The Case for a New Mechanic
milt
The Case for a New Mechanic
by Milt Shook
Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
terror and all.
Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious, to put
it kindly, so I don’t buy this as a rationale. Oh, sure, some right
wingers will TELL a pollster this, hoping to plant the seed in some
swing voter minds, but I find it hard to believe that this is a
significant reason for some people to vote for Bush.
But just in case I’m wrong (it does happen), let me address this issue
in a way that even Dubya will understand.
If you believe that, somehow, leaving Bush in office for another four
years is a good safety measure, well, that’s just plain silly, and I'm
about to explain why.
Let me tell you a story. Several years ago, I took my pickup to a small
shop to have the brakes worked on. It took two hours for them to put the
truck on the rack in the first place, and when they had it up there, the
mechanic looked completely baffled, and I could tell he had no idea what
he was doing. EIGHT HOURS LATER, they finally finished a simple brake
job. I paid them for the job, and started to drive off, when my brakes
locked up, and the truck simply would not move.
Now, think about this a minute; how stupid would I have to be to take my
truck back to the same place for my next brake job? If they were the
only mechanics in town, I would drive 100 miles to find another one,
because there was no way I could trust them again. Six years later, I
still shudder every time I drive by their former headquarters. (That’s
right; they went out of business months later, because they should have.)
Now, if I’m not willing to trust my truck (or my relatively new car) to
the same mechanics who screwed it up the first time, how can we as a
country hire the Bushies for another four years? Imagine Iraq is the
truck, and getting Saddam out of power was the break job. See my point?
How badly do they have to foul things up?
After the terrorists attacked us three years ago, the entire world was
behind us. Many of them had been experiencing terrorism for years on
their own soil, and they would never wish it on anyone else, so when the
World Trade Center fell and the Pentagon was smashed, most sent their
condolences, and promised to help us fight those responsible.
The initial foray into Afghanistan was effective, to be sure. I’d say,
for the first 4-6 weeks, we had the bad guys on the run. But then,
something happened. Perhaps it was ADD; who knows. But we were making
progress against the terrorists, and we knocked down the Taliban in the
process. It was all good. Even I was cheering George W. Bush, on that
score at least.
But it didn’t last long. We had al Qaeda surrounded, and immediately,
the Bushies started talking about Saddam Hussein, threatening to pummel
him for being a threat, and began pulling troops from Afghanistan and
other countries, to mass them along the border of Iraq.
Folks, let’s make something clear; Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with
the terrorist attacks on the United States. Saddam Hussein had no
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but he was
also in hiding, and 2/3 of his country were off limits to him. The Kurds
in the northern section of the country were actually doing quite well,
and had built a thriving economy over the 12 years that Saddam had no
power over them.
They were not a threat to us. None. Nada. Zilch. Iraq had not attacked
us, nor were they threatening us. In fact, at the time Bush decided to
attack, UN Weapons Inspectors were getting unfettered access to pretty
much anywhere they wanted to go.
More importantly, we did have a threat hanging over our heads, by the
name of al Qaeda. They had already successfully attacked us, and were
promising to attack again. And yet, we pulled troops out of that war to
go attack Iraq. Moreover, the Bushies couldn’t put together a decent
coalition with enough troops to get the job done in Iraq, nor did they
have the equipment they needed to be effective.
So, what are we left with?
Right now, we have a war on terrorism, which the Bushies say will take
forever. And they’re right, at the rate they’re ignoring it.
We have a guerilla war in Iraq, precisely because the Bushies ignored
all of the experts and went in with too few troops and the wrong
equipment. And the situation promises to get worse, too. We don’t have
enough troops in Iraq to be able to secure the country enough to end
this thing, so we need to put more troops over there to secure the
country. This thing won’t be fixed with planes and bombs; we have to be
able to secure the country and train an army. There are only two ways to
get more troops over there. One way would be through a draft. The other
way would be to make a plea to other nations, probably through the UN,
to supplement our troops and bring order. The problem is, Bush and his
crew are congenitally incapable of admitting mistakes and apologizing
for anything, which makes that exercise highly unlikely. They also seem
to have absolutely no compassion for the families of the men and women
who are over there, and seem inured to the thousands of casualties that
have occurred on their watch.
