OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Clarence]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3dd7n0hpnqju2str0733dlqae6777gb4o3@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:45:39 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


From a master that is a high complement indeed!
^^^^^^^^^^

Look it up, bonehead.
______________^^^^^^^^

<Shame on you John, signing someone else's name! -)


I BEFORE E.

Usage Note:
Complement and compliment, though quite distinct in meaning, are sometimes
confused because they are pronounced the same.

As a noun, complement means something that completes or brings to perfection
________________________________________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(The antique silver was a complement to the beautifully set table); used as a
verb it means to serve as a complement to.

The noun compliment means an expression or act of courtesy or praise
_____________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(They gave us a compliment on our beautifully set table), while the verb means
to pay a compliment to.

In this case either 'might' be used.

 

[Clarence]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:41741370$0$36861$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

After signing himself off, made another non contribution!

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <417321C3.309FF8BB@nospam.com>, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

[....]
The declining economy starting in early yr2000, associated mismanagement
of the big economic bubble.

This is not correct. the economy started to decrease its rate of growth
only in the summer of 2000. The stock market underwent what could be best
described as a mild correction at that time. The stock market tanked
after the election.

A better theory is that business people said "Oh gawd someone from Texas
is the republican candidate, I'm selling out and moving to the rockies.
When Bush got elected they said "Someone who can't even say nuclear and
thinks grits is food got elected, I out of here".

Wake up.

Go back and read what I wrote. You will notice that I was suggesting my
theory that it is related to grit eating begin a more likely theory than
the one suggested by the other poster.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.18.18.48.44.647170@example.net:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Try

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/

select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"

"If John Kerry wins, whose instructions will guide him?"

I dunno - maybe the voters? Whoever it is, it's gotta be better than
whoever's sitting at the Bush control panel.

Cheers!
Rich

WRT *US* National security,having the UN "guide" Kerry would be extremely
bad,for the entire world,whether they realize it or not.And that's exactly
what would happen with Kerry as Prez.He even said so;"global test".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
news:ko28n09o4d3eisvvc4v9e1nk9djale8b84@4ax.com:

On 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
news:lj96n0pjhako1euf4cfamphd3tnlrvap9v@4ax.com:

In any case, I cannot access the link or even the primary site.

Try

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/

select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"

Thanks. I was able to find and read the piece.

Now, would you please explain how this demonstrates that "Kerry is a
self-admitted war criminal?" I'm looking for the primary evidence and
the logic applied.

...

By the way, the opinion piece says,

'Remember when he says that he met with delegations from "both sides"
that he seeks to give the impression that one side was non-Communist.
It's a typical Kerry cute-ism.'

Actually, Kerry never tried to give a false impression on this score
and everyone at the time knew exactly who Madame Binh was. He
mentioned her by name and it was immediately clear to everyone
(including me) what she represented and who he was meeting with.
Look, he *had* to meet with the various parties or else there was no
legitimate way to find out what was possible. If you read further
through his testimony, he is grilled on this subject, in fact.

The opinion piece goes on to say a little later,

'Democrats who support Kerry become hysterical when questions are
asked about "secret" meetings, claiming that, since their hero told
the Fulbright Committee, 11 months later, about his meetings, and
waited until a July 1971 press conference to demand that the U.S.
withdraw from Vietnam and pay reparations (the Dragon Lady's own
terms), there was no secret. '

'Well, it was only in March 2004, that the Kerry campaign admitted he
had met with Binh...'

However, this point is certainly debatable. Kerry mentioned Binh __by
name__ in his 1971 testimony. One can easily infer, as I did at the
time listening to him, that he did meet Binh.

Here is the relevant section I'm thinking of here:

Mr. Kerry
---------
"My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean
to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will,
in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and
unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would
set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible
date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not
believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I
have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to
say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional
Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it
has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance
Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many
other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set
a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

"I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President
that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a
negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of
a date will accomplish that."

Notice that he specifically talks about meeting with the Provisional
Revolutionary Government. I had absolutely no illusions about what
this meant when I first listened to his testimony in 1971. I'm sure
no one on the committee did, either. Nor any sensible person
listening with an ounce of understanding. He also goes on to mention
"all eight of Madam Binh's" points. Frankly, there were no illusions
here.

