OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Rolavine]

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:33 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Jim Yanik jyanik@abuse.gov.

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

Because your Blessed Saint Bush of the Perpetual Incompetents is against
the
rest of the document!

Assault Weapons are not all guns!

Don't be a fool. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." It's a
made-up term, used to scare the roobs into voting for a ban on cool-
looking black rifles with pistol grips and wire butts and stuff.

OK, what terms weren't made up at one time or another? The term was coined

prior to 1994 when the bill that was not renewed went into effect. The list of
weapons specifically banned was:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and
Striker 12.
And any copy of the them.

I'm no gun expert but it seems we are talking about a fairly particular thing
here. I will admitt the bill had some dumb stuff in it, but it could have been
changed rather than thrown out! Like banning rifles, shotguns and pistols with
any more than one feature from a list, Though I laughed when I saw that having
a Grenade Launcher would not have banned a weapon if that was the only feature
from a list, lol.

I'm standing with the cops on this one, ban
them! the 2nd amendment has not expanded to allow citizens to have their
own
WMD either.

Some serious education needs to be done in this country.

The Constitution does not "allow" anything to the people. It spells out
what the government is allowed to do, or was intended to.

The Constitution does not "grant" rights. They are granted to you by the
act of being born alive.

Thanks for that correction, I presumed most of my readers would have met that
criteria, silly me! They do call this the bill of rights don't they, yes I
suppose that was a made up term too.

The Constitution attempts to highlight the most
"important" ones, explicitly prohibiting the government from abridging
your natural human rights, which are the right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.

Not free medical care at somebody else's expense either, BTW.

OK, thats a big issue, but you know we are being charged for others free care

now, that is one of the reasons prices are so high. While a lot of savings
could be had from a policy of letting them die in the streets and using their
bodies for dog food I think even the Libertarians wouldn't touch that one.

The whole rest of this is pretty much irrelevant. Kerry seems to be the
only viable alternative to Bush - at least he's probably not a lunatic
on some unholy crusade.

Yes, but I think I was hinting that Bush is crazy an on a crusade. Hell, he

even used that word Crusade once didn't he?

Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim)

I'm curious as to what you WOULD consider a reasonable liability limit
to be. How about $10M? Too low, how about $100M? S

What the hell is the difference, you can't fix the high cost of health care in
the US by focusing on 2% of the costs (total legal expenses of the system as a
whole). Thus Bush and Cheney can't fix the problem with their suggested
soultion, they can only BS you about it. It's just that simple, get it!

Edwards said in the VP debate that savings from the Bush Admins tort reform
would only be .5%, and factcheck.org let that one stand last time I looked.



But just like a neocon ideologue to attack a fair observation with an
irrelevant side issue.

Or, maybe, we just sign over the world's assets to this pathetic
plaintiff.

Our legal system is totally screwed up, don't get me started! However, we all
should agree that you can't fix anything by only dealing with 2% of it and
ignoring the rest! So Bush is once again Wrong, what else is new!

 

[Rolavine]

Just for the record, estate tax is exempt for estates that are worth less than
1 Million. There are ways for the rich to get around paying most of this
anyway, and they are usually put into action before death. Exceptions exist for
family owned businesses.

Bush has made it clear that he is in favor of ending estate taxes, and also
doing away with capital gains taxes. These two moves will solidify wealth in
our country, and give us what Bush really seems to be trying to make, an
aristocracy with title and free govt. handed down through the generations.

Rocky

 

[John Larkin]

On 20 Oct 2004 20:25:31 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

Just for the record, estate tax is exempt for estates that are worth less than
1 Million. There are ways for the rich to get around paying most of this
anyway, and they are usually put into action before death. Exceptions exist for
family owned businesses.

After workin very hard to accumulate a house and a small business, and
paying taxes all the way, I sure don't think it fair for this to be
taxed again.

Bush has made it clear that he is in favor of ending estate taxes, and also
doing away with capital gains taxes. These two moves will solidify wealth in
our country, and give us what Bush really seems to be trying to make, an
aristocracy with title and free govt. handed down through the generations.

The alternative is to solidify wealth, and jobs, in other countries.
Companies, especially manufacturing companies, have powerful
disincentives to stay - or survive - in this country. What would be
smart would be to progress to using sales taxes to raise government
revenue, and eliminate corporate income tax, so imported goods would
not have such a huge advantage over domestically-manufactured stuff.

You can't hurt business, and hate business, and still expect business
to provide jobs.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.20.21.39.05.336950@example.net:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:43:10 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
hands. Kerry's past behavior shows what he would do as Prez.

You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?

Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.