And make no mistake; the Bushies’ actions in Iraq and elsewhere have
made us more likely to be attacked by terrorists, not less. The torture
at Abu Ghraib is simply the most obvious example. There are so many
others that fly just under the radar, because the American press is not
inclined to discuss them.
Think about the fact that Bush stopped going after al Qaeda to go after
Saddam. How do you think that looks to people who might be radical
Muslims? It looks like they won! It looks as if going after al Qaeda was
hard work, so Bush opted for the easy target (remember how he told us
how easy it was?), instead of continuing after the people who actually
attacked us.
Think about how weak we look, with troops in two different countries,
and neither one of them going well. Hell; the whole purpose of Shock and
Awe (Shuck and Jive?) was to show them how powerful we could be. How
powerful do you think we look, having bombed the hell out of them for a
few weeks, and then getting bogged down in a guerilla war and suffering
more than 7000 casualties?
Think about what the terrorists are thinking, with the current
administration pretty much assuring everyone that Iraq could go on for
years and years? And think about the fact that al Qaeda has set up camp
in Iraq, and now has three places in which they can kill Americans with
impunity. Is that making anyone safer, really?
Think about how well terrorist recruiters are doing, now that the United
States has turned into yet another empire, in a part of the world that
has been devastated by empires in the past. Yeah, you and I know that we
don’t plan to colonize the Middle East, but they don’t know that. And
who can blame them? We went into Iraq with guns blazing, set up a puppet
government, then “let” them appoint another puppet government, then left
them with a series of dicta on how to choose the next government. We
outlawed the largest political party in the country. We also took over
their oil company, and replaced the Iraqis in charge with Americans, and
handed out billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to American
companies, without so much as offering a bone to the locals. Now, we run
their government, they’re depending on us to retrain their military and
police, and we’ve appropriated their economy and pushed them out of it.
If this sounds familiar, then you’ve studied the history of European
world conquest.
Think of all of this; the current administration has decided to take us
down the same road that spelled the end of the British, French and
Portuguese empires before them. The irony is, our days of empire were
supposedly over a long time ago. Did we have to choose the Middle East
to start back up again? And do we really want to go down that road, in
any case? And if not, how do we turn back, away from that road, with a
guy in office who won’t even admit that’s what it looks like? How can we
continue with a group in office that won’t even admit minor mistakes,
out of an irrational fear of “looking weak,” thus making us seem,
ironically, far weaker?
The current administration has made the situation far worse, not better,
and no amount of window dressing on their part can make things otherwise.
As for changing regimes in mid-war, there is plenty of precedent for
that, so don’t be afraid of it. Imagine how long we would have stayed in
Vietnam had we left Johnson in for another four years. When Roosevelt
died, we didn’t lose World War II to the Nazis and the Japanese. Truman
left office before the end of our major involvement in the Korean War,
and in 1980, people didn’t hesitate to replace Jimmy Carter, despite the
fact that Iran was holding hostages.
When the nation was being created, it was decided that four years was
plenty of time for a president to serve before being up for reelection.
That way, when a president wasn’t acting in the public’s best interest,
or was really screwing up, the public wasn’t stuck with him any longer
than necessary.
