Registered Republican Voters . . .
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Nomen Nescio - 23 Oct 2004 04:30 GMT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Knowing that the Democrats self-imploded when they nominated ultra-liberal Anti-War Anti-American activist Hanoi John Kerry for president, knowing that those in charge of protecting our National Security would *NEVER* allow such a dangerous anti- military extremist to seize control over the most powerful military on Earth, and which is presently the most prosperous and generous nation on Earth, knowing that Kerry shall NEVER become president of the United States, then we have another problem with liberal Democrats that we'll have to deal with...
It'll be easy and very tempting to gloat over the Bush-Cheney reelection once the smoke clears from all the lawsuits being filed against the election process. On January 20th 2005, we can expect George W. Bush to again be sworn in as President of the United States of America. That's a given. But if you're like me, you'll want to go out of your way to rub it in against the failed left-wing liberal Democrats, and this is probably not such a good idea. Why? Because when you stoop down to the level of rabid dogs, i.e. the leftist Anti-American Democrats who'll be absolutely livid in the wake of Hanoi John Kerry's defeat, they'll be rioting in the streets. You know they will.
So, I recommend extending an olive branch out to the moderate ergo reasonable Democrats and invite them back to the table for civilized socio-political dialogue. We don't want to ruin the Democrat Party completely, but we do want to salvage what little is left of it after this November election is decided, and President George W. Bush & Vice-President Dick Cheney are pronounced the clear and unassailable winners of the election. If not, then they will be reappointed to office just like the broken 2000 election had forced the Supreme Court to decide.
But of course, if Al-Qaeda hits us by election day, then Bush is guaranteed to stay in office no matter what happens (unless Al-Qaeda hits us with nukes, in which case the President could also be in danger). As you see, the Republicans shall continue to rule and dominate if 1) Bush wins the election, or 2) Bush is reappointed by the Supreme Court in lieu of irreconcilable election results, or 3) God forbid, Bush is seriously injured or killed in an Al-Qaeda attack whence Dick Cheney will become President, or 4) Kerry wins the election thus National Security forces prevent him from seizing power because of his treasonous Anti-American activities when he returned from just four months of combat duty in Vietnam--again, keeping President Bush 43 in the Oval Office for four more years. The Democrats LOSE either way. The Republicans win either way, and that's bound to make the already embittered Democrats go off the deep end with rage. If you think Al Gore and his supporters were angry before, you just watch and see what happens once they know that GW Bush is pronounced the winner. The Democrats will be insane with anger!
So, that's why I think we should encourage moderate Democrats to avoid being dragged down into the quagmire of the activist Democrat-Anarchist's self-destructive insanity. Those who are patriotic Americans need to recognize why Hanoi John Kerry is to dangerous to America's National Security, and that's why he was NEVER presidential material. American Presidents are first and foremost patriotic Americans! NO unpatriotic back-stabber the likes of Hanoi John Kerry will EVER sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. It hasn't happened, and it will NEVER happen as long as patriotic Americans are in charge of our government.
Rather than fuel the fire of the predictably violent Democrats who fervently hate our President and hate the Republican Party, let's not be pulled down to their filthy animalistic level. We must remain calm and allow law-enforcement to take care of the Democrat-Anarchists by whatever means are necessary. If we're asked to assist law-enforcement in keeping the peace, then we are obligated to follow their instructions to the letter, and not do anything illegal. The raving Democrats will be the law- breakers, and they'll pay the price for their insubordination.
Just be glad that we have such a patriotic and *God-fearing* President in the White House. And be glad that the Republicans will continue to dominate Capitol Hill, and even moreso after the November election. The Democrats are going to be infuriate!
That's THEY'RE problem! Let 'em go down in flames on their own. They don't need any help from us. They'll simply self-destruct.
VOTE Republican! Daniel Joseph Min
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW (updated October 3, 2004): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
ed4linda - 23 Oct 2004 21:34 GMT >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > [snip stuff about Republicans & military, etc.]
Notice any Pattern below Mr. Unknown name?
Re: Military experience of the movers and shakers
Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans -- and these are the guys sending our young men and women to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Roy Blunt: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." (The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.) * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Richard Shelby: did not serve. * Jon! Kyl: did not serve. * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. * Christopher Cox: did not serve. * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor. * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies. * B-1 Bob Dornan: Conscientiously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. * Phil Gramm: did not serve. * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve. * John M. McHugh: did not serve. * JC Watts: did not serve. * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years. * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. * John Engler: did not serve. * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer. * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers * Sean Hannity: did not serve. * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.') * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. * Michael Savage: did not serve. * George Will: did not serve. * Chris Matthews: did not serve. * Paul Gigot: did not serve. * Bill Bennett: did not serve. * Pat Buchanan: did not serve. * John Wayne: did not serve. * Bill Kristol: did not serve. * Kenneth Starr: did not serve. * Antonin Scalia: did not serve. * Clarence Thomas: did not serve. * Ralph Reed: did not serve. * Michael Medved: did not serve. * Charlie Daniels: did not serve. * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
(Please keep this information circulating) Sen. Howard W. Carroll <mailto:senhwc@Hotmail.com senhwc@Hotmail.com
Doc Rock (veteran 3 years Army, 31 years govt intell)
Morituri-Max - 23 Oct 2004 21:49 GMT > Notice any Pattern below Mr. Unknown name?
> * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but > received #311. Yeah I noticed one.. your democratic roots are showing... are they blonde? Noticed you didn't say that Bill Clinton actually *dodged* the draft.. instead you call it something cute like "deferment." So this makes the rest of your post suspect. Bias is such a terrible thing.. if Bush had really wanted to dodge the military he could have easily used all that power you say people wielded on his behalf and avoided any service of *any* kind..
Also, when is the last time you piloted the kind of jets Bush flew in.. let me know when you do how safe it is to fly them. I noticed with all this emphasis you place on Kerrys combat record and how much he risked his life you don't mention that he did so for as short a time as possible.. 3 1/2 to 4 months of combat (driving up and down the river in a big well armed boat occasionally shooting kids in the back and burning down villages full of dangerous unarmed vietnamese civilians) is not nearly as risky as the time Bush spent in a cockpit of a combat jet... in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of aircraft put their lives more at risk than Kerry who liked gathering up purple hearts for minor wounds..
