> > persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a
simple
> > reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate
reasons
> > then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
> > "impossible", it's practical and necessary.
>
> You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using "global
> test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global poll)
> shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush supporter
> who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.

Erratum: I meant John Hanson not John Williams.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 10:26 PM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:01:37 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message
...
>> > > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
>> > > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
>> > > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't hesitate
>> > > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the time,
>> > > this would be impossible and he knows it.
>> >
>> > That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet
>you
>> > persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a
>simple
>> > reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate
>reasons
>> > then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
>> > "impossible", it's practical and necessary.
>>
>> You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using "global
>> test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global poll)
>> shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush supporter
>> who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.
>
>Erratum: I meant John Hanson not John Williams.
>
So much for abysmal reading comprehension. What a ****ing loser.

Jeff Harper
October 2nd 04, 10:34 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:01:37 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> >> > > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
> >> > > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't
hesitate
> >> > > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the
time,
> >> > > this would be impossible and he knows it.
> >> >
> >> > That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet
> >you
> >> > persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a
> >simple
> >> > reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate
> >reasons
> >> > then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
> >> > "impossible", it's practical and necessary.
> >>
> >> You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using
"global
> >> test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global poll)
> >> shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush
supporter
> >> who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.
> >
> >Erratum: I meant John Hanson not John Williams.
> >
> So much for abysmal reading comprehension. What a ****ing loser.

Uh huh. Getting the poster's last name wrong is not the same as the
inability to recognize and comprehend concepts, which if we give your
character the benefit of the doubt, is your problem.

Notice, I don't call you a "****ing loser" or anything so imaginitive and
mature?

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Hugh Beyer
October 2nd 04, 10:43 PM
John Hanson > wrote in
:

>>Typical ultra-right wing nutcase bull****. I say day, you say I said
>>night. I didn't do anything of the sort. When I refuse to let you get
>>away with telling lies I'm not expressing hatred of America, I'm simply
>>refusing to let you get away with telling lies.
>
> No lies whatsoever. Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
> strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't hesitate
> but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the time,
> this would be impossible and he knows it.

Counter-example: The invasion of Afghanistan *did* pass the global test, as
Kerry defined it.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Jeff Harper
October 2nd 04, 10:48 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:34:54 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:01:37 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> > > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
> >> >> > > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as
a
> >> >> > > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't
> >hesitate
> >> >> > > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the
> >time,
> >> >> > > this would be impossible and he knows it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true
yet
> >> >you
> >> >> > persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a
> >> >simple
> >> >> > reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate
> >> >reasons
> >> >> > then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from
being
> >> >> > "impossible", it's practical and necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using
> >"global
> >> >> test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global
poll)
> >> >> shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush
> >supporter
> >> >> who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.
> >> >
> >> >Erratum: I meant John Hanson not John Williams.
> >> >
> >> So much for abysmal reading comprehension. What a ****ing loser.
> >
> >Uh huh. Getting the poster's last name wrong is not the same as the
> >inability to recognize and comprehend concepts, which if we give your
> >character the benefit of the doubt, is your problem.
> >
> >Notice, I don't call you a "****ing loser" or anything so imaginitive and
> >mature?
> >
> If the shoe fits...
>
> The fact of the matter is that what Kerry said was contradictory.

The fact of the matter is that it's contradictory only to the gullible
listening to deceptive spin.