Don’t be fooled by the propaganda coming out of the West Wing – any of
it. And make no mistake – it’s all coming from the Bushies. Don’t
believe the garbage about John Kerry being soft on terrorism; his 20
years in the Senate say otherwise. Don’t believe that terrorists are
more likely to attack if John Kerry is elected; they want to attack us
anyway, and they are in no way intimidated by whomever is sitting in the
Oval Office. Don’t be fooled by the assertion that Bush has stopped the
terrorists in their tracks because we haven’t been attacked in three
years. We have been; what do you think all of the beheadings, car
bombings and kidnappings are about? They’re terrorist attacks! But even
if you mean there haven’t been any domestic terrorist attacks, I would
like to remind you that more than eight years passed between the 1993
attack on the World Trade Center and 9/11, and the hijackers themselves
trained for years before they finally committed their atrocity. These
are patient, methodical people, and there are only three things that
will stop them:
The obvious is to go after them and stopping them with lethal force
before they can kill more innocents. Of course, this administration took
its eyes off the ball, and actually created another playground for
terrorists, by destabilizing Iraq.
The second thing that must be done is to do our best to make it
impossible for the terrorists to recruit, by taking away their rationale
for wanting to attack us. I’m writing another column on this issue, but
for now, think about this; 30 years ago, people had the ability to blow
us up if they wanted, but they didn’t. In other words, the only thing
that has changed over the years is that now, they want to kill us. What
is the current administration doing right now to make them less likely
to want to kill us?
And the third thing we must do is to go back to being the free country
we once were. The terrorists are emboldened by the fact that you have to
go through two levels of heavy security just to visit the Statue of
Liberty. They are watching that level of security, and while we feel
nice and neat and secure, they are thinking of ways around it, and they
are reveling in the knowledge that they have forced us to change so many
things.
Think back to the response after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah
Building, which was the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attack. The reaction
was to put up barriers around government buildings. That was a rational
response. The response to the 9/11 hijackings has not only been
increased airport security, but a complete abrogation of our civil
liberties. How many Bush supporters would have been quiet, had Clinton
responded to the Oklahoma City bombing by ordering more wiretaps and
throwing potential McVeighs in jail for good without benefit of counsel?
The terrorists have to be loving our reaction to their sole major
triumph on our soil, and they have to be loving the fact that they don’t
even have to come all the way over here to pick off Americans. They have
tens of thousands of American sitting ducks, both military and civilian,
in Iraq; how cool is that, right?
The reality is, the war on terrorism is going badly, and the war in Iraq
is going even worse. We have to change course, and the current
administration is incapable of change; if you have learned nothing else
over the last four years, you’ve learned that. Not only is regime change
at home not a scary option, it’s an absolute necessity. We owe it to our
troops, we owe it to our kids, and mostly, we owe it to ourselves.
Things won’t change unless we change them, and we can’t afford four more
years of this level of ineptitude.
Put another way, do we really want to leave our foreign policy with the
same mechanics who screwed it up the first time, or does it make sense
to take it to someone else, to see if they can fix it?
You know the answer...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Poor Milt....
Why must you repeat lies Milt?
"Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.
When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had about 9,500 troops in
Afghanistan. By the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq
in May, we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan." --Tommy
Franks
JSL
zepp
And how many did we have three months later, when it was clear that
"Mission Accomplished" wasn't going to be the highlight of Putsch's
presidency after all?
>
>JSL
>
-
"It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine,
that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old
child," -- Andrew Card, ranking member of the West Wing
"I don't think any other company, while much larger threats than Iraq,
are/were as great of a potential threat as Iraq."
-- David W. Poole, explaining why America attacked Iraq
This confirms that all our right wing folks who made all kinds of
individualistic and anti-government grunts and honks during the 90s really
just want a government that is a cross between Jehovah and daddy.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Jeffrey Scott Linder
We're all dying to know Zepp....my guess is you have no clue.
JSL
Steven Canyon
<milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>from http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>
>The Case for a New Mechanic
>
>by Milt Shook
>
>Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
>public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
>November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
>according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
>about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
>bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
>terror and all.
>
>Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious,
and we know how well Shook is at second guessing the polls....
And I am sought after. Every two years, I work for the same politicians,
and I get called by many others. Problem is, as a single parent, I can't
do the hours. I can't be on call 24/7, so I work on my terms, and
usually for little or no pay. Face it; races for the state house can't
pay much.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bJmdnYzDa-jHXPTcRVn-gQ%40comcast.com
milt
what I mean, where you pick some things to believe and disregard others...
