on Bush and his crashes

writes:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:20:08 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

writes:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:52:23 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Posting the URL would have helped....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm

Dear Tim,

Don't worry--I'm pretty sure it was just the stress of the
election, not presenile dementia.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my other post, I think the "explanation"
of presenile dementia is hokum. I am a psychologist, I specialize
in geriatrics and therefore dementia. I don't see indications of
dementia in his public performances. However, the difference in his
presentation between 1993 and 2004 are quite striking. I would tend
to put that down to stress (is there a more stressful job on the
planet?) and the difference between being a challenger and an
incumbent.

Dear Tim,

Er, I was talking about your forgetting to post the link.

My forgetting to do what?

But I don't see indications of dementia in your public performance.

You're too kind.

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

JP

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

JP

Java Man wrote:

FWIW, I don't think Presidents should be chosen on the basis of their
ability to handle hecklers. But a few video clips of a candidate
looking bad in the face of heckling could make the difference in a
close election.


Fair enough

GWB's handlers have it right because he's more vulnerable to hecklers
than Kerry is. W is likely to come off as being either nasty or dumb
when heckled because he's inarticulate and apparently somewhat
belligerent when crossed.

But thats a good reason to doubt his abilities as leader of your country




--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Java Man wrote:

FWIW, I don't think Presidents should be chosen on the basis of their
ability to handle hecklers. But a few video clips of a candidate
looking bad in the face of heckling could make the difference in a
close election.


Fair enough

GWB's handlers have it right because he's more vulnerable to hecklers
than Kerry is. W is likely to come off as being either nasty or dumb
when heckled because he's inarticulate and apparently somewhat
belligerent when crossed.

But thats a good reason to doubt his abilities as leader of your country




--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

Actually, you're absolutely wrong there. Most Americans support the
Patriot act, and don't want the government to be hamstrung by
nonsensical restrictions (such as the ones that existed before the PA
that prohibited law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing
information).

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

I think you're joining Jobst in the paranoia department. There aren't
enough agents in the world to keep up with these kind of discussions -
face it, we're just not important enough to bother with. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

Actually, you're absolutely wrong there. Most Americans support the
Patriot act, and don't want the government to be hamstrung by
nonsensical restrictions (such as the ones that existed before the PA
that prohibited law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing
information).

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

I think you're joining Jobst in the paranoia department. There aren't
enough agents in the world to keep up with these kind of discussions -
face it, we're just not important enough to bother with. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On 12 Oct 2004 13:16:40 -0700, (JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

Could it? There are some people I don't want on the plane.

Ron

On 12 Oct 2004 13:16:40 -0700, (JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

I think your statement that Ashcroft is just waiting to make
discussing politics on a bicycling newsgroup a "terrorist offense" is
so over the top that the "tin foil hat" was somewhat reserved in
comparison.

A little follow-up on your remark:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

Basically, we are putting our civil liberties in the hands of Bush and
Ashcroft when everything we know about them indicates that their views
of civil liberties in this country are at odds with what most
Americans think they should be.

I think the odds are actually pretty good that posting an
anti-administration rant on this ng could help to get you flagged. Go
to an anti-war protest, write a letter or two to the editor; next
thing you know you're on the no-fly list.

Could it really happen? Do you want to leave it up to Ashcroft?

Could it? There are some people I don't want on the plane.

Ron

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:17:42 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article , Ronsonic
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:32:24 -0500, Todd Kuzma wrote:

Ronsonic wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:18:19 -0500, Todd Kuzma wrote:

C'mon, Bush-supporters. Let's hear your justification for
using the Secret Service to arrest people who dare to voice
an opinion contrary to the President's.

You'll get arrested for trespassing at a Kerry event as well.

Don't try to claim that the right to free speech is the right to crash a
party
or the right to disrupt someone else's event.


This isn't "tresspassing" or "disrupting an event."

Going where you ain't welcome is trespassing.

The president is supposed to represent everybody--even his opponents.

Yep. But on the job, not at home and not at a campaign event.

Ron