In any case, if you also read through the testimony and the questions
asked by the Senators in 1971, you can easily see that there were some
tough questions that needed difficult answers. Would the North allow
a retreat? Would the South similarly allow one? What were the
criteria for a cease fire? Etc. In order to have some answers to
these things, meeting with all sides is exactly what anyone who is
seeking to find answers must do.

The Congress, including the House and the Senate, does NOT have the
authority to go gallivanting around the world and engaging in such
meetings. That's the official business of the executive branch. But
since the executive branch was entrenched and unwilling, that left
only unofficial channels to pursue. Kerry was dead right to go about
finding out what he could, as part of a delegation from the VVAW,

Against US law,whether he was part of the VVAW or on his own.

to
find out what was viable when creating a strategy for how they would
pursue their goals more directly in the US political scene. The VVAW
needed information in order to create a viable strategy of their own.

The opinion piece you cite, goes on, "What Kerry did in 1970 and 1971
was to collaborate with enemy combatants, giving them aid and
comfort."

In _my_ opinion, this is bullshit.

In many others opinion,it's accurate and to the point.Especially the POWs
who were in Communist captivity while Kerry was calling them criminals.
And to most soldiers.

There is always some possibility that some others __may__ have taken
some comfort in what the VVAW decided to do here (Kerry was a
representative of their group.) But it wasn't the proper business of
the VVAW to go worrying about how some might feel. They *are*
responsible for their own actions, of course. But not for emotional
reactions of others.

What a load of BS.
Besides,who knows exactly what was discussed between VVAW and the
Communists? Only Kerry and the NVietnamese.



The VVAW were "useful idiots" as the Communists later admitted.
I also note the FBI has records of them discussing assassinations of US
gov't officials,some where Kerry was present.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 18 Oct 2004 23:53:41 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Besides,who knows exactly what was discussed between VVAW and the
Communists? Only Kerry and the NVietnamese.

This was discussed many times over the period of 1971 and 1972. Kerry has
already said what was discussed. Two Senators were also there, I believe. At
least, Senator Vance Hartke was in Paris, as well. You can accept what has been
said about it. Or not. If you don't accept what they have said went on, I
guess nothing more will help you. You weren't there and never will be able to
go back and be there. Those who could talk about it, have. So you will either
have to accept what's in the public domain on this -- or not.

In any case, who knows what Bush discussed at the infamous "energy summit" or
who was even present there. Separate question, but the point is simply that we
all have our suspicions. But that's all they are.

Jon

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of
a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a
national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the
U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Now it's all coming back to me- Kerry omitted the public castrations ,
usually performed by South Vietnamese interrogators, to get the other
detainees and/or villagers to give up the goods. Then there were the
infamous helicopter rides- climb to several hundred feet and throw
prisoner #1 out the door, then move onto to prisoner #2, etc...And don't
forget about the Agent Orange fiasco- are you so dumb you think American
GIs were the only ones affected by that stuff- hell we washed the
Vietnamese in it.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:
As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry
testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April
22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American
troops "...had personally ... cut off heads..."

Yep- I clearly remember cutting off heads was an American retaliatory
terror tactic based on some understanding that the Vietnamese belief was
they could not enter heaven without their heads. But these beheadings
were done on corpses-usually shot down in ambush.- they were not
executions. And as for the ears, you should still be able to buy an
Vietnamese ear in the seedier "military surplus" stores.

I should add in fairness that was not a standard procedure- it was
usually done in an area where the N. 'namese got particularly nasty and
hacked American corpses to pieces with machetes.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:12:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:40:48 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:30:49 +0200, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:rmc1n014a74t4l2apkatpn1ljfpi6hada9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:12:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

That's what any good manager does. Only insecure people insist on
surrounding themselves by people who are dumber than they are.

John

What's this smarter/dumber stuff- what kind of insecure idiot would even
make a comparison with himself like that? It's about as relevant as
wondering "is he/she taller than me?"- pathetic.

You don't believe that some people are smarter than others? If you
don't, why do you keep calling people idiots?

I work with, and employ, people who have analytic and business skills
far beyond anything I can ever hope to have. I let them do the heavy
thinking. It's fun - usually - to work with very smart people.

Ah, the 'fun' bit. Let's have some 'fun'. Are we having 'fun' yet.