Check these out before you make absolutist assertions next time...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact
In the early summer of 2002, a military consultant, reflecting the views
of several American Special Forces commanders in the field, provided the
Pentagon with a briefing warning that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were
adapting quickly to American tactics. "His decision loop has tightened,
ours has widened," the briefing said, referring to the Taliban. "He can
see us, but increasingly we no longer see him." Only a very few
high-level generals listened, and the briefing, like Rothstein's report,
changed nothing. By then, some of the most highly skilled Americans were
being diverted from Afghanistan. Richard Clarke noted in his memoir,
"The U.S. Special Forces who were trained to speak Arabic, the language
of al Qaeda, had been pulled out of Afghanistan and sent to Iraq." Some
C.I.A. paramilitary teams were also transferred to Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm
In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in
the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their
replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect,
translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the
White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the
Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4889005-112564,00.html
The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped
for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order
to pre-position it for Iraq cannot be denied.
Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military:
they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for
half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and
believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.
Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down
Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of
them recalls.
"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish
trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no
Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."
Along with the redeployment of human assets came a reallocation of
sophisticated hardware. The US air force has only two specially-equipped
RC135 U spy planes. They had successfully vectored in on al-Qaida
leadership radio transmissions and cellphone calls, but they would no
longer circle over the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4627.htm
U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because
intelligence matters are classified, said that as much as half of the
intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were
diverted to support the war in Iraq.
Wow, Jeffrey.
I'd ask if you ever tired of being so gullible, but obviously not.
milt
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:20:44 -0400, milt
> <milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>
>>from http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>
>>The Case for a New Mechanic
>>
>>by Milt Shook
>>
>>Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
>>public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
>>November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
>>according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
>>about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
>>bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
>>terror and all.
>>
>>Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious,
>
>
> and we know how well Shook is at second guessing the polls....
>
Second guessing the polls? I'd have to be stupid NOT to second guess
them. Please cite me one poll in the last 24 years that has been dead
on, coming between 10 days and two weeks of the election, and not moving
up and down in the meantime.
> And I am sought after. Every two years, I work for the same politicians,
> and I get called by many others. Problem is, as a single parent, I can't
> do the hours. I can't be on call 24/7, so I work on my terms, and
> usually for little or no pay. Face it; races for the state house can't
> pay much.
>
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bJmdnYzDa-jHXPTcRVn-gQ%40comcast.com
That just pisses you off, don't it?
I'm sorry no one seeks you. Perhaps if you weren't such a selfish prick.
Steven Canyon
<milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>Steven Canyon wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:20:44 -0400, milt
>> <milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>>
>>>from http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>>
>>>The Case for a New Mechanic
>>>
>>>by Milt Shook
>>>
>>>Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
>>>public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
>>>November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
>>>according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
>>>about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
>>>bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
>>>terror and all.
>>>
>>>Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious,
Says Milt Shook, the guy that claimed he checked for open ports on my
computer by pinging me....
"I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as
well."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
>> and we know how well Shook is at second guessing the polls....
>>
>
>Second guessing the polls? I'd have to be stupid NOT to second guess
>them.
<LOL> Right.... I've some news for you, Milt. You *are* stupid.
>Please cite me one poll in the last 24 years that has been dead
>on, coming between 10 days and two weeks of the election, and not moving
>up and down in the meantime.
It's not a question of them being right on all the time, it's a matter
of you being dead wrong all the time. See below:
"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough to
win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they won't
vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to the right
wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook
"And I have never been wrong in predicting an
election in my lifetime."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
>> And I am sought after. Every two years, I work for the same politicians,
>> and I get called by many others. Problem is, as a single parent, I can't
>> do the hours. I can't be on call 24/7, so I work on my terms, and
>> usually for little or no pay. Face it; races for the state house can't
>> pay much.
>>
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bJmdnYzDa-jHXPTcRVn-gQ%40comcast.com
>
>That just pisses you off, don't it?
err, no, it makes me laugh......