And as gung ho as kerry likes to claim he was, including all the trouble he went to to get sent into combat on the swift boats, he sure did get clear as fast as he could.. I guess he really didn't care that much about his crewmembers since they got to stay in combat while he took the optional out with his 3 hearts.. so long guys, screw you, I'm out to a nice cushy desk job..
..speaking of which, what military experience do you have? and as for mine, I have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War.
Tom McDonald - 23 Oct 2004 23:56 GMT >> Notice any Pattern below Mr. Unknown name? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > draft.. instead you call it something cute like "deferment." So this > makes the rest of your post suspect. But you, for whatever reason, don't expend any energy to test the statements. For the people on the list of whom I know something, the information is correct. You wish to call Bill Clinton's not serving due to deferments "dodg[ing]"; so you must also think Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft were draft dodgers. Or are your blond Publican roots showing?
Or so you reserve this innuendo only for liberals?
> Bias is such a terrible thing.. Couldn't agree more.
> if Bush had really wanted to dodge the military he could have easily > used all that power you say people wielded on his behalf and avoided any > service of *any* kind.. If he wanted to serve with honor, he would have joined the regular Air Force, or would have actually done the service he agreed to do. You do recall that Guard units were seldom used in Viet Nam, and service in the Guard was seen by my (and Bush's) generation as just a little less obvious a way of staying out of combat than going to Canada?
> Also, when is the last time you piloted the kind of jets Bush flew in.. > let me know when you do how safe it is to fly them. They are much safer to fly when no one is shooting at you, and when you fail to go to the physical that would clear you for more flying. Or do you think he was zooming around the skies of Alabama, protecting us from...Mississippi?
I noticed with all
> this emphasis you place on Kerrys combat record and how much he risked > his life you don't mention that he did so for as short a time as > possible.. 3 1/2 to 4 months of combat 3 1/2 to 4 months more than Bush and company spent on the sharp end.
(driving up and down the river in
> a big well armed boat Made out of aluminum so thin that a .22 could punch through it (and how many .22s were the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese using on the rivers?).
occasionally shooting kids in the back and burning
> down villages full of dangerous unarmed vietnamese civilians) And being shot at by anyone with a rifle on the jungle shore.
is not
> nearly as risky as the time Bush spent in a cockpit of a combat jet... Is that why Bush spent as little time as possible in said cockpit?
> in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of aircraft > put their lives more at risk than Kerry As did their passengers, back-seaters, etc. And pretty much everyone who served in Viet Nam rode an aircraft of some kind while in-country, or coming and going. And in training. Did Kerry swim to the Nam? Or did he also share in that dangerous flying stuff?
And, of course, flying is much safer when you make damn sure no one will ever shoot at you. As they did Kerry.
who liked gathering up purple
> hearts for minor wounds.. Purple Hearts are Purple Hearts. Lots of folks got them for dings and cuts. If you don't like the criteria by which they are awarded, complain to the brass. I'm sure you could get Rumsfeld (who was a brave flight instructor during peace time) to change the rules retroactively. But that'll affect lots of others who served heroically, so maybe that wouldn't help you in the long run.
> And as gung ho as kerry likes to claim he was, including all the trouble > he went to to get sent into combat on the swift boats, he sure did get > clear as fast as he could.. Legitimately. He didn't go AWOL, or just fade into the woodwork, or blow off training.
I guess he really didn't care that much
> about his crewmembers since they got to stay in combat while he took the > optional out with his 3 hearts.. Yet they seem to think well of him to this day. Were you there to ask them how they felt?
so long guys, screw you, I'm out to a
> nice cushy desk job.. To which he showed up.
> ..speaking of which, what military experience do you have? and as for > mine, I have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War. I honor your service. Doesn't give you special rights to smear the service of another serviceman. Or is your experience only with heroes who only ever do the right thing in _your_ mind? If so, you need to get a reality check.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 06:02 GMT > If he wanted to serve with honor, he would have joined the > regular Air Force, or would have actually done the service he > agreed to do. You do recall that Guard units were seldom used > in Viet Nam, and service in the Guard was seen by my (and > Bush's) generation as just a little less obvious a way of > staying out of combat than going to Canada? That has got to be the most asinine thing I have ever heard.. so according to you, the Border Patrol, State Troopers, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard and National Guard are filled with nothing but draft dodging pussies?
You really should try and show more respect for every branch of our armed forces. Perhaps Kerry, if he is elected should disband any federal or state unit that doesn't serve a tour of duty somewhere in the world where there is combat?
Hell the Boy Scouts are full of potential future draft dodgers then, after all according to you unless they join the ROTC it doesn't count.
Nice, real nice. Make sure you stop by your local retired hangout for national guardsmen and spit in their faces since none of them served "honorably."
Tom McDonald - 24 Oct 2004 11:36 GMT >> If he wanted to serve with honor, he would have joined the >> regular Air Force, or would have actually done the service he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > according to you, the Border Patrol, State Troopers, CIA, FBI, Coast > Guard and National Guard are filled with nothing but draft dodging pussies? Man, you have a hard time with the English language. I said not a word about 'draft dodging pussies'. That is your construction, not what I wrote. Re-read what I wrote. You have carefully explained to me that I need to re-read your posts; you clearly need to do the same with mine.
You also seem to have some trouble with history. I was speaking _only_ of the Guard, and only during the Viet Nam war; not any of the other folks you mention. And I was speaking only of the then-common view that joining the Guard was one way to avoid service in combat. For the most part, that was quite true then (although it is not now).
The Guard was a safety net. If needed, they could be called up for combat service, and they often were called up for disaster relief, crowd control, and other valuable service. Because of the draft, combat in Viet Nam was carried out almost exclusively by units of the regular forces. Do you deny that, for the period of Viet Nam? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, because at the time, pretty much everyone my age knew that was the deal.
As for the Boarder Patrol, State Police, the CIA and the Coast Guard, they put their lives on the line for the public on a regular basis, then and now. And the Coast Guard is continually in action where there is hazard to life and limb. During Viet Nam, Coast Guard units served in the coastal waters of Viet Nam. Much like Kerry in his swift boat.
> You really should try and show more respect for every branch of our > armed forces. I do respect every brand of our armed forces. You misread what I wrote to fit your view of your political opposition. Not unlike the Publicans with their negative campaigning this silly season. (And yes, I know that Democrats have sunk to that level, too. I fully agree with another post of yours in which you suggest learning all one can and voting one's conscience. Perhaps we could agree to agree on that much, at least.)