Is there a name for the mental defect that makes people think
that "invade" has anything to do with "defend"?

Defense is Good.
Invasion is Bad.

Got that? Defense: Good. Invasion: Bad. Defense: Good.
Invasion: Bad.

Repeat until you get it.

Thanks,
Rich

Kerry would wait until there was another 9-11.He would not act *OUTSIDE* US
borders without his "global" approval.If you would look thru his
"nuances",you might see that.

I suppose you would rather combat terrorists on US soil,rather than
elsewhere.(and not destroy their BASES and support)
Like it was just a police matter,rather than National security.

Who was it who said the best defense is a good offense? Vince Lombardi?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mpBdd.286272$D%.197662@attbi_s51:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.20.04.03.20.606728@example.net:


On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:


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.


You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?


Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.
He tends towards inaction.He's anti-military.He thinks he can be a
great statesman and pursuade allies that said they will not do what
Kerry wants. He's more a Chamberlain than any statesman. One of the
Communist's "useful idiots".




You have no evidence except the rantings of right-wing radio to back
any of this up.

Nonsense.It's all public record.Kerry worked with the enemy to end the
Vietnam War,to the detriment of the US,our POWs,and the South Vietnamese
people.

Try to maintain some balance. Kerry was the only one of these two who
saw combat in the military.

LMAO. 4 MONTHS,and he fragged himself.
He can't even get his story straight there,either."Cambodia in
December",and sent by Nixon,who was not even President at that time.
You folks have BLINDERS on!
And his DD214 on his own website shows discrepancies.Nobody gets a review
board for a ordinary honorable discharge.There's something being hidden
there,that's why Kerry will not sign a Form 180.

Kerry was against pork-barrel defense
spending before 9/11, like everybody else (including Cheney, the
secretary of defense under GHW Bush). At the time, the important
problem to solve was bringing down the horrible, crippling deficit
that Reagan/Bush's 'voodoo economic' policies had built up (and which
they are again building up).

The republicans want it both ways. They want to compare Kerry's
pre-9/11 voting record

What ELSE is there to compare? Kerry's previous behavior and actions speak
volumes about him.Kerry can SAY anything,but it means nothing.
Empty promises.

to Bush's post-9/11 stance. They also point
out, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, they can't have it
both ways and still maintain the appearance of intellectual honesty.

IMO,you lack that honesty.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ZJzdd.285487$D%.29130@attbi_s51:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:15:05 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


And, governement wastefulness is a myth. Take schools. Everybody says
they are totally wasteful. However, private businesses that have tried
to take over have failed. Its *very hard* to do as good a job as 'the
gummit' in this field.



The one organization that does consistantly better at education is the
Catholic Church. Oakland, California is notorious for miserable
educational outcomes, but the Catholic schools do far better than the
public ones, with about the same student mix, and spend about half as
much per student. The entire Catholic school system is administered by
- last time I heard - three nuns.

John



Agree, but the point is that they have very deep pockets, and don't
measure their success by profit or loss.

I suspect it's not how much money they have,but how they deal with
discipline,what they teach (*aside* from religious stuff),and how the
students PARENTS handle their children.They have a no-nonsense,conservative
approach that public schools no longer have.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:03:07 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:33 +0000, Rolavine wrote:
From: Jim Yanik jyanik@abuse.gov.
I'm no gun expert but it seems we are talking about a fairly particular thing
here. I will admitt the bill had some dumb stuff in it, but it could have been
changed rather than thrown out! Like banning rifles, shotguns and pistols with
any more than one feature from a list, Though I laughed when I saw that having
a Grenade Launcher would not have banned a weapon if that was the only feature
from a list, lol.

The point is, _any_ banning of _any_ weapons is outside the purview of the
federal government as defined in the Constution.
....

Not free medical care at somebody else's expense either, BTW.

OK, thats a big issue, but you know we are being charged for others free care
now, that is one of the reasons prices are so high.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Socialism.

While a lot of savings
could be had from a policy of letting them die in the streets and using their
bodies for dog food I think even the Libertarians wouldn't touch that one.

The Libertarisns don't advocate any such thing, as you well know, and you
are showing the closed-minded, all-or-nothing thinking characteristic of
dysfunction.

In a truly free society, where people don't have the majority of their
paycheck absorbed by the machine, people will be able to afford to take
care of their own. And if you get the government out of the charity
business, the resulting giving from abundance would flabbergast even
the most generous philanthropist of today.
....[COS]

Yes, but I think I was hinting that Bush is crazy an on a crusade. Hell, he
even used that word Crusade once didn't he?

