I was misled

Mark Hickey writes:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that
supports their contention that he tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which everything in
a statement can be true yet it conveys a false concept to the
observer. Why do you think there is so much contention over the
apparent link between 911 and Iraq. The two were so often juxtaposed
that the linkage was established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the record
that is being done on this.

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money and power
was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the white house believed what
needed to be done was to secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis
from our country.

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were going to
fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal family??! Like it
or not, they're about the closest thing we have to allies in the
region, and it would have been a huge mistake to forcibly detain
them - heck, the ACLU woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-)

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to allies"? Is it
because, as others have stated, we have no allies, only paid up
shills.

Jobst Brandt

Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike Vandeman stolen
your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do the quoted
lies at that site irk your sensitivities as they do mine? I see you
have the interest and time to read this thread.

Jobst Brandt

Mark Hickey writes:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that
supports their contention that he tried to make it.

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which everything in
a statement can be true yet it conveys a false concept to the
observer. Why do you think there is so much contention over the
apparent link between 911 and Iraq. The two were so often juxtaposed
that the linkage was established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the record
that is being done on this.

P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi money and power
was behind 9/11, yet the occupant of the white house believed what
needed to be done was to secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis
from our country.

I guess we should have announced to the world that we were going to
fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi royal family??! Like it
or not, they're about the closest thing we have to allies in the
region, and it would have been a huge mistake to forcibly detain
them - heck, the ACLU woulda gone nuts over that option! ;-)

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to allies"? Is it
because, as others have stated, we have no allies, only paid up
shills.

Jobst Brandt

Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:55:31 -0700,
, through brown lipstick,
Mark Hickey regurgitated:

Oh and you might wanna check up on that "jobless
recovery" claim... there have been 1.4 million jobs since August


http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indi...ushjobloss.htm
--
zk

wrote:

Mark Hickey writes:


Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that
supports their contention that he tried to make it.


I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which everything in
a statement can be true yet it conveys a false concept to the
observer. Why do you think there is so much contention over the
apparent link between 911 and Iraq. The two were so often juxtaposed
that the linkage was established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of the record
that is being done on this.

There's a good article on this subject he

http://alternet.org/election04/19025/

Bret

Mark Hickey wrote:
Steve-o wrote:

Or since he wasn't actually elected, "those who erect him."

Is that a Japanese pronunciation joke, or one about Monica? Oops,
wrong president... sorry. ;-)

I saw ol' Bill being interviewed (who hasn't?!?), and he was asked about
Monica.

At the end of his comments, he said he was pulling for her.

Still getting things backwards, I see.

Bill "ba da bing" S.

wrote:
Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike Vandeman stolen
your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do the quoted
lies at that site irk your sensitivities as they do mine?

You're right, Jobst! That sight DOES quote a lot of lies.

Bill "anyone see Lisa Myers' piece on 'F 9/11' facts?!?" S.

Let's try to make this at least remotely relevant to rec.bicycles.

Do you think it should be easier or more difficult for injured bikers to sue
bike manufacturers and dealers? This involves questions like joint and
several liability, admissibility of "junk science" opinions, standards for
punitive damages and the like. There are clear party differences on these
issues. Republicans favor "tort reform" that will make these lawsuits more
difficult. The trial lawyers, who are one of the
Democrats main constituent interest groups want to make these lawsuits
bigger and easier, and the party dares not oppose them.

The noise about Iraq is inspired mainly by those who want to promote the
Democrats" agenda on other issues. It is not much concerned with the hugely
complicated question of how to handle our encounter with Islam, a matter on
which differences between Bush and Kerry are hard to identify.

Example: today as on most Saturday's, I biked to an abortion clinic to
pray. The pro-abortion escorts there had buttons saying "Just level with
us, George", an obvious reference to the Iraq contretemps. But I know those
folks and that their interest is in abortion, not Islam. The issues you
cite are just a political game, where they think they can make some mileage
to enhance their real agenda.

Admittedly, the GOP is also playing this game, on a field of its choice.
Thus the constant ads - at least here in Wis., maybe not in CA, which is not
viewed as a closely contested state - emphasizing Kerry's "flip-flops" on
the issues. But the underlying concern isn't with the substance of those
issues, but to discredit Kerry.



One other point: if you weren't practically the "patron" of rec.bicycles,
for your unparalleled on-point contributions (and controversies) over the
years, your present efforts would not have gotten the attention that they
have. A first time poster with the same message wold have been dismissed as
a troll - end of subject.



wrote in message
...
Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

What manner of off-point rubbish is this? Has Mike Vandeman stolen
your identity?

Is it that you have trouble reading the subject line or do the quoted
lies at that site irk your sensitivities as they do mine? I see you
have the interest and time to read this thread.

Jobst Brandt

Mark Hickey wrote:
Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White House between
9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common knowledge". Funny thing though,
no one's been able to dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports
their contention that he tried to make it.

Er, how about here?

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play...ines/8154.html

Tiny url:

http://tinyurl.com/2xqo3

--
R.

Richard Brockie "Categorical statements
The tall blond one. always cause trouble."

"Skip" writes:

The topic is not "misled". "I was misled" is the thread. The topic
is "rec.bicycles.misc" (or "rec.bicycles.tech" which is
cross-posted).

Well, to be persnickety, the topic is indeed "I was misled" which is
being discussed within two newsgroups within the rec.bicycles.*
hierarchy. A newsgroup is not a topic. Now, my newsreader lists a
"Subject:" line rather than a "Topic:" line, but the two are useable
synonymously.

Please move to "rec.politics" or whatever forum exists for political
discussion.

No one is forcing you or anyone else to read this thread. If you have
a half-competent newsreader, you can kill by thread and never see it
again. End of problem.