My entire concern with the Guard issue is that Bush did not serve as he promised he would. Furthermore, he did use the Guard to further his political ambitions; if you say Kerry used his service for political purposes, please have the intellectual honesty to say that Bush did, too.
Honorable service in the Guard during Viet Nam is something I value and respect highly. My father and my uncles were in the Guard before WWII, and were called to active service. That _could_ have happened in Viet Nam. There was no guarantee that service in the Guard would keep one out of combat. It happened that it mostly did then, and people knew that. There is no dishonor in that, but there _is_ dishonor in what Bush did. IMHO.
Perhaps Kerry, if he is elected should disband any
> federal or state unit that doesn't serve a tour of duty somewhere in the > world where there is combat? That's silly, and isn't supported by anything I wrote.
> Hell the Boy Scouts are full of potential future draft dodgers then, > after all according to you unless they join the ROTC it doesn't count. Still sillier. Pay attention.
> Nice, real nice. Make sure you stop by your local retired hangout for > national guardsmen and spit in their faces since none of them served > "honorably." Wow, you gotta pull that stick out of your a.s. It seems to have gotten in the way of your reading and understanding written English.
But I do agree with you about the importance of voting, and of digging into the issues. It's clear that we both have done a fair bit of that; and our differences are what makes our democracy, and makes this election a horse race.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Doug Weller - 24 Oct 2004 13:32 GMT [SNIP]
> You also seem to have some trouble with history. I was > speaking _only_ of the Guard, and only during the Viet Nam war; > not any of the other folks you mention. And I was speaking only > of the then-common view that joining the Guard was one way to > avoid service in combat. For the most part, that was quite true > then (although it is not now). Tom's right. At the time of the Vietnam war, joining the Guard was seen as a very good way to avoid combat in Vietnam. I was in my 20s at the time, everyone knew that. Anyone who doesn't realise why Bush joined the Guard is pretty ignorant. Of course, a lot of people want to pretend it isn't true.
[SNIP]
Doug
David Johnson - 24 Oct 2004 17:02 GMT I'll summerize before I kill this thread:
A vote for George Bush is a vote for the death of the United States...
...and it won't be killed by terrorists...
David
 Signature _______________________________________________________________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!" "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..." "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 03:23 GMT > Purple Hearts are Purple Hearts. Lots of folks got them for > dings and cuts. One persons bad behavior is not justification for other peoples bad behavior.
Name me one veteran other than Kerry in any of the US Armed Services at any time in US history who got 3 purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star in 4 months without anything more major than small shrapnel wounds. He didn't even stay overnight at any medical facility for them. When you find one let us know..
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 04:18 GMT >> Purple Hearts are Purple Hearts. Lots of folks got them for >> dings and cuts. > > One persons bad behavior is not justification for other peoples bad > behavior. You say bad behavior. You have not proven it, nor can you. All you can do at this late date is choose who you believe in the matter. You side with the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies. I side with the Defense Department.
> Name me one veteran other than Kerry in any of the US Armed Services at > any time in US history who got 3 purple hearts, a silver star, and a > bronze star in 4 months without anything more major than small shrapnel > wounds. He didn't even stay overnight at any medical facility for > them. When you find one let us know.. What is your point? I don't have access to those records, and neither do you. I _do_ know that many PH's were awarded for minor wounds, similar to what Kerry got.
Every day he was on patrol, Kerry put himself in the way of being killed by enemy action. Bush didn't. We still don't know whether you ever did or not. When you can tell me you or Bush were shot at by an enemy of our nation, _and_ earned a PH for your pains, let us know. In the mean time, keep urging people to vote, and keep using the freedoms Kerry, you and Bush swore to uphold.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 05:08 GMT >> Name me one veteran other than Kerry in any of the US Armed Services at >> any time in US history who got 3 purple hearts, a silver star, and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > neither do you. I _do_ know that many PH's were awarded for > minor wounds, similar to what Kerry got. Ah, so you can't. I rest my case.
zolota - 25 Oct 2004 09:40 GMT >> Purple Hearts are Purple Hearts. Lots of folks got them for >> dings and cuts. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wounds. He didn't even stay overnight at any medical facility for them. > When you find one let us know.. The invasion of Grenada, based on photos of missile sites in Cuba from decades earlier, was done by 6,000 troops. It lasted three days. There were 116 injured, and between them they were awarded 233 Purple Hearts. At that rate Kerry would have had 1.5 hearts based on his time alone, forgetting the fact that in Grenada the enemy consisted of 100 engineers asked to build an airport but who were caught by US "freedom fighters". Given that Kerry was on the front line, three seems to be way way too low!
Z
Compassionate Christian is an oxy-moron, George Bush is just a moron.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 17:18 GMT > The invasion of Grenada, based on photos of missile sites in Cuba from > decades earlier, was done by 6,000 troops. It lasted three days. There were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > airport but who were caught by US "freedom fighters". Given that Kerry was > on the front line, three seems to be way way too low! Don't count.. they all didn't also get silver and bronze stars, and it would have had to be 348 purple hearts.. heh heh
zolota - 26 Oct 2004 09:27 GMT >> The invasion of Grenada, based on photos of missile sites in Cuba from >> decades earlier, was done by 6,000 troops. It lasted three days. There [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Don't count.. they all didn't also get silver and bronze stars, and it > would have had to be 348 purple hearts.. heh heh I like your "heh, heh", Is it a sign of throat cancer?
Your 6,000 freedom fighters won something like 6,300 medals in all. I quote 233 hearts from official statistics, where do you get your figure of 348 from? If I accept that figure, then Kerry should have had 2 for his time in VN, all else the same.
Reading some of your many posts on the net you seem to think that you are more intelligent than most, yet you support Shrub. That has to be the ultimate oxymoron.
grins
Z
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 10:52 GMT > I like your "heh, heh", Is it a sign of throat cancer? Well lets do a quick internet 101 course since you seem ignorant... heh heh... lol... rofl... roflmao... <g>... are all shortcuts for humour.. 101 over.
> Your 6,000 freedom fighters won something like 6,300 medals in all. I quote > 233 hearts from official statistics, where do you get your figure of 348 > from? If I accept that figure, then Kerry should have had 2 for his time in > VN, all else the same. You quoted: "..decades earlier, was done by 6,000 troops. It lasted three days. There were 116 injured, and between them they were awarded 233 Purple Hearts."
arithmetic 101.. 116 x 3 = 348... since you said there were 116 injured with 233 purple hearts between them, they came up short a few hearts to get 3 each.
so now that you know how to multiply..