Oh, yeah, I don't think there's any question, except, of course, amongst
the initiates, who see no problem with his righteous slaughter.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm

Well I'll be, R2D2 with a hard-on.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:19:20 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
Jim Yanik wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:44:29 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
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.
....
You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?
Are you dense?

Obviously. Please explain it to me again, but use small words.

Nonsense.It's all public record.Kerry worked with the enemy to end the
Vietnam War,to the detriment of the US,our POWs,and the South Vietnamese
people.

I'm dense. would you please explain to me, in small words, if you
need to, just exactly how "ending a war" and "stopping killing" is
"to the detriment" of anybody, anywhere?

Please, I really want to understand where you warmongers are coming
from. I want to know if you're truly evil, or merely self-deceived
tools of evil.

Thanks,
Rich

Try to maintain some balance. Kerry was the only one of these two who
saw combat in the military.

LMAO. 4 MONTHS,and he fragged himself.
He can't even get his story straight there,either."Cambodia in
December",and sent by Nixon,who was not even President at that time.
You folks have BLINDERS on!
And his DD214 on his own website shows discrepancies.Nobody gets a review
board for a ordinary honorable discharge.There's something being hidden
there,that's why Kerry will not sign a Form 180.

Kerry was against pork-barrel defense
spending before 9/11, like everybody else (including Cheney, the
secretary of defense under GHW Bush). At the time, the important
problem to solve was bringing down the horrible, crippling deficit
that Reagan/Bush's 'voodoo economic' policies had built up (and which
they are again building up).

The republicans want it both ways. They want to compare Kerry's
pre-9/11 voting record

What ELSE is there to compare? Kerry's previous behavior and actions speak
volumes about him.Kerry can SAY anything,but it means nothing.
Empty promises.

to Bush's post-9/11 stance. They also point
out, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, they can't have it
both ways and still maintain the appearance of intellectual honesty.

IMO,you lack that honesty.

 

[Rolavine]

From: John Larkin

On 20 Oct 2004 20:25:31 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

Just for the record, estate tax is exempt for estates that are worth less
than
1 Million. There are ways for the rich to get around paying most of this
anyway, and they are usually put into action before death. Exceptions exist
for
family owned businesses.

After workin very hard to accumulate a house and a small business, and
paying taxes all the way, I sure don't think it fair for this to be
taxed again.

That is a good point, but income is changing hands and it is an income tax. I

looked up the rate a while ago it isn't that high, but I can't remember. I'm
getting old, my brain seems only able to hold enough facts for me to do my
work.

Bush has made it clear that he is in favor of ending estate taxes, and also
doing away with capital gains taxes. These two moves will solidify wealth in
our country, and give us what Bush really seems to be trying to make, an
aristocracy with title and free govt. handed down through the generations.

The alternative is to solidify wealth, and jobs, in other countries.
Companies, especially manufacturing companies, have powerful
disincentives to stay - or survive - in this country. What would be
smart would be to progress to using sales taxes to raise government
revenue, and eliminate corporate income tax, so imported goods would
not have such a huge advantage over domestically-manufactured stuff.

Again my memory is full but I think corporations only pay about 2% of US

federal income taxes.

You can't hurt business, and hate business, and still expect business
to provide jobs.

I agree, however even given Bush's giveaways manufacuting is leaving the US. I

don't think we can go much father in terms of non restriction. So, based on
that approach we are doomed, because it isn't working. Perhaps we need another
model, one where the govt and business are parners in creating the world of
tomorrow, and then our childrens, children may have the stars!

 

[Rolavine]

4 million Mexicans cross into the US secretly every year. Now Mr. Bush tell me
once again about homeland Security?

We ain't got none! We have not been attacked because we have been lucky. Lets
face it, we would be easier to do than a drunken cheerleader at homecoming, if
you were the winning quarterback.


Rocky

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:53:57 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net
....
In a truly free society, where people don't have the majority of their
paycheck absorbed by the machine, people will be able to afford to take
care of their own.

Not, if the providers are free to charge everything they can get plus 15%, lol.

Well, if they overcharge, then stiff their ass, dipshit. Vote with your
pocketbook.

cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:53:57 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net

And if you get the government out of the charity
business,

Yes the govt does end up paying for a lot of health care, however in most cases
private medical facilities won't turn serious cases away even though they won't
get paid. So a lot of this has nothing to do with the government , it has to do
with the morality of not letting them die in the streets.

You advocate "morality" in the same breath that you advocate
institutionalized theft?

You, sir, are the worst kind of hypocrite.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4175C051.3090907@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41752BC3.10302@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4173AA01.40809@nospam.com>...



