How Many Homes Does John Kerry Own?

[sirs]

Boy, it must be nice to be so omnipotent, and know precisely what everyone else's underlying motivations and tactical abilities are       

[Michael Tee]

<<Boy, it must be nice to be so omnipotent, and know precisely what everyone else's underlying motivations and tactical abilities are >>

Omniscient.  The word you want is omniscient.  Sure it's nice.  But YOU'LL never know.

[sirs]

Nope, Omnipotent was the word, being all God-like in knowing everything in everyone.  What a power that must be

[Plane]

<<Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.>>

"Nasty" isn't the point, audacity is.  Before Swift-Boating, nobody in either party would have dared to attack the military record of a decorated combat veteran and claim his medals were undeserved.  That had never happened before.  It was doubly audacious, since the attacks were committed on behalf of yellow-bellies who never had the guts to serve and pulled off every subterfuge in the book to avoid service.  They went for the jugular, got him where he lived.

Same thing with this Obama BJ and coke video.  Obama's clearly a family guy, which is one of his major advantages against McCain, who desperately needs the religious right, but happens to be a  lying, philandering, double-crossing weasel of the first order.  Betrayed wife and marriage vows.  How to get around THAT?  Head-on attack on the very virtue that is Obama's strong point, that Michelle showcased at the convention, knowing it was their strongest suit.  That audacity (not the "nastiness") is the Republican trademark.

audacity?

The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?

The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.

Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.

It is tiresome to me that almost anything can be beleived if it agrees with preconceived notions , therre really are plenty of sceptics in the public , I don't think the accusations against BHO will be widely beleived untill there is more to them than just what a coupple of guys say.

Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?

Doesn't matter apparently , the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history, and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.

[Michael Tee]

LOL, OK, sirs, you win.  Omnipotent means all-knowing.  Omniscient means, well, something else.  I forgot who I was talking to.  Hello means goodbye.   Hello sirs, have a good night.  ER, um, I mean a bad day.

[sirs]

According to the dictionary vs according to sirs.  Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality.  I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.

[Plane]

According to the dictionary vs according to sirs.  Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality.  I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.

A distinction not a diffrence.


Ommnipotent means being able to do anything, omnicent means able to know everything, omnipresent means being able to be everywhere.


Seems as if this is a set, being able to do everything would include being able to find out anythhing , or be anywhere.

[Michael Tee]

<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>

Obviously because it was one big fucking lie.  They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved.  Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't.  And his crew backed him up.  They were audacious lies.

<<The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.>>

No it's not audacious at all.  He's a military man who risked his life in the service of his country, very much unlike Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz and Perle and basically the whole Bush administration.   Nothing audacious in making that distinction, although IMHO a trifle tacky.  Certainly not audacious.  Not even close.

<<Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.>>

That wasn't the point, OF COURSE they are bullshit.  The entire point of this discussion up to now was, WHOSE bullshit?

<<Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?>>

Neither.  She was telling the truth.

<< . . . the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history>>

There's absolutely nothing in her history that would make her out to be a liar in this matter.

<< . . .  and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.>>

But that's always the case.  When it's A's word against B, and there is no other evidence available, the only thing you CAN base your opinion on is which witness is the more credible.  It's not a question of "needing" more proof - - there IS no more proof.  You might equally say that the people who are inclined to believe Thomas need no more proof.  The partisans of each side believe only in the witness, you could say of each side that it "needs no proof."  Your comment that the partisans of Anita Hill "need no proof" (implying that they are less rational than the partisans of Clarence Thomas) indicates only your own bias and irrationality.

[sirs]

According to the dictionary vs according to sirs.  Apparently you're still using the one from your alternate reality.  I'm using the one on this globe, that references omnipotent as almighty or infinite in power, as God.

A distinction not a diffrence.  Ommnipotent means being able to do anything, omnicent means able to know everything, omnipresent means being able to be everywhere.  Seems as if this is a set, being able to do everything would include being able to find out anythhing , or be anywhere.

Well again, Plane, the notion was being God-like, which Tee appears to demonstrate consistently in order to rationalize his raging racist hypocrisy.  But I do appreciate your effort

[Plane]

<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>

Obviously because it was one big fucking lie.  They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved.  Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't.  And his crew backed him up.  They were audacious lies.

<<The Audacious one was Kerry who saluted and said "reporting for duty" as he accepted the nomination , as if his service record were his strong suit that is audacity.>>

No it's not audacious at all.  He's a military man who risked his life in the service of his country, very much unlike Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz and Perle and basically the whole Bush administration.   Nothing audacious in making that distinction, although IMHO a trifle tacky.  Certainly not audacious.  Not even close.

<<Now as to accusations against BHO , none of them should be taken as true without evidence , real evidence.>>

That wasn't the point, OF COURSE they are bullshit.  The entire point of this discussion up to now was, WHOSE bullshit?

<<Remember the Anita accusations against Thomas? Was that her own audacity or was she part of a plot?>>

Neither.  She was telling the truth.

<< . . . the people who were sceptical feel vindicated by examineing her history>>

There's absolutely nothing in her history that would make her out to be a liar in this matter.

<< . . .  and the people inclined to beleive her need no proof.>>

But that's always the case.  When it's A's word against B, and there is no other evidence available, the only thing you CAN base your opinion on is which witness is the more credible.  It's not a question of "needing" more proof - - there IS no more proof.  You might equally say that the people who are inclined to believe Thomas need no more proof.  The partisans of each side believe only in the witness, you could say of each side that it "needs no proof."  Your comment that the partisans of Anita Hill "need no proof" (implying that they are less rational than the partisans of Clarence Thomas) indicates only your own bias and irrationality.