> Reading some of your many posts on the net you seem to think that you are > more intelligent than most, yet you support Shrub. That has to be the > ultimate oxymoron. if you think I am more intelligent than most that's fine by me.. I never claimed to be.. and in point of fact since you are stalking all my posts.. I even claimed not to be particularly intelligent in one of them.. thanks for showing how much more intelligent I am than you..
Tom McDonald - 24 Oct 2004 00:20 GMT <snip>
> and as for > mine, I have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War. Oh, and if you were in combat, you were in combat less than 3 1/2 months. Does that make your service worthless? I don't think so. Apparently you aren't sure.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 06:06 GMT >> mine, I have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War. > > Oh, and if you were in combat, you were in combat less than 3 > 1/2 months. Does that make your service worthless? I don't > think so. Apparently you aren't sure. You have a copy of my service record there by your computer? Strangely enough you seem to think my combat service is (coincidentally) the same period of time associated with Kerry? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
I said "included," and no, I didn't say mine was worthless.. whatever makes you think I do?
I can see you're another drone who doesn't let common sense or logic intrude on your world view.. if you ever reread my post and want to discuss it intelligently, then do so.. just don't make up crap that insults my intelligence, average as it may seem to be to you.. be a little more intellectually honest please.
Tom McDonald - 24 Oct 2004 11:05 GMT >>> mine, I have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > enough you seem to think my combat service is (coincidentally) the same > period of time associated with Kerry? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? I was wrong. The only period of possible combat operations you've shared with the group so far in this conversation was the period of Gulf War I. Air combat operations lasted from January 15 to March 2 or 3. That gives you just under _two_ months where you _might_ have been in danger of enemy fire in that operation. I'm assuming you were, but you haven't said. If you served in other combat operations under enemy fire, then do the math for us.
Hey, buddy, you are the one getting all pissy about months of combat service, not me. I said that I honored your service, and I do. But don't tell me and the world that Kerry's service was not honorable unless you can show yourself to be the paragon you seem to want us to think you are.
> I said "included," and no, I didn't say mine was worthless.. whatever > makes you think I do? If Kerry's service was crap in your eyes because he served "only" about 4 months getting shot at, then, fair's fair, _your_ service in Gulf War I, a much shorter time period, must be crap to you, too. Or do you have a different standard for yourself? Sounds like it so far, but I could be wrong.
> I can see you're another drone who doesn't let common sense or logic > intrude on your world view.. if you ever reread my post and want to > discuss it intelligently, then do so.. just don't make up crap that > insults my intelligence, average as it may seem to be to you.. be a > little more intellectually honest please. I read your post very carefully. I replied to it in detail in another post, You snipped everything but my comment about the Guard being an acknowledged way to avoid combat _during the Viet Nam war_. Then you misrepresented the remainder in order to take a shot at me.
Intellectual honesty? Try some yourself first.
Speaking of drones, so far you sound like a Publican drone of the 'Swift Boat Veterans For Lies' type. If you ever want to have a real discussion of these issues with me, come ahead. Just be willing to take some criticism yourself, too.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Nomen Nescio - 24 Oct 2004 06:00 GMT >some Al-Qaeda sympathizer wrote: >> * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >..speaking of which, what military experience do you have? and as for mine, I >have 10 years in the Air Force including the 1st Gulf War. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm grateful to every brave soul who has served in the United States military since the founding of our great nation, irrespective of his or her party affiliation or lack thereof. And though Senator Kerry's brief stint in Vietnam has raised some questions among many of his fellow swift boat vets, it's not so much what he did in Vietnam that concerns Americans, but is what he did AFTER he returned to the U.S.
Once STOLEN HONOR & CELSIUS 41.11 hit the theaters, and Sinclair's one-hour special on the subject is aired on all 62 of their stations before election-day, Kerry's egregious and treasonous betrayal of his fellow soldiers serving in Vietnam, with many being tortured in POW camps in North Vietcong, Kerry's indisputably dishonorable behavior is going to come back to haunt him on election-day, rest assured...
And while the Vietnam conflict was FAR from popular and there were probably _some_ atrocities committed by a minuscule percentage of mentally-unstable cowboys run amuck (probably suffering from PTSD), the vast majority of Vietnam vets served honorably--and many became highly-decorated war heroes worthy of ever medal they were awarded. And notably, unlike Kerry, none of them "threw their medals away".
The number one issue facing voters in this election is terrorism, and the clear and present danger that terrorists will attack the United States again, but this time it will likely be a thousand times more destructive and lethal than their attack on 9/11/2001. So the voting populace must ask themselves, WHO will aggressively take the fight to the enemy Islamic Jihadists on a planetary scale in order to eliminate the terrorist threat at its source? Clearly, the answer is President George W. Bush. Even if we were living in peace time, a simple F.B.I. background check on Hanoi John Kerry would easily preclude him from ever serving as commander-in-chief of the United States military. Because of this, I know that Bush will remain in office long after his re-inauguration January 20th.
Blinded with bitterness over the 2000 "election" and subsequent appointment of GW Bush to the Oval Office, the Democrats simply nominated the WRONG person for president! Maybe in 2008 they'll be more careful before nominating their candidate for president, or at least they'll be damn-sure that their chosen man or woman isn't on record as having so horribly betrayed American soldiers in wartime as John Kerry went _so far out of his way_ to do upon returning from Vietnam. Kerry's just *NOT* presidential material, and I'm entirely confident that those in charge of our National Security already know that John Kerry will NEVER become president, and I find that assurance most comforting. Bush-Cheney will breeze past Kerry-Edwards by whatever means are necessary. That's a given.
But what does deeply concern me are the Democrat-Anarchists, who are likely to be so insanely angry over GW Bush's guaranteed re- election that they are apt to be helping Al-Qaeda sleeper cells who are believed to be already here in the U.S., and armed with WMDs, and planning to attack vulnerable and crowded targets on or before election-day, in hopes of disrupting America's election process like they've recently accomplished in Spain and elsewhere.
I do believe that the more reasonable and patriotic moderates in the Democrat Party will recognize WHY John Kerry can't be allowed to compromise our national security and jeopardize the US military ever again--most especially NOT from the position of commander-in- chief over the most powerful military complex in the modern world!