But everything I do is wrong, isn't it?

Why bother, as long as you have 'fun'.

I wonder if he jerks off to snuff videos.



It's interesting how many guys, when they want to insult someone,
resort to references to male members and excrement. It must be weird
going through life loathing the lower half of one's own body.

Odd that a death-worshipper should consider anything "weird."

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:40:07 +0000, Clarence wrote:

"xray" <notreally@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gls2n0h5re5kk9i8uka8kkpdlce4h2vv1j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:04:45 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Madelin McKinnon" <rstacey@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:8916096a.0410160759.1eb62f7d@posting.google.com...
I think the low blows are actually being thrown by the Cheney family
(specifically Lynne) and the republicans. It was pretty convenient for
Lynne and Dick to bring up their daughter when it makes Bush and
Cheney look "compassionate." It would be one thing if they never
brought it up in any speech or anything that furthers their campaign
with moderates...but they have.

So your an apologist for the attacks on Chaney's daughter?
You seem to agree that Mary is "Fair Game" and Kerry / Edwards may use her
as a
punching bag. SHAME ON YOU!


Good one, Clarence. That actually made me laugh. You *are* sometimes
entertaining in a demented, black humor, way.

Attacks!??? Attacks? Mentioning that someone exists is hardly an attack.

sniped customary irrelevant attempt to insult.

So you say you didn't understand what was going on? Figures!

No, Clarence. He said that _you_ don't understand what's going on.

Sheesh!
Rich

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.19.03.32.19.759702@example.net:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:44:29 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.18.18.48.44.647170@example.net:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Try

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/

select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"

"If John Kerry wins, whose instructions will guide him?"

I dunno - maybe the voters? Whoever it is, it's gotta be better than
whoever's sitting at the Bush control panel.

Cheers!
Rich



WRT *US* National security,having the UN "guide" Kerry would be
extremely bad,for the entire world,whether they realize it or not.And
that's exactly what would happen with Kerry as Prez.He even said
so;"global test".

I would like to know the source for your information here, as to what
you predict Mr. Kerry will do. Thank you.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait,Kerry voted against removing him,public
record.Saddam threatened US and global security,yet Kerry would have
allowed Saddam to have Kuwait,and probably Saudi Arabia next.That would be
a substantial part of the world's oil supply in SADDAM's hands.
Kerry's past behavior shows what he would do as Prez.

The plain fact is, the best possible National Security for the U.S.
would be for every able-bodied, trainable citizen to be armed
full-time.

Agreed.(as their choice)

An armed society is a polite society.

Agreed.

Cheers!
Rich

BTW,Kerry is staunchly anti-gun,has voted for every anti-gun bill.
His posturing as a "hunter" is only political maneuvering.
He currently co-sponsors S.1431,which whould ban many hunting rifles and
shotguns.He supports the UN efforts on global gun control.
(IOW,no guns for citizens)

How could anyone vote for someone who opposes a basic part of the
Constitution?(the 2nd Amendment)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> schreef in bericht
news:nf74n0pq06lce8ven2bk5hddbjkvg5l5gs@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:55:10 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

I have no doubt that you also feel the earth is flat.

A very childish comment. Oh, well. In any case, speak for yourself and
not for
me.

See it as a compliment. With a flat earth you enjoy a bigger horizon
But a childish comment indeed.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

---
A 'pre-emptive strike' to excise a cancer which has been allowed to
grow, unchecked, for decades is a bad thing?

You can try to control a malignancy by reasoning with it, but as time
goes by and it grows and becomes more and more destructive despite its
avowed intentions to the contrary, the time comes when it must be
removed. Unfortunately, the state of our knowledge of surgery at
present requires that in order to completely remove the cancer some
healthy tissue must also be removed. Doubly unfortunate is the fact
that, allowed to grow for long enough, a cancer will metastasize.
Such seems to be the case here, which will necessitate ferreting out
every single cell and dealing with it appropriately, as we're learning
how to do.

Do you believe that Saddam Hussein and company are something other
than a self-serving malignancy with no concern for anything but
themselves?

If you do, then I suggest that your loyalties lie with our enemies.