Scepticism is healthy , but not so much when it is too selective.

Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.


The irony of these same Senators ,that introduced us to Anita Hill ,defending Bill Clinton a few years later is strong.


I am sceptical of these weird accusations of BHO for much the same reason , it is out of caricter for him as far as I know. If he actually has such bad habits the accusations will be corroberated , perhaps with a better quality of evidence. Very bad habits are seldom seen in a single occurance.

[Plane]

<<The notion sprang from the people who actually knew John Kerry in Viet Nam , why would they need audacity to speak their mind?>>

Obviously because it was one big fucking lie.  They are saying the Navy four times awarded medals to the guy that on each of four separate occasions were undeserved.  Also, "knowing" Kerry does not equate to being on his boat when the medals were won - - they weren't.  And his crew backed him up.  They were audacious lies.

  I wonder about the fourth one .

  Do we know that much about his three wounds?

[Michael Tee]

<<Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.>>

You clearly do not understand the mechanics of the case.  Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time.   The original "harrassment" was mentioned in a private conversation only, but word of it got out and Thomas' political opponents decided for political reasons to make an issue of it.  Although Anita Hill did not want to go forward with her evidence, she was subpoena'd and forced to testify.  She told the truth.  As the attacks on her character multiplied, she took it personally, which was not her original take on it.

Anita Hill may or may not have been mildly annoyed by Thomas' conduct but clearly did not regard it as any big deal at the time, which explains why she stuck with him when he changed offices and also explains why no harrassment complaints were lodged.  However the issue at the Congressional hearings was not how Hill felt about it all, but whether or not Thomas had committed the acts that Hill said he had.

[Plane]

<<Anita Hill's credibility evaporated when it was discovered that when she had followed Thomas as his subordinate when he changed offices and she could have lost his harrassment by just doing nothing. That he would have harrassed her and only her in all of his life and that she would stick to him when she didn't have to in spite of his harrassment seemed unreasonable to beleive.>>

You clearly do not understand the mechanics of the case.  Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time.   The original "harrassment" was mentioned in a private conversation only, but word of it got out and Thomas' political opponents decided for political reasons to make an issue of it.  Although Anita Hill did not want to go forward with her evidence, she was subpoena'd and forced to testify.  She told the truth.  As the attacks on her character multiplied, she took it personally, which was not her original take on it.

Anita Hill may or may not have been mildly annoyed by Thomas' conduct but clearly did not regard it as any big deal at the time, which explains why she stuck with him when he changed offices and also explains why no harrassment complaints were lodged.  However the issue at the Congressional hearings was not how Hill felt about it all, but whether or not Thomas had committed the acts that Hill said he had.

  So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?

   Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? >>

No, of course I don't.  What ever gave you that idea?

<<Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?>>

Sorry, plane, you are just not making any sense.

   <<Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?>>

plane, I can't even begin to guess where you're coming from on that one.

I could be wrong, but I think that your comments above might be based on a misguided effort on your part to apply my analysis of the Clarence Thomas hearings to my analysis of the video in which some low-life is claiming to have sucked off Obama in a limo.  I just saw this quote in a New Yorker article: "A thing is what it is, and not some other thing."  Meaning that a lot of mistakes get made when people try to read one situation in terms of another:  "Not taking out Saddam is like Chamberlain allowing Hitler to walk all over him at Munich."

False analogies in other words.  I don't want to painstakingly analyze my thoughts on Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas and then compare them with my thoughts on the Obama limo BJ video because it's just too much damned work for very little result, but in nutshell, your reasoning was very faulty.  Your conclusions were way off.  I don't know exactly what you missed, but believe me, you must have missed plenty.

[Plane]

<<So you do beleive the accusations against BHO , the ones that have a singe person stateing them? >>

No, of course I don't.  What ever gave you that idea?

  That you were a pushover for Anita Hill

<<Perhaps if it is no big deal to the accuser?>>

Sorry, plane, you are just not making any sense.

I didn't think this made sense either when you said it.
"Anita Hill was not a complainant against Thomas and did not want to go public with it at any time. "

As you say it is weak on the sense .

   <<Doesn't your self respect require that your scepticism be unbiased?>>

plane, I can't even begin to guess where you're coming from on that one.

Do you have a self image of being fair mined? If you do not what do you substitute for fairness in terms of self respect?

I could be wrong, but I think that your comments above might be based on a misguided effort on your part to apply my analysis of the Clarence Thomas hearings to my analysis of the video in which some low-life is claiming to have sucked off Obama in a limo.  I just saw this quote in a New Yorker article: "A thing is what it is, and not some other thing."  Meaning that a lot of mistakes get made when people try to read one situation in terms of another:  "Not taking out Saddam is like Chamberlain allowing Hitler to walk all over him at Munich."

False analogies in other words.  I don't want to painstakingly analyze my thoughts on Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas and then compare them with my thoughts on the Obama limo BJ video because it's just too much damned work for very little result, but in nutshell, your reasoning was very faulty.  Your conclusions were way off.  I don't know exactly what you missed, but believe me, you must have missed plenty.

I guess you see a clear diffrence that I don't.

As far as I can tell BHO is being handed a rediculous accusation that I would only beleive on the strength of my own prejudice if I wanted to.

Clairence Thomas was given an Accusation of political utility that your prejudices help you beleive.

I know it is hard to deal with ones own prejudices , but it is worth attempting.

A close examination of the two things is not needed , they are simular in kind  , not in detail.

They are simular in use , perhaps not in truth , perhaps truth is beside the point , but there isn't the apperance of honesty in either of these accusers.

Nor does the accuser need to appear honest , or truth be present if the acceptance of the accusation fits a favoriate prejudice well.