...if you think anyone believes that after seeing your dismall record
of predictions, you're even dummer than I imagined.
Milt is so full of bullshit that it runs out of his ears if he bends
over. Like the following claim for instance...
"Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your
bookstore this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas
doesn't work out."
--Milt Shook 1998/08/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
So where's the book, Milt?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Just shows points out the truism of definition of a liberal:
They see it if they believe it.
Why listen to the man in charge when you have "anonymous" sources, eh
Milt?
JSL
milt
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:17:52 -0400, milt
> <milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Canyon wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:20:44 -0400, milt
>>><milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>from http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Case for a New Mechanic
>>>>
>>>>by Milt Shook
>>>>
>>>>Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
>>>>public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
>>>>November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
>>>>according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
>>>>about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
>>>>bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
>>>>terror and all.
>>>>
>>>>Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious,
>
>
> Says Milt Shook, the guy that claimed he checked for open ports on my
> computer by pinging me....
Whassa matter, Hankey? You cranky because you still have ten days before
your government check arrives?
>
> "I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as
> well."
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
>
>
>
>>>and we know how well Shook is at second guessing the polls....
>>>
>>
>>Second guessing the polls? I'd have to be stupid NOT to second guess
>>them.
>
>
> <LOL> Right.... I've some news for you, Milt. You *are* stupid.
>
>
>
>>Please cite me one poll in the last 24 years that has been dead
>>on, coming between 10 days and two weeks of the election, and not moving
>>up and down in the meantime.
>
>
> It's not a question of them being right on all the time, it's a matter
> of you being dead wrong all the time. See below:
I'm usually correct. I've only been thrown by two elections, and only on
a national basis. 1998 and 2002 shocked me, because liberals stayed away
from the polls in droves...
>
>
>
> "But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
> --Milt Shook 1999/09/15
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
They did. No one would have predicted the Supreme Embarrassment would
order votes NOT be counted...
>
>
> "Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
> face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough to
> win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they won't
> vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to the right
> wing, he loses the Dems."
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
I was right there, too. He won by snowing people, and making them
believe he was a moderate. He also had help from Nader, who was telling
everyone that Bush and Gore were the same.
>
>
> "I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
> --Milt Shook
>
> "And I have never been wrong in predicting an
> election in my lifetime."
> --Milt Shook
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
And I was wrong on the electoral college soon after that. But not by
much. Gore actually won 292 electoral votes, until the Supremes got
involved. Your point?
>
>
>>>And I am sought after. Every two years, I work for the same politicians,
>>>and I get called by many others. Problem is, as a single parent, I can't
>>>do the hours. I can't be on call 24/7, so I work on my terms, and
>>>usually for little or no pay. Face it; races for the state house can't
>>>pay much.
>>>
>>>--Milt Shook
>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bJmdnYzDa-jHXPTcRVn-gQ%40comcast.com
>>
>>That just pisses you off, don't it?
>
>
> err, no, it makes me laugh......
Yeah, sure it does. It pisses you off because politicians come to me to
work for them, and all you do is waste your time on Usenet, and spending
your welfare check.
>
> ...if you think anyone believes that after seeing your dismall record
> of predictions, you're even dummer than I imagined.
Dismal? I predict your next government check will come on November 1...
>
> Milt is so full of bullshit that it runs out of his ears if he bends
> over. Like the following claim for instance...
>
> "Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your
> bookstore this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas
> doesn't work out."
> --Milt Shook 1998/08/25
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
>
>
> So where's the book, Milt?
I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak. It's one of
the reasons I don't have time to play here anymore. I work all day, and
I come home and work. Of course, when everything falls into place, I'll
play.
And my second one is being proofread, too.
Where's your book, Hankey? Or are you having such a hard time making it
on your government check that you can't afford ink ribbons for your printer?
milt
Do you have evidence that the sources are wrong?
Didn't think so...