Well that's just the point. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was our most natural
ally in the Middle East, a *secular* state in a hotbed fundamentalist
region. We both talked the same language, the language of money and oil.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia, and Iraq was
politically stable and willing to cooperate in the fight against Iran
and terrorism. Iran and several other nutcase fundamentalist states in
the region are our *real* enemies- and now they want nukes. We really
blew this one big time- a major blunder. You do know that all this was
about the Bush family investments in Kuwait and Saudi oil? It was a Bush
family vendetta against Saddam- it had nothing to do with US interests.
You might research that on your own- but be prepared to handle blowing
your top- it IS the truth. And all this stuff about installing a
democracy as a major example to thwart fundamentalism in the region is
total BS- the record is clear: you cannot reason with fundamentalism- it
is a form of fanaticism- it is mindless in that regard.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:0s35n09veneemt719t20goqqvn19mg7vgk@4ax.com...

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:23:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:02:11 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
news:4170fb15$0$36861$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> schreef in bericht

Yes, and a while ago too. But does that make it okay to create
"piles of dead bodies" as long as the piles are smaller?


In that case the US should never have made the Normandy invasion or
freed
Europe,then.Just left you all to Hitler.

Once again, you've got it ass-upside-down.

The US is now doing to Iraq what your friend did to France, after
doing Afghanistan like he did Poland. The ones the neocons are
calling "terrorists" are actually "the resistance."

But apparently doublethink is necessary for the neocons to
rationalize mass murder.

Remember who the invader is, here.

---
A 'pre-emptive strike' to excise a cancer which has been allowed to
grow, unchecked, for decades is a bad thing?

You can try to control a malignancy by reasoning with it, but as time
goes by and it grows and becomes more and more destructive despite its
avowed intentions to the contrary, the time comes when it must be
removed. Unfortunately, the state of our knowledge of surgery at
present requires that in order to completely remove the cancer some
healthy tissue must also be removed. Doubly unfortunate is the fact
that, allowed to grow for long enough, a cancer will metastasize.
Such seems to be the case here, which will necessitate ferreting out
every single cell and dealing with it appropriately, as we're learning
how to do.

Do you believe that Saddam Hussein and company are something other
than a self-serving malignancy with no concern for anything but
themselves?

If you do, then I suggest that your loyalties lie with our enemies.

Well, well, the world as John Fiels see it. Go fuck yourself and
perform a pre-emptive strick on your own person.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
news:4172a6e5$0$25965$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> schreef in bericht
news:4172a5db$0$34762$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> schreef in bericht
news:Xns95857FBFC238jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
news:41716bdc$0$78738$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:nnccd.14475$nj.11789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
message news:4170fa59$0$78749$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:41706E8C.1BB65705@nospam.com...
Frank Bemelman wrote:

It means that the majority has voted
for a proven war criminal.

Gore was/is a war criminal?

Another smart ass. First, I am talking about the outcome of
this election, not the one of 4 years ago. Second, Bush was
not a war criminal at that time, neither was/is Gore.


Oh? When was Bush convicted, and by what American Court? I
thought the Congress could only Impeach, and that a sitting
President can not be tried
for
anything but civil charges.

There are plenty war criminals that are not convicted (yet).

Come to think of it, who would have standing to make such a
charge? A Terrorist?

The international Court of Justice.



ah,yes,the court comprised of countries that have no justice in
their
own
lands.No freedom,either.

?????????????

The present composition of the Court is as follows: President Shi
Jiuyong (China); Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar); Judges
Gilbert Guillaume (France); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) ; Vladlen
S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation); Rosalyn Higgins (United
Kingdom); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans
(Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh
(Jordan); Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America); Nabil Elaraby
(Egypt); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany) and Peter Tomka
(Slovakia).

"PRESENT composition";Which would be subject to change at any time,of
course.

You seem to mistake the UN for some world government,when it merely is a
world forum.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4171EECC.8000709@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4171A42F.9050705@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message news:<ckrkgp$vs4$5@blue.rahul.net>...



In article <6c71b322.0410151952.268da496@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]



Kerry has some huge problems (about 2.4 TRILLION worth).

With Kerry, you have a 2.4 Trillion problem and with Bush there is a
8.6[1] Trillion problem so I guess you would suggest a Kerry vote then.

[...]



Kerry lied before Congress, under OATH, about atrocities in Vietnam.
Are you going to trust him to tell you the truth?

How many times does that lie have to be disproven before we stop seeing it
repeated?