You are either one of the gullible or one of the deceitful spinners.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 10:51 PM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:34:54 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:01:37 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > > Kerry can't have it both ways as he is talking
>> >> > > out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to portray himself as a
>> >> > > strong leader and defender of America saying that he wouldn't
>hesitate
>> >> > > but yet says it would have to pass a global test. Most of the
>time,
>> >> > > this would be impossible and he knows it.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's a lie. Not only is it not true but you know it's not true yet
>> >you
>> >> > persist in saying it anyway. Kerry's "global test" is basically a
>> >simple
>> >> > reality check. If you can't prove your actions are for legitimate
>> >reasons
>> >> > then it's a fair bet your reasons are not legitimate. Far from being
>> >> > "impossible", it's practical and necessary.
>> >>
>> >> You are, of course, correct. That John Williams persists in using
>"global
>> >> test" the way he does (as if Kerry want to stop and take a global poll)
>> >> shows he either has abysmal reading comprehension or he's a Bush
>supporter
>> >> who, unlike most republicans, has no respect for truth & reason.
>> >
>> >Erratum: I meant John Hanson not John Williams.
>> >
>> So much for abysmal reading comprehension. What a ****ing loser.
>
>Uh huh. Getting the poster's last name wrong is not the same as the
>inability to recognize and comprehend concepts, which if we give your
>character the benefit of the doubt, is your problem.
>
>Notice, I don't call you a "****ing loser" or anything so imaginitive and
>mature?
>
If the shoe fits...

The fact of the matter is that what Kerry said was contradictory.

Jeff Harper
October 3rd 04, 03:15 AM
> >In the first war, the Gulf War, other nation's picked up 90% of the tab.
> >Now, instead of paying 10%, we are paying 90%, and the tab is $200
billion.
>
> So what?

Your answer is "so what"?

I can't argue with you any further.

John M. Williams
October 3rd 04, 05:49 AM
"Jeff Harper" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>> >
>> >And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the global economy?
>> >You think we were getting free swag before, just for being nice? It's
>> >the same as before, highest bidder gets the contract. Money still
>> >makes the world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>
>> Western Europe (except for England) has long regarded us with Old
>> World arrogance. The Arab World has always regarded us as infidels,
>> except before, they regarded us as weak infidels who could be relied
>> on to back down. Now, they're afraid we wont't.
>
>That's a very simplistic, rather primitive view.

Get over yourself, Skippy.

>We had strong allies;
>they're not so strong now.

Really? I thought more nations were joining NATO. Who resigned? Why
wasn't it on the news?

>We had some enemies; we have more now, and with
>stronger anti-US sentiment.

Really? What loyal pals did we have who are now our enemies?

DRS
October 3rd 04, 01:56 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message


[...]

> The fact of the matter is that what Kerry said was contradictory.

That's not a fact. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what he
actually said by the pathologically dishonest.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Jeff Harper
October 3rd 04, 06:03 PM
>> The fact of the matter is that what Kerry said was contradictory.
>
> That's not a fact. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what he
> actually said by the pathologically dishonest.


Accurate.

I'd add "and a belief of the extremely gullible who listen to them."

Jeff Harper
October 3rd 04, 06:08 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Harper" > wrote:
>>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the global economy?
>>> >You think we were getting free swag before, just for being nice? It's
>>> >the same as before, highest bidder gets the contract. Money still
>>> >makes the world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>>
>>> Western Europe (except for England) has long regarded us with Old
>>> World arrogance. The Arab World has always regarded us as infidels,
>>> except before, they regarded us as weak infidels who could be relied
>>> on to back down. Now, they're afraid we wont't.
>>
>>That's a very simplistic, rather primitive view.
>
> Get over yourself, Skippy.
>
>>We had strong allies;
>>they're not so strong now.
>
> Really? I thought more nations were joining NATO. Who resigned? Why
> wasn't it on the news?
>
>>We had some enemies; we have more now, and with
>>stronger anti-US sentiment.
>
> Really? What loyal pals did we have who are now our enemies?


Your replies are so lame, they need no rebuttal. The thinking reader needs
no assistance recognizing them for what they are.

DRS
October 3rd 04, 06:15 PM
"Jeff Harper" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

>> Every time you post the transcript you only dig yourself deeper into
>> your hole. Every time you post the transcript you help Kerry's
>> cause by showing
>> how deceitful you right-wing nutcases are.
>
> Exactly.
>
> I've been puzzled about why he keeps posting it. He's acting like it
> proves his case, when in fact it hurts it. At least, if others
> actually read it.
>
> Is he deliberately deceitful or stupid?