Steven Canyon
<milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>Steven Canyon wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:17:52 -0400, milt
>> <milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven Canyon wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:20:44 -0400, milt
>>>><milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>from http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Case for a New Mechanic
>>>>>
>>>>>by Milt Shook
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, so I’m reading another one of the seemingly endless stream of
>>>>>public opinion polls that purport to tell us how the public will vote on
>>>>>November 2, and I see something that startles me. Apparently, at least
>>>>>according to one pollster, the American people feel a little bit better
>>>>>about the prospect of John Kerry running the country, but they are a
>>>>>bit reticent about changing presidents right now, what with this war on
>>>>>terror and all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, first of all, I find most polls this year to be specious,
>>
>>
>> Says Milt Shook, the guy that claimed he checked for open ports on my
>> computer by pinging me....
>
>Whassa matter, Hankey? You cranky because you still have ten days before
>your government check arrives?
Do you really want to call attention to this obvious lie of yours,
Milt. Do you think people out there don't know that you cannot check
ports by pinging? Not everyone is a moron like you, Milt.
>> "I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as
>> well."
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>>and we know how well Shook is at second guessing the polls....
>>>>
>>>
>>>Second guessing the polls? I'd have to be stupid NOT to second guess
>>>them.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Right.... I've some news for you, Milt. You *are* stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Please cite me one poll in the last 24 years that has been dead
>>>on, coming between 10 days and two weeks of the election, and not moving
>>>up and down in the meantime.
>>
>>
>> It's not a question of them being right on all the time, it's a matter
>> of you being dead wrong all the time. See below:
>
>I'm usually correct. I've only been thrown by two elections, and only on
>a national basis. 1998 and 2002 shocked me, because liberals stayed away
>from the polls in droves...
Bullshit, Milt... <LOL>
>> "But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
>> --Milt Shook 1999/09/15
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>
>They did. No one would have predicted the Supreme Embarrassment would
>order votes NOT be counted...
<ROTFLMAO>
>> "Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
>> face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough to
>> win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they won't
>> vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to the right
>> wing, he loses the Dems."
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>
>I was right there, too.
Yeah, Milt, you were sure right... <LOL> ...in your fantasy world,
perhaps.
>He won by snowing people, and making them
>believe he was a moderate. He also had help from Nader, who was telling
>everyone that Bush and Gore were the same.
Face it, Milt you were absolutely wrong.... once again...
>>
>> "I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
>> --Milt Shook
320...??? <LOL>
>> "And I have never been wrong in predicting an
>> election in my lifetime."
>> --Milt Shook
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
>
>And I was wrong on the electoral college soon after that. But not by
>much. Gore actually won 292 electoral votes, until the Supremes got
>involved. Your point?
<LOL> You're always wrong, milt.. Gore never got 292 votes.
>>>>And I am sought after. Every two years, I work for the same politicians,
>>>>and I get called by many others. Problem is, as a single parent, I can't
>>>>do the hours. I can't be on call 24/7, so I work on my terms, and
>>>>usually for little or no pay. Face it; races for the state house can't
>>>>pay much.
>>>>
>>>>--Milt Shook
>>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bJmdnYzDa-jHXPTcRVn-gQ%40comcast.com
>>>
>>>That just pisses you off, don't it?
>>
>>
>> err, no, it makes me laugh......
>
>Yeah, sure it does. It pisses you off because politicians come to me to
>work for them, and all you do is waste your time on Usenet, and spending
>your welfare check.
Bullshit, Milt, no politicians come to you.....
...except maybe to laugh at you...
You're a legend in your own mind....
Your claims about being a business consultant is bullshit too, Milt.
You were a pathetic little book-keeper....
...and you said you quit working in retail to go back to school.
...and you momma took pity on you and took you back in....
>> ...if you think anyone believes that after seeing your dismall record
>> of predictions, you're even dummer than I imagined.
>
>Dismal? I predict your next government check will come on November 1...