--


When Ghengis Khan rises from the dead:

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of
a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a
national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the
U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

I have *first hand* knowledge that all of those things are TRUE. It was
not a pretty picture there. The overwhelming sentiment of the US
military was that those people were "better off dead."


PUHLEEEASE!! You weren't even in diapers during Vietnam, although you
might have been in diapers during Desert Storm.

Where were you in Vietnam?


Where - or what - were you in Vietnam?

Never mind- you can't possibly be a Vietnam veteran when you deny John
Kerry's claims made in that famous 1971 testimony. Every knows they are
true- and there were more not mentioned.

 

[Clarence]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.17.06.52.59.635365@example.net...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:40:07 +0000, Clarence wrote:


"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vHfcd.377445$mD.44162@attbi_s02...
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:00:15 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


Here is what he said:

KERRY: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk
to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that
she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.



It was an astonishing, not to mention tasteless, thing to say in a
Presidential debate. Nobody seems to be able to figure out why he said
it, not even his own people.

John



The backlash on this is purely political. The republicans are again
trying to change the subject from those things they can't win on, like
Foreign Policy and Domestic Issues, to Kerry being a 'Bad Man' for
bringing up something that Dick himself made an issue out of.

The "Backlash" as you call it, is moral!

Ah, so now the truth comes out. It really _is_ a religious crusade.

Moral, NOT religious! NOTE the difference, it is important!

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41719686.4000205@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.16.06.38.47.777470@example.net>...


On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:05:19 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:


Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<416FE738.CDEE3700@nospam.com>...



If Kerry is elected and the state of the nation stays the same or worsens (high
oil prices, mess in Iraq, no UBL, etc.), are the anti-Bushers just going to
blame it all on the previous Bush administration?

I've hardly decided my vote, but I'm almost tempted to hope/vote Kerry just to
see what magic he will have to perform to pull off all of his promises...


I would suggest evaluating each of the candidates promises and the
likelihood that they can deliver on those promises. In this dept.
Kerry has some huge problems (about 2.4 TRILLION worth). His claim
that he won't raise taxes on 98% of the voters is beyond rediculous.
He, simply, doesn't want to admit he is going to raise YOUR taxes.

That has already been debunked by factcheck.org among others. That claim
is just another cheap Bush campaign slur. You are lying and deceitful
paid Bush campaign operative. Kerry's plan has been judged to be doable
without increasing the tax burden for incomes under $200K.

Just turning off the war faucet would save a couple billion a day.


Kerry lied before Congress, under OATH, about atrocities in Vietnam.
Are you going to trust him to tell you the truth?

That's the standard tactic. In the face of the evidence that you've
been deceived, call everybody a liar.

Good Luck!
Rich


I'm calling him a war criminal (he testified to that under oath). You
must be calling him a liar.

There you go again with your egomaniacal viewpoint. We ask again: who
the F are you? Pathetic.


I sure as am not Fred "Blowhard" Bloggs. I'll say it again: Kerry is a
self-admitted war criminal.

There you go with what Rove has told you to do- repeat, repeat, and
repeat. Kerry is not a war criminal. Kerry is not a war criminal. Kerry
is not a war criminal.

Now THAT'S pathetic (and has absolutely nothing to do with my ego)!!!!

Are you referring to that alleged incident with shooting the VC in the
back? If so, this is not only not a war crime, but standard military
tactical doctrine. When you come under attack and repel the assault, it
is then automatic to engage the enemy in "pursue and destroy"- this
means chase them down, shoot them in the back, and generally kill and
wound as many as possible. It is the best defense against their
regrouping and counter-attack.

 

[Clarence]

"Abd-er-Rahman III" <abderrahman_3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dd076bc.0410170310.61ab5a74@posting.google.com...

"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in message
news:<uBccd.14480$nj.562@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
"Abd-er-Rahman III" <abderrahman_3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dd076bc.0410160834.7ad6a8d4@posting.google.com...
Probably go get an edjabcation.

snip



http://www.democracymeansyou.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/bush-pissing-in-place-400.jpg


THIS is what you would expect from a DemocRAT!

You talk about Dems like Hitler talked about Jews. Scary.

I mentioned neither. But for you to bring it up, and the perception of your
thoughts, IS SCARY!