He's genuinely nuts.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John Hanson
October 3rd 04, 06:22 PM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:08:33 -0400, "Jeff Harper" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jeff Harper" > wrote:
>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the global economy?
>>>> >You think we were getting free swag before, just for being nice? It's
>>>> >the same as before, highest bidder gets the contract. Money still
>>>> >makes the world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>>>
>>>> Western Europe (except for England) has long regarded us with Old
>>>> World arrogance. The Arab World has always regarded us as infidels,
>>>> except before, they regarded us as weak infidels who could be relied
>>>> on to back down. Now, they're afraid we wont't.
>>>
>>>That's a very simplistic, rather primitive view.
>>
>> Get over yourself, Skippy.
>>
>>>We had strong allies;
>>>they're not so strong now.
>>
>> Really? I thought more nations were joining NATO. Who resigned? Why
>> wasn't it on the news?
>>
>>>We had some enemies; we have more now, and with
>>>stronger anti-US sentiment.
>>
>> Really? What loyal pals did we have who are now our enemies?
>
>
>Your replies are so lame, they need no rebuttal. The thinking reader needs
>no assistance recognizing them for what they are.
>
Why don't you rebut? The thinking reader sees that it is actually you
and the leftists like you that give lame replies.

John M. Williams
October 3rd 04, 07:25 PM
"Jeff Harper" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Jeff Harper" > wrote:
>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the global economy?
>>>> >You think we were getting free swag before, just for being nice? It's
>>>> >the same as before, highest bidder gets the contract. Money still
>>>> >makes the world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>>>
>>>> Western Europe (except for England) has long regarded us with Old
>>>> World arrogance. The Arab World has always regarded us as infidels,
>>>> except before, they regarded us as weak infidels who could be relied
>>>> on to back down. Now, they're afraid we wont't.
>>>
>>>That's a very simplistic, rather primitive view.
>>
>> Get over yourself, Skippy.
>>
>>>We had strong allies;
>>>they're not so strong now.
>>
>> Really? I thought more nations were joining NATO. Who resigned? Why
>> wasn't it on the news?
>>
>>>We had some enemies; we have more now, and with
>>>stronger anti-US sentiment.
>>
>> Really? What loyal pals did we have who are now our enemies?
>
>Your replies are so lame, they need no rebuttal. The thinking reader needs
>no assistance recognizing them for what they are.

An alternative view: you can't name any. Merely gainsaying everything
your opponent says proves nothing. Your personal views are nothing
more than that: personal views.

Wishing doesn't make it so, Mr. Harper.

Joe Laughlin
October 4th 04, 07:15 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
>
> And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the
> global economy? You think we were getting free swag
> before, just for being nice? It's the same as before,
> highest bidder gets the contract. Money still makes the
> world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>

Why would the highest bidder get the contract?

Proton Soup
October 4th 04, 07:44 PM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:15:19 GMT, "Joe Laughlin"
> wrote:

>Proton Soup wrote:
>>
>> And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the
>> global economy? You think we were getting free swag
>> before, just for being nice? It's the same as before,
>> highest bidder gets the contract. Money still makes the
>> world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>
>
>Why would the highest bidder get the contract?

Brain fart. Guess I was thinking from the other way rounds or
something. Scusa.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Jeff Harper
October 4th 04, 09:16 PM
>> > Sure you hate America. You're dripping with hate in nearly every
>> > post. Hell, you hate more than America. I think you even have a lot
>> > of self hatred.
>>
>> Typical ultra-right wing nutcase bull****. I say day, you say I said
>> night.
>> I didn't do anything of the sort. When I refuse to let you get away with
>> telling lies I'm not expressing hatred of America, I'm simply refusing to
>> let you get away with telling lies.
>
>
> Indeed. It's astonishing how closely some Americans identify their
> country and their people (including themselves) with their government.
> Sure, your government, as elected by the people, represents the
> people: but that doesn't mean criticism of the government is criticism
> of the people, or the country. It remains criticism of the government.
> I hate the American administration and I hate Bush; but I don't hate
> America and I don't hate Americans in general.

I love America. I love the people. I love the noble ideals upon which it
was founded and continues to adhere to, mostly.