Moderate Democrats who simply don't like President George W. Bush no matter what should vote for Ralph Nader or some other write-in candidate where available, or just don't vote for any presidential candidate. At least Ralph Nader didn't betray US soldiers in wartime.
VOTE your Conscience, Daniel Joseph Min
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW (updated October 3, 2004): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
OhBrother - 24 Oct 2004 23:52 GMT (...snip...)
> At least Ralph Nader didn't betray US soldiers in wartime. > > VOTE your Conscience, > Daniel Joseph Min Good gravy! Danny.. we agree on something! Holey smokes!
O'
---- worth the visit - http://www.swiftvets.com == despite the Mainstream Media's continued chant, not one of their == statements have been disproven.
Eric Stevens - 24 Oct 2004 11:07 GMT > ... in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of >aircraft put their lives more at risk ... Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to give them to the enemy. :-(
Eric Stevens
robert j. kolker - 24 Oct 2004 11:05 GMT > Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were > as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to > give them to the enemy. :-( Aircraft are dangerous, however they are more dangerous to the enemy than to the people flying them.
Bob Kolker
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 11:32 GMT >> Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were >> as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to >> give them to the enemy. :-( > > Aircraft are dangerous, however they are more dangerous to the enemy > than to the people flying them. True.. remember the shuttle disasters.. both times people took it for granted that it was routine and no longer dangerous.. the downside to professionals doing their job too well..
Richard Henry - 24 Oct 2004 22:34 GMT > >> Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were > >> as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that it was routine and no longer dangerous.. the downside to professionals > doing their job too well.. Which people thought it was no longer dangerous?
1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently.
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 23:47 GMT >> True.. remember the shuttle disasters.. both times people took it for granted >> that it was routine and no longer dangerous.. the downside to professionals >> doing their job too well.. > > Which people thought it was no longer dangerous? The ones who thought spaceflight was routine..
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 23:53 GMT > 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. That figure needs to be... corrected... if 1 in 50 flights consitently end in a crash then in 1994, with 6.8 million flights that year, there would have been 136,000 crashes. Somehow I don't recall that many airplane crashes happening.
Care to revise that rather absolute sounding statistic?
Richard Henry - 25 Oct 2004 02:09 GMT > > 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Care to revise that rather absolute sounding statistic? The topid was Space Shuttle. No revision necessary.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 03:13 GMT >>> 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The topid was Space Shuttle. No revision necessary. Oops... correction noted.. However, we don't have a larger enough pool to say that that 1 in 50 crashes of shuttles is the true one.. what happens when we switch to spaceship one type designs.. that kind of messes up the curve.
Thanks for the correction..
Richard Henry - 25 Oct 2004 03:24 GMT > >>> 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks for the correction.. Opinion follows: it is not likely that we will see enough future Space Shuttle flights to have much effect on the 1/50 failure rate observed to date. One more crash, and NASA will be in Mojave the next day with suitcases of cash.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 04:12 GMT > Opinion follows: it is not likely that we will see enough future Space > Shuttle flights to have much effect on the 1/50 failure rate observed to > date. One more crash, and NASA will be in Mojave the next day with > suitcases of cash. One can hope.. although without the crash..
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 02:13 GMT >> 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Care to revise that rather absolute sounding statistic? Your penchant for unattributed snipping has caused you to misrepresent another issue. Had you left in the post preceding Richard's, you would have understood that the 1 in 50 refers to shuttle flights, not all flights. Here, I'll help you:
----------------------------------
>> True.. remember the shuttle disasters.. both times people >>took it for granted that it was routine and no longer >>dangerous.. the downside to professionals doing their job >> too well..
> Which people thought it was no longer dangerous? > 1 in 50 flights end in a crash. Consistently. ----------------------------------
Now take a look at who wrote the bit about the shuttle disasters. Interesting that you got this wrong.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 03:14 GMT > Your penchant for unattributed snipping has caused you to > misrepresent another issue. Had you left in the post preceding > Richard's, you would have understood that the 1 in 50 refers to > shuttle flights, not all flights. Here, I'll help you: My penchant for snipping as you put it had nothing to do with it.. I read the whole thing.. I just screwed up in how I read it.. not snipping it would have left me just as wrong as snipping.. Sorry i goofed..
Thanks for the correction Richard.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 03:15 GMT > Now take a look at who wrote the bit about the shuttle > disasters. Interesting that you got this wrong. Only interesting to you because you are stuck thinking everyone has ulterior motives for every little post.. I merely read it wrong.
No thanks necessary to you.
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 04:07 GMT >> Now take a look at who wrote the bit about the shuttle >> disasters. Interesting that you got this wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No thanks necessary to you. Wasn't looking for your thanks; I was looking to correct you. You seem to see ulterior motives everywhere, including especially Kerry's service. Take the beam out, buddy.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 04:13 GMT > Wasn't looking for your thanks; I was looking to correct you. > You seem to see ulterior motives everywhere, including > especially Kerry's service. Take the beam out, buddy. I don't see ulterior motives in kerrys service. it's pretty obvious that he got out as soon as he could. Read the facts, make the determination.
Drones of course will not do so.
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 04:22 GMT >> Wasn't looking for your thanks; I was looking to correct you. >> You seem to see ulterior motives everywhere, including [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Drones of course will not do so. You might just want to go easy on the 'drone' business. So far, you really look like one yourself.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 05:09 GMT > You might just want to go easy on the 'drone' business. So > far, you really look like one yourself. I rest my case. You don't have a valid rebuttal for what I said about Kerry so you focus on a single word in my post.
Have a good one voting for whomever you wish.
Eric Stevens - 25 Oct 2004 05:05 GMT >>> Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were >>> as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that it was routine and no longer dangerous.. the downside to professionals >doing their job too well.. Anyone who compares the shuttles to aircraft in this fashion is either ignorant or dishonest.
Eric Stevens
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 05:12 GMT >>> Aircraft are dangerous, however they are more dangerous to the enemy >>> than to the people flying them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyone who compares the shuttles to aircraft in this fashion is either > ignorant or dishonest. How so? You don't think that people become so used to something that they consider it to be easy for anyone to just jump in and perform the job as well as a trained pilot?
Both aircraft and shuttle flights have become so routine that people tend to think there is no danger involved..
So now that I have broken it down again, please tell us how that statement is either ignorant or dishonest?