<ROTFLMAO>
>> Milt is so full of bullshit that it runs out of his ears if he bends
>> over. Like the following claim for instance...
>>
>> "Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your
>> bookstore this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas
>> doesn't work out."
>> --Milt Shook 1998/08/25
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
>>
>>
>> So where's the book, Milt?
>
>I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak. It's one of
>the reasons I don't have time to play here anymore. I work all day, and
>I come home and work. Of course, when everything falls into place, I'll
>play.
<LOL> You've been rewriting it ever since 1998, Milt. You said it
would be in the bookstores Christmas of 1998, Milt???????
You're full of shit, Milt...
You live in a fantasy world....
>And my second one is being proofread, too.
Proofread, eh? <LOL>
You won't mind if I don't hold my breath?
>Where's your book, Hankey?
My book, Hankey?
>Or are you having such a hard time making it
>on your government check that you can't afford ink ribbons for your printer?
So this "government check" thing of yours is supposed to pay me back
for showing everyone what a liar and a moron you are?
--
Any doubt that Milt Shook is a moron is erased by the following.
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The states
get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're given."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=385570ab.9710819%40news.earthlink.net
"States CAN'T amend the Constitution.
They can call for a convention, and they can ratify what the
convention produces. They cannot amend the Constitution."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
"The [law] doesn't "allow" any behavior, you fucking idiot."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
If you're not breaking the law, a cop
technically cannot arrest you. Is that because the law "allows" the
behavior, or is it because the law doesn't "allow" him to arrest you.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0408091751.520dc5da%40posting.google.com
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
milt
Why are you so ashamed of your dependence on government giveaways? Did
you really think the bullshit stories about cruises and trips around the
world and shit wouldn;t give it away?
It's okay that you depend on welfare. It really is.
Steven Canyon
<milt...@lyingsocialistweasels.com> wrote:
<LOL> Why are you unable to comprehend that I'm not bothered by your
silly fantasies about me?
>Did
>you really think the bullshit stories about cruises and trips around the
>world and shit wouldn;t give it away?
>
>It's okay that you depend on welfare. It really is.
<shrug> Why does Milt snip his own words and post his fantasies about
me?
My guess is that he's rather ashamed of his own words...
<LOL> ......so tell us again about how many different people
"sport" the same IP as you, Milt?
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
--
"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net
"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net
"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net
"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net
[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8
"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt
Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?
milt
Fantasies? sure, Hankey. You just keep on telling people that...
>
> My guess is that he's rather ashamed of his own words...
No. I'm just suspecting people are tired of reading them over and over...
>
> <LOL> ......so tell us again about how many different people
> "sport" the same IP as you, Milt?
Four confirmed. Why?
zepp
Linder) wrote:
It was about 8,000, since we sent "The Afghanistan Army" -- all of
whom were American -- as part of the "Coalion of the Willing" to Iraq.
Incidently, it's been over three years since WTC. Aren't you vaguely
curious as to why Osama hasn't been captured?
It's been nearly a year since Saddam WAS captured, and yet there has
been no trial. Why do you suppose that is?
Peter Vos
_q6dnV0fPOO...@comcast.com:
> Now, if I'm not willing to trust my truck (or my relatively new car) to
> the same mechanics who screwed it up the first time, how can we as a
> country hire the Bushies for another four years? Imagine Iraq is the
> truck, and getting Saddam out of power was the break job. See my point?
>
> How badly do they have to foul things up?
The analogy is fine if you are being rational. Unfortunately, as the Bush
campaign demonstrates, the Republicans have no rational arguments to defend
their record. They lure their flock with the siren song of "Be afraid..."
Given a choice of talking up their record...or defaming Kerry...
they defame Kerry.
Given a choice of running on their record...or misrepresenting it...
they misrepresent it.
Given a choice of offering a vision of hope ...or scaring folks....
they scare folks.