It's for precisely those reasons I exercise my democratic duty as a citizen
voice my concern over the Bush adminitration's handling of this war and
other things.

And unlike many of the pro-Bush posters, I don't hate half the country--the
half that wants to elect a different candidate. (I do think they are
unaware of some of how harmful that would be to America, and so I endeavor
to educate them.)

It's the intolerant mindless haters who are un-American.

(I think there are more of them in the Bush camp because they identify with
his overly aggressive, black & white views. His "axis of evil," his "you're
either with us or your against us," the glee he showed when discussing Texas
executions, etc.)

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Joe Laughlin
October 4th 04, 11:17 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:15:19 GMT, "Joe Laughlin"
> > wrote:
>
>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>> And what deals do you think we've lost out on in the
>>> global economy? You think we were getting free swag
>>> before, just for being nice? It's the same as before,
>>> highest bidder gets the contract. Money still makes the
>>> world go 'round. Nothing has changed.
>>>
>>
>> Why would the highest bidder get the contract?
>
> Brain fart. Guess I was thinking from the other way
> rounds or something. Scusa.
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Thought it was a sly reference to Haliburton or something. :-)

Seth Breidbart
October 8th 04, 01:36 AM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

>The debate showed us that Kerry likes to talk out of both sides of his
>mouth. He wants to show that he won't let the UN decide American
>security and he won't defend America without UN support.

Only he didn't say the second of those.

At most, he implied it's _better_ to have more support. Do you
disagree?

But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.

So what happens if he believes he can prove it but the French crooks
refuse to accept the proof? Nothing.

Seth
--
They're French: they fight with their feet and **** with their faces.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 8th 04, 02:34 AM
On 2004-10-08, John Hanson > wrote:

>>But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
>>something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
>>advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
>>it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
>>it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.
>
> But intelligence can and often times is wrong so what he said is pure
> bull****.

I disagree with the conclusion. IMO the correct conclusion is that intelligence
should be treated with appropriate scepticism.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John Hanson
October 8th 04, 02:42 AM
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 01:34:26 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On 2004-10-08, John Hanson > wrote:
>
>>>But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
>>>something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
>>>advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
>>>it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
>>>it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.
>>
>> But intelligence can and often times is wrong so what he said is pure
>> bull****.
>
>I disagree with the conclusion. IMO the correct conclusion is that intelligence
>should be treated with appropriate scepticism.
>
You have got to admit that damn near everyone in the world thought
saddam was making WMD.

Adam Fahy
October 8th 04, 05:51 AM
Seth Breidbart wrote:

> But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
> something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
> advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
> it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
> it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.

Why can't you just admit that Kerry said something stupid when speaking
extemporaneously? People trying to defend this alleged Kerry Doctrine
are just sad. :(


-Adam

MJL
October 8th 04, 06:22 AM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:51:43 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>> But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
>> something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
>> advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
>> it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
>> it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.
>
>Why can't you just admit that Kerry said something stupid when speaking
>extemporaneously? People trying to defend this alleged Kerry Doctrine
>are just sad. :(
>
>
>-Adam

You should know better...

In politics it is common to parse words out of a larger context. Hell
it is even common to parse words out of the same sentence. About all
they can't get away with, yet, is rearranging the words.

People with solid reading comprehension have to stay on top of the
issue on both sides.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Seth Breidbart
October 12th 04, 02:40 AM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:
>On 7 Oct 2004 20:36:19 -0400, (Seth Breidbart) wrote
>in misc.fitness.weights:

>>But the _actual test_ he proposed is *being able to prove* that
>>something was done for valid reasons. Not _actually proving it in
>>advance_ nor _getting other countries to acknowledge in advance that
>>it was proven_ nor even _getting them to acknowledge afterwards that
>>it was proven_ but *being able to prove it*.
>
>But intelligence can and often times is wrong so what he said is pure
>bull****.

Gee, a politician spouted bull****.

It would be worth commenting on if one _didn't_.

Seth
--
Note to self: a powerlifting meet is not a recommended taper
for a track event. --Ted K.