Richard Henry - 25 Oct 2004 05:54 GMT > >>> Aircraft are dangerous, however they are more dangerous to the enemy > >>> than to the people flying them. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Both aircraft and shuttle flights have become so routine that people tend to > think there is no danger involved.. I must hang out with a different crowd than you. The people I know do NOT think Space Shuttle operations are like routine airline travel.
> So now that I have broken it down again, please tell us how that statement is > either ignorant or dishonest? From my perspective, it is ignorant.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 07:30 GMT >> Both aircraft and shuttle flights have become so routine that people tend to >> think there is no danger involved.. > > I must hang out with a different crowd than you. The people I know do NOT > think Space Shuttle operations are like routine airline travel. <shrug>
>> So now that I have broken it down again, please tell us how that statement is >> either ignorant or dishonest? > > From my perspective, it is ignorant. <shrug>
Hadji - 26 Oct 2004 05:51 GMT > >> Both aircraft and shuttle flights have become so routine that people tend to > >> think there is no danger involved.. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > <shrug> Ahh, so you can't defend your statements. We rest our case.
Hadji
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:40 GMT > Ahh, so you can't defend your statements. Oh I can.. I can defend them all day.. however, why bother.. you have already demonstrated you won't listen, so I <shrug> don't plan on wasting any more time on closed minds.
Morituri-Max - 24 Oct 2004 11:30 GMT >> ... in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of >> aircraft put their lives more at risk ... > > Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were > as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to > give them to the enemy. :-( I am talking about a pilot versus a non-pilot.. I work on apache longbows and that is a whole nother ball of wax as far as rotor versus fixed wing aircraft.. imagine you are an instructor pilot standing on the ramp about 150 feet behind an apache being readied for takeoff by another instructor with a student.. you look up just in time to see it backing toward you just off the ground as the student realizes that collective and cyclic and pedals working together don't do quite what he expects.
Next time you go to an airshow, see if they will give rides to visitors, then after you take off and the pilot puts you through some paces. A jet fighter is not a toy, it will kill you very quickly if you don't know what you are doing..
So yeah, I wouldn't say that learning to fly and then flying jet aircraft 30 years ago was a cushy assignment.
j w - 25 Oct 2004 06:22 GMT FLY YOUR BUTT OUUTA HERE NIMROD - THIS IS AN ASTRONOMY GROUP!
> >> ... in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of > >> aircraft put their lives more at risk ... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So yeah, I wouldn't say that learning to fly and then flying jet aircraft 30 > years ago was a cushy assignment. Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 07:30 GMT > FLY YOUR BUTT OUUTA HERE NIMROD - THIS IS AN > ASTRONOMY GROUP! Actually it's a physics group to me.
wbarwell - 25 Oct 2004 02:33 GMT >> ... in point of fact anyone in the military piloting any kind of >>aircraft put their lives more at risk ... > > Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were > as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to > give them to the enemy. :-( Possibly why Bush grounded himself.
> Eric Stevens
 Signature Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don't give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 04:14 GMT >> Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were >> as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to >> give them to the enemy. :-( > > Possibly why Bush grounded himself. No, he just had other things he wanted to do.
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 04:27 GMT >>> Speaking as a total outsider, it seems to me that if the aircraft were >>> as dangerous as you imply the best thing the US could have done was to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, he just had other things he wanted to do. Just what a Publican drone would be expected to say. The point, pal, is that the other things _he_ wanted to do were secondary to the things he _swore_ to do. He took himself out of action without even a figleaf (as you see it wrt Kerry) of an option allowed by regulations.
Lots of my classmates and some friends had other things to do than go to Viet Nam. They went anyway. Some came back in aluminum coffins. Some came back ripped apart. None came back unchanged. And you want us to excuse George Bush the Lesser from his sworn duty because HE HAD OTHER THINGS HE WANTED TO DO!
You are beyond despicable. Take the beam out of your eye and shove it up your a.s.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 05:14 GMT >>> Possibly why Bush grounded himself. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of action without even a figleaf (as you see it wrt Kerry) of an > option allowed by regulations. He served his time in the service and then did other things.. please tell me how he swore to stay a jet pilot in the guard for his entire life? As far as I remember, when you volunteer for military service, you aren't required to spend your entire life in it. Or do you know something I don't. I got out after 10 years.. did I break an oath of some kind?
Please enlighten us as to this oath we swore to give our entire lives to the service?
Richard Henry - 25 Oct 2004 05:55 GMT > >>> Possibly why Bush grounded himself. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Please enlighten us as to this oath we swore to give our entire lives to the > service? How long did W agree to serve?
How long did W serve?
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 07:31 GMT > How long did W agree to serve? > > How long did W serve? Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was obligated to serve.
Richard Henry - 25 Oct 2004 11:56 GMT > > How long did W agree to serve? > > > > How long did W serve? > > Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was obligated to > serve. I remember hearing about that.
Is it your position, then, that going through the normal administrative and command channels and asking for relief from one's obligation, for reasons that are permitted under existing regulations, is ok?
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 13:29 GMT >>>How long did W agree to serve? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > command channels and asking for relief from one's obligation, for reasons > that are permitted under existing regulations, is ok? No. Please pay attention. MM thinks that only Bush and others like him (drunk/drugged Publicans?) can take that out. Others have to be heroic 24/7/365 for the length of their enlistment or commission in order to qualify. Or fly aircraft.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 17:21 GMT > No. Please pay attention. MM thinks that only Bush and others > like him (drunk/drugged Publicans?) can take that out. Others > have to be heroic 24/7/365 for the length of their enlistment or > commission in order to qualify. Or fly aircraft. Well now.. show me where I wrote that and I'll agree.
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 23:36 GMT >> No. Please pay attention. MM thinks that only Bush and others >> like him (drunk/drugged Publicans?) can take that out. Others >> have to be heroic 24/7/365 for the length of their enlistment or >> commission in order to qualify. Or fly aircraft. > > Well now.. show me where I wrote that and I'll agree. I overstated the case. You have since stated that you think Kerry's service was honorable. I withdraw the above statement.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:41 GMT >>> No. Please pay attention. MM thinks that only Bush and others >>> like him (drunk/drugged Publicans?) can take that out. Others [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I overstated the case. You have since stated that you think > Kerry's service was honorable. I withdraw the above statement. Aye.. short, but honorable... heh heh..
have a good one..
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 17:20 GMT >> Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was obligated to >> serve.