Tom Seim wrote:



I am a Vietnam veteran. Are you?


Yeah, you and John Edwards.

You use a phony name. Now you claim phony Vietnam service.

You are a disgrace.

Why are you evading the question? Were you or were you not in military
service? Or are you a loudmouthed armchair adventurer and draft dodger
like most of the other hawks?


Having a conversation with a liar is like trying to screw a porcupine
- a lot of pain for no satisfaction.

I will answer your question when you:
1. State your REAL name
2. Identify your service, serial number, dates served, and unit ID.

I don't think I'll get an answer.

I will come and see you in person. What is your address?


You have it.

Now answer the question. Draft deferment?


fredrook, I told you what you had to provide, so provide it.

The deal is that I don't take orders from riffraff like you- never have
and never will. You continue to evade the question about your military
service because you have none- you are a draft dodger. The younger
generation needs to know that the majority of America consists of scum
like you- and then ask themselves "what for" when it comes to going to
war.- They will get the message eventually- if they're not already- the
Army missed their recruitment goal by 30% last month-. Who in their
right mind would risk death or injury for the kind of worthless scum who
dominate America. So you and some others around here think you're real
smart and successful- on top of the world- and the US is heading for
another unprecedented crisis- the prospect of no military- hehe- too funny!

 

[Rolavine]

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:53:57 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net
...
In a truly free society, where people don't have the majority of their
paycheck absorbed by the machine, people will be able to afford to take
care of their own.

Not, if the providers are free to charge everything they can get plus 15%,
lol.

Well, if they overcharge, then stiff their ass, dipshit. Vote with your
pocketbook.

Or in this case by not having your wound treated? And have you ever tried

finding out how much medical services cost in the US? I don't have dental
insurance and you can split a tooth just trying to get competitive bids. They
all want an exam and new x rays before they will talk money.

When it comes to the pricing for health care the phrase 'got us by the balls'
takes on new meaning, lol.

But I hardly think my kidding over these issues deserves a 'dipshit'. My
comments to you are based more on the limits of putting the worlds wisdom into
25 words or less, than with your concepts themselves.

Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: Rich Grise rich@example.net


You advocate "morality" in the same breath that you advocate
institutionalized theft?

Yes, because only one of us is living in the real world! What is, is!

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mIIdd.288373$D%.127184@attbi_s51:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mpBdd.286272$D%.197662@attbi_s51:


Jim Yanik wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.20.04.03.20.606728@example.net:



On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:



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.


You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?


Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.
He tends towards inaction.He's anti-military.He thinks he can be a
great statesman and pursuade allies that said they will not do what
Kerry wants. He's more a Chamberlain than any statesman. One of the
Communist's "useful idiots".




You have no evidence except the rantings of right-wing radio to back
any of this up.



Nonsense.It's all public record.Kerry worked with the enemy to end
the Vietnam War,to the detriment of the US,our POWs,and the South
Vietnamese people.


You are welcome to your opinions, even though they are obviously
wrong. The swift boat veterans ads have been discredited time and
again.

Only in your mind.

If you want to be duped by a bunch of rich republicans with a
political agenda and a chip on their shoulder, that's your choice. If
you want to use their lies in an attempt to influence people, well,
that seems to be republican strategy these days.


Try to maintain some balance. Kerry was the only one of these two who
saw combat in the military.


LMAO. 4 MONTHS,and he fragged himself.
He can't even get his story straight there,either."Cambodia in
December",and sent by Nixon,who was not even President at that time.
You folks have BLINDERS on!
And his DD214 on his own website shows discrepancies.Nobody gets a
review board for a ordinary honorable discharge.There's something
being hidden there,that's why Kerry will not sign a Form 180.


Well, neither you nor I were there. The people who were there, and who
served with him (unlike the "Swift Boat" liars like O'Neill) back up
his story. Military records back up his story.

His own writings AT THE TIME say that they hadn't been fired upon yet.
Just like the "Christmas in Cambodia" nonsense.

I love the way you overlook these lies and discrepancies.

The leader of the
"Swift Boat" group, John O'Neill, has been biting at Kerry's heels
since Kerry kicked his ass during a debate on the Dick Cavett show 30
years ago. John O'Neill was a Nixon lackey, according to the white
house tapes. Nixon didn't like Kerry either.

Considering Kerry's lies about war crimes,their animosity is
understandable.

I'll go with the available evidence on whether Kerry was a hero.

Here are his records:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf

I looked at Kerry's DD214;there are problems with it.Why did a REVIEW BOARD
have to OK his discharge? That is NOT common practice for an HONORABLE
discharge.
And the date of discharge does not coincide with his enlistment date,it's
several years later.