And people follow them... some like Robert Acosta realize something is
missing from this picture:
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?
actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=mediaCampaign&lnav=2
But the folks who haven't woken up continue their sleepwalking,
never mind the facts are available to contradict their nonsense....
never mind anyone who can vote just lived through the last four years....
never mind the guys are making things worse every day...
Folks who blindly follow the "Pied Piper Who Dances With Wolves" remind me
of battered wives, enabling their drunken spouses until they wind up on the
evening news... under a sheet with red splotches on it.
It's not his fault... I deserved it.
It's not his fault... he is really a good person.
It's not his fault... people just don't understand him.
It's not his fault... people are just jealous.
It's not his fault... he didn't know the gun was loaded.
It's not his fault... money isn't important to him.
It's not his fault... sometimes he just has to blow off steam.
It's not his fault... he was set up.
It's not his fault... his partners cheated him.
It's not his fault... the kids disappointed him.
It's not his fault... he had a hard childhood.
It's not his fault... he's just set in his ways.
It's not his fault... he's just unlucky.
It's not his fault... he was dealt a tough hand.
It's not his fault... Clinton did worse.
It's not his fault... it's hard work.
It's not his fault... you can't believe what you hear on TV.
It's not his fault... God works in mysterious ways.
===
Listening to uncritical Bush supporters reminds me of an old joke:
"What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?"
"Nothing.... she obviously doesn't listen."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You will understand if I don't take you at your word won't you Zepp?
You do have a history of being very inaccurate. Please, feel free to
give a citation.
>Incidently, it's been over three years since WTC. Aren't you vaguely
>curious as to why Osama hasn't been captured?
No.
>It's been nearly a year since Saddam WAS captured, and yet there has
>been no trial. Why do you suppose that is?
The wheels of justice grind quite slowly Zepp.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
zepp
Linder) wrote:
They have this marvelous little think called "Google", Jeffy. Learn
to use it.
>
>
>>Incidently, it's been over three years since WTC. Aren't you vaguely
>>curious as to why Osama hasn't been captured?
>
>No.
'Course not.
>
>>It's been nearly a year since Saddam WAS captured, and yet there has
>>been no trial. Why do you suppose that is?
>
>The wheels of justice grind quite slowly Zepp.
In a country where the president is free to walk into a police station
and arbitrarily shoot the prisoners?
Now, why do you suppose that is, Jeffy?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
I see...you can't. No suprise there.
>>
>>
>>>Incidently, it's been over three years since WTC. Aren't you vaguely
>>>curious as to why Osama hasn't been captured?
>>
>>No.
>
>'Course not.
I'm sure YOU know why he hasn't been captured yet.
>>
>>>It's been nearly a year since Saddam WAS captured, and yet there has
>>>been no trial. Why do you suppose that is?
>>
>>The wheels of justice grind quite slowly Zepp.
>
>In a country where the president is free to walk into a police station
>and arbitrarily shoot the prisoners?
>
>Now, why do you suppose that is, Jeffy?
Because they want to get it right?
And please...stop trying to change the subject....again.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Pardon me Milt...I didn't mean to insult you.
zepp
Linder) wrote:
I see. You WON'T. No surprise there...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Incidently, it's been over three years since WTC. Aren't you vaguely
>>>>curious as to why Osama hasn't been captured?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>'Course not.
>
>I'm sure YOU know why he hasn't been captured yet.
>
>>>
>>>>It's been nearly a year since Saddam WAS captured, and yet there has
>>>>been no trial. Why do you suppose that is?
>>>
>>>The wheels of justice grind quite slowly Zepp.
>>
>>In a country where the president is free to walk into a police station
>>and arbitrarily shoot the prisoners?
>>
>>Now, why do you suppose that is, Jeffy?
>
>Because they want to get it right?
>
>And please...stop trying to change the subject....again.
>
>
>JSL
-
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You're right Zepp, I won't. I stand behind the the stuff I've already
cited...General Tommy Franks. You claim he is wrong and that the data
is out there waiting to be discovered yet you're too damn lazy to find
it.
A move right of the Weasel Handbook.
Pussy.
JSL