> Is it your position, then, that going through the normal administrative and > command channels and asking for relief from one's obligation, for reasons > that are permitted under existing regulations, is ok? If he got an honorable discharge then it must have been ok, yes? If he hadn't met his obligations then he wouldn't have gotten it, no?
Richard Henry - 26 Oct 2004 06:23 GMT > >> Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was obligated to > >> serve. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If he got an honorable discharge then it must have been ok, yes? If he hadn't > met his obligations then he wouldn't have gotten it, no? You didn't answer the question.
I wasn't talking about just the loophole W found.
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:43 GMT >>>> Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was obligated >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You didn't answer the question. I thought I did.. didn't meet obligations, no honorable discharge. didn't die of dehydration, must have drank fluids, etc.. you know, self evident answers like if the sun comes up then it must be daytime..
> I wasn't talking about just the loophole W found. List loophole please.. article or section number of pertinent rule and how you think he exploited it and I'll check it out..
thanks
zolota - 26 Oct 2004 09:10 GMT >>> Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was >>> obligated to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If he got an honorable discharge then it must have been ok, yes? If he > hadn't met his obligations then he wouldn't have gotten it, no? Not really. Being a rich son of a bitch, he had political power. And that means that officers filling out the paperwork are going to do what they are told, not what they should do.
Besides, getting rid of an a.shole by recomending him has been practiced for centruries, why should the TNG be different?
Z
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 10:56 GMT >> If he got an honorable discharge then it must have been ok, yes? If he >> hadn't met his obligations then he wouldn't have gotten it, no? > > Not really. Being a rich son of a bitch, he had political power. And that > means that officers filling out the paperwork are going to do what they are > told, not what they should do. Learn some history.. at the time he was in the guard, the democrats held the majority of power in the state of texas..
> Besides, getting rid of an a.shole by recomending him has been practiced for > centruries, why should the TNG be different? Well obviously you are a prime example of that quaint little practice.. so I won't hold it against you.. you want to vote for anyone other than kerry, fine.. just don't lie and rationalize your way into feeling good about it at the expense of better men than you.. what have you done lately to help 50 million people free themselves from the torture and rape rooms and mass graves of the worst tyrant in that part of the world?
Hmmm? Let's see your claim to fame...
zolota - 29 Oct 2004 08:03 GMT >>> If he got an honorable discharge then it must have been ok, yes? If he >>> hadn't met his obligations then he wouldn't have gotten it, no? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Learn some history.. at the time he was in the guard, the democrats held > the majority of power in the state of texas.. Which is irrelevant in any system where money or power talks. Shrub gets into the guard, some democrats daughter gets into Yale, or whatever.
>> Besides, getting rid of an a.shole by recomending him has been practiced >> for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > kerry, fine.. just don't lie and rationalize your way into feeling good > about it at the expense of better men than you.. Not being an American, I have no plan to vote for Kerry.
>what have you done lately to help 50 million people free themselves from >the torture and rape rooms and mass graves of the worst tyrant in that part >of the world? Which 50 million people are you refering to? Iraq had a population of about 25 million. Of those it's now estimated that 80,000 have died because of the invasion.
Are you including Afghanistan? There too the population is about 25M, but after the initial bombing of the Taliban the country was left to rot. Women are still raped by the warlords that are allied to the west, and these same warlords were the reason that the Taliban came to power in the first place. That country still produces most of the world's opium and heroin, nothing has changed.
You talk about "the worst tyrant in that part of the world" Yet in Shrub country (North America) a person can be held without trial or charge or even seeing a lawyer. US "liberators" in Iraq routinely send prisoners to countries like Syria for torture, just as US immigration officials sent a Canadian citizen there. There are men being held in Guantanamo with no rights whatsoever because a neurotic bible thumper knows better.
You want to talk about mass graves? How many graves in South America are occupied by the victims of graduates of the "School of the Americas" in Ft. Benning, Georgia? 1k? 10K? 100K? During the US supported coup in Chile 3,000 were murdered. 10,000 were killed by a fascist military government in Argentina that took power after graduating from your school. How many were the famous "flying nuns dropped from the airforce you trained"? US supported paramilitaries in Colombia have killed 30,000.
> Hmmm? Let's see your claim to fame... And yours is blind stupidity I gather.
Z
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 13:26 GMT >> How long did W agree to serve? >> >> How long did W serve? > > Well since he got an honorable discharge, he served what he was > obligated to serve. Interesting. Kerry served as long in combat as he was required to serve, yet you don't give him the pass you give Bush, who cut and ran when it suited him. Kerry's discharge was also honorable; and included fruit salad that Bush could only have dreamt about.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 25 Oct 2004 12:12 GMT >>> How long did W agree to serve? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Interesting. Kerry served as long in combat as he was required >to serve, No, Kerry didn't serve as long as he was required. He took a very early escape clause.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 17:26 GMT >>>> How long did W agree to serve? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, Kerry didn't serve as long as he was required. He took a > very early escape clause. Yep.. careful now jmfbahciv, tom will probably say you just said that kerry was a babykiller.. I don't know how but Tom seems to like to make stuff up and claim other people said it.
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 23:31 GMT >>>>> How long did W agree to serve? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yep.. careful now jmfbahciv, tom will probably say you just said that > kerry was a babykiller.. You are very good at putting words in my mouth. You drone on and on about it.
You aren't so good at reading my mind. Sad, really. I have an interesting mind.
<snip>
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:44 GMT > You are very good at putting words in my mouth. You drone on > and on about it. > > You aren't so good at reading my mind. Sad, really. I have an > interesting mind. I thought you might like to see what what you do feels like when it is done back to you.. not so good huh?
Hey, have a good one man.. get out, vote, get drunk, etc...
seeya
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 23:34 GMT >>>>How long did W agree to serve? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, Kerry didn't serve as long as he was required. He took a > very early escape clause. He got three PH's, and that was, by regulation, a ticket out of combat. He chose to take that. He served as long as he was required to by the regulations in place at the time.
<snip>
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Richard Henry - 26 Oct 2004 06:25 GMT > >>>>How long did W agree to serve? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > combat. He chose to take that. He served as long as he was > required to by the regulations in place at the time. Kind of like applying for an early honorable discharge, no?
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 26 Oct 2004 10:39 GMT >> >>>>How long did W agree to serve? >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Kind of like applying for an early honorable discharge, no? Thank you :-).