(Where are Bush's records, anyway?


Kerry was against pork-barrel defense
spending before 9/11, like everybody else (including Cheney, the
secretary of defense under GHW Bush). At the time, the important
problem to solve was bringing down the horrible, crippling deficit
that Reagan/Bush's 'voodoo economic' policies had built up (and which
they are again building up).

The republicans want it both ways. They want to compare Kerry's
pre-9/11 voting record


What ELSE is there to compare? Kerry's previous behavior and actions
speak volumes about him.Kerry can SAY anything,but it means nothing.
Empty promises.


Since you mention it...

Kerry's actions during the Vietnam war are, by any standard, heroic.
He has a silver star and a bronze star, in addition to those three
purple hearts.

Kerry wrote up his own after-action reports.I note that the Navy is looking
into the veracity of Kerry's Silver Star,as that particular version of it
was NEVER awarded during the Vietnam War.If Kerry were to SIGN a Form
180,then we would know the truth on his medals and PHs.

And he only served FOUR MONTHS;the standard tour,IIRC,is 1 year.

His actions after the war were also heroic, in a different way. He got
up in front of the Senate foreign relations committe when he was,
what, 25? The group he was spokesperson for was given some small
credit in forcing an end to the vietnam conflict by raising public
awareness.

Yeah,he threw away someone ELSES medals claiming they were his.He lied to
Congress about war crimes that he never reported while he was IN
service,and to date have NOT BEEN PROVEN VALID.

Don't confuse his opposition to the Vietnam war with his love for his
fellow soldiers.

Like his concern for the POWs in captivity,when he called them "war
criminals",he statements were USED against those POWs;that's part of his
treason.The Commies love Kerry for this.A very "useful idiot",he was.

His shipmates always help him out, even after 35
years. They wouldn't do that if he were the person you or John O'Neill
claims he is.

Only a few of his shipmates,you mean,the rest will have nothing to do with
him.

He was a district attorney, and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

His efforts in the Senate for 20 years have been meaningful and
honorable. He didn't author much legislation, but instead used his
senate oversite powers to address problems with money laundering and
terrorism (BCCI), MIAs (Vietnam), and budget deficit. He also voted
with the fiscally responsible when trying to bring down the deficit,
rather than just voting with his party, at some political risk. That's
where the republicans get their cannon fodder on him being 'soft on
defense'. He was heroically trying to help save social security. It
was working until Bush was 'elected'.

The guy will make a great president. At the very least, he'll put in
an honest days work, and he'll show up more often than Bush.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html


to Bush's post-9/11 stance. They also point
out, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, they can't have
it both ways and still maintain the appearance of intellectual
honesty.


IMO,you lack that honesty.


You've shown yourself to be either disingenuous or callow.

Just pointing out things you overlooked or refuse to acknowledge.
Things that demonstrate Kerry's unfitness for public office.

Why should
I possibly care what your opinion is? Why should anyone?

Then why do you keep responding?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:52:35 -0700, Julie wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Problem is, the neocon acolytes don't see any wrong in their
heaven-sent leader. It's perfectly OK to murder people, as long as the
white guys get their paycheck.

I have a problem with it.

(Honest questions, not rhetoric)

What is your solution to the 'issue' -- how do you solve that nest of
problems over there?

Do you think that isolationism is a better policy?

"Isolationism" is a scare-word. "Not meddling in other people's affairs"
would be more like the ideal. Just because you don't send troops invading
all over the world doesn't mean you have to pull up the drawbridge and
stop dealing with anybody.

When I'm elected president, I will:

1. Stand down all US military forces worldwide.
2. Immediately cease treasury disbursements for military hardware.
3. Stop military recruitment.
4. Continue to pay servicemen's paychecks, and retirees' pensions -
the pensions until they die, the servicemen until the end of their
term. Then turn them loose.
5. Recycle all the military hardware, giving the small arms away for
free throughout the country. Yes, citizens and gangsta punks alike
will be armed to the teeth. Let the states' National Guards divvy
up the rest, and the Coast Buard might want some Navy stuff. Any
leftovers should go to the Boy Scouts. At least they have adult
supervision. ;-)
6. Fire the IRS, and Abolish the income tax.
7. Freeze federal wages and hiring, maybe even start cutting deadwood.
8. Veto everything for awhile, and rescind at least one obsolete federal
law per day.
8. Read e-mail.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:16:45 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

... and the US is heading for
another unprecedented crisis- the prospect of no military- hehe- too funny!

Hey, I just had a thought - what if some general decided to have a coup?

Where would that leave us?

Thanks,
Rich