What is it about politics that logic applied to one side cannot be applied to the other side?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:50 GMT > He got three PH's, and that was, by regulation, a ticket out of > combat. He chose to take that. He served as long as he was > required to by the regulations in place at the time. Uh huh.. but unlike everyone else, Kerry said he WANTED to be there.. why on earth would he take an early out and leave all his men behind to keep fighting after going to so much trouble to get there and serve?
Remember, the key thing here is that Kerry on the one hand says how much he WANTED to be there, "SEND ME!", and on the other hand he took a rather cheesy early out that was intended for people who got shot to hell and HAD to leave early or be much less efficient at their trade. If utilizing that rule meant that much to Kerry and his men didn't mean enough to keep him on station, then his commitment is kind of wishy washy. <and no, that's not meant as a cheap flip flop shot>
That's what we are trying to say.. nobody made Kerry go, in fact Kerry keeps emphasizing, how, unlike Bush who wanted to avoid it (allegedly), Kerry was determined to get into the action.. then he suddenly can't get out of there fast enough..
It's like people who say jesus suffered on the cross... but jesus didn't suffer nearly as much as the poor bastards all around him who didn't have the luxury of getting up three days later and walking out none the worse for wear. It goes to the definition of sacrifice.. Kerry didn't sacrifice as much as he wants people to think he did.
seeya
Morituri-Max - 25 Oct 2004 17:25 GMT > Interesting. Kerry served as long in combat as he was required > to serve, yet you don't give him the pass you give Bush, who cut > and ran when it suited him. Kerry's discharge was also > honorable; and included fruit salad that Bush could only have > dreamt about. I never said Kerry didn't serve as long as he had to.. I was responding to someone who said Bush didn't.
All I DID say about Kerry was that he seemed to get an inordinate amount of medals for the time he served and that for someone who claims he was gung ho to get over there into combat, it seems funny that he would take the earliest chance to get OUT of combat, leaving all the men behind that he cared about. As gung ho as he wants people to think he is, it seems logical that he would have served longer.. HE was the one who said he was just dying to get where he was..
I never said his discharge wasn't honorable.. show me where I said that instead of making up things I didn't say.. or can I not disagree? Maybe the next thing you will say is that if I keep voicing an opinion which isn't completely positive about kerry I should have my internet account shut down?
You are pretty good at making stuff up Tom, stuff I didn't say..
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 23:29 GMT <snip>
> Maybe > the next thing you will say is that if I keep voicing an opinion which > isn't completely positive about kerry I should have my internet account > shut down? Show me where I said you couldn't have an opinion other than mine. You can't do it. You just drone on and on.
Show me where I threatened you with any sort of censorship at all. You can't do it. You just drone on and on. <snip>
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:53 GMT >> Maybe >> the next thing you will say is that if I keep voicing an opinion which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Show me where I threatened you with any sort of censorship at > all. You can't do it. You just drone on and on. Show me where I showed you showing me that you showed ... uh... me showing.. shoot where the hell was I.. you that we are here because we are here because we are here because.. AHHHHHH...
okay so we'll both say we didn't intend to put words in each others mouths.. heh
have a good one..
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 23:57 GMT >> Interesting. Kerry served as long in combat as he was required >> to serve, yet you don't give him the pass you give Bush, who cut [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I never said Kerry didn't serve as long as he had to.. I was responding > to someone who said Bush didn't. I don't think Bush did; and you seemed to be saying that Kerry was wrong for leaving when he could.
> All I DID say about Kerry was that he seemed to get an inordinate amount > of medals for the time he served and that for someone who claims he was > gung ho to get over there into combat, it seems funny that he would take > the earliest chance to get OUT of combat, leaving all the men behind > that he cared about. As I noted, his men don't seem to agree that he abandoned them. As for getting out when he did, do you think that one can go into a situation such as he did and, after seeing what was going on, decide that he could not continue to take part in it with a clear conscience?
As gung ho as he wants people to think he is, it
> seems logical that he would have served longer.. HE was the one who said > he was just dying to get where he was.. It is also logical that he would want to get out of a situation he found morally abhorrent once he knew what was really going on.
> I never said his discharge wasn't honorable.. show me where I said that > instead of making up things I didn't say.. I don't know that you said that; I thought that was a reasonable understanding from what you did say. Sort of like some of the misunderstandings you had about things I wrote. It can happen in the heat of debate. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
or can I not disagree?
Personally, I think you can't _not_ disagree :-). I know I enjoy the cut and thrust.
Maybe
> the next thing you will say is that if I keep voicing an opinion which > isn't completely positive about kerry I should have my internet account > shut down? Nope. You completely misread me. The one thing I've consistently agreed with you about is the right, and really the necessity, of speaking one's mind in the political life of our country.
> You are pretty good at making stuff up Tom, stuff I didn't say.. I think we both read things that the other didn't write. I try to be fair and balanced; I don't always succeed.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Morituri-Max - 26 Oct 2004 06:54 GMT > I think we both read things that the other didn't write. I try > to be fair and balanced; I don't always succeed. Roger that.. let me second that. and I may have a few other emails floating around with the theme.. ignore them if you haven't already done so..
Have a good one..
AM - 26 Oct 2004 13:58 GMT > Kerry's discharge was also > honorable; and included fruit salad that Bush could only have > dreamt about. You might want to rethink this... Kerry's discharge status has never been publically released. There was also a military inquiry into his discharge, something that is only done in cases of less than honerable discharge status. Interesting that Kerry has not released any offical info on the matter !
And his fruit salad includes PH for self inflicted wounds.........
-- Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
Tom McDonald - 25 Oct 2004 13:24 GMT >>>> Possibly why Bush grounded himself. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Please enlighten us as to this oath we swore to give our entire lives to > the service? He grounded himself with time left on his agreement with the Guard. He was a no-show while in Alabama, even though he said he'd do his duty to the Guard there. He failed to remain fit for duty as a pilot, like what they paid him for.
He did other things _while_ he was in service. Other men I knew had other things to do, and yet they fought in Viet Nam. Some died, many were wounded, and all came back changed. They did their duty, even though they had other things they'd have rather been doing. Bush did his own thing instead of his military duty.
Drone on, though, by all means. Pretend that Bush's service was honorable and Kerry's was not. No one but Publican drones believes that crap.
 Signature Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 25 Oct 2004 12:09 GMT >>>>> Possibly why Bush grounded himself. >& |
|