OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Robert Monsen]

I guess I'm going to have to go through and refute these obvious lies.
What a bore.

Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

Well, I can only speak for my own mind.

However, here is an independent analysis by www.factcheck.org

<http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html>
<http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html>

These links debunk the lies of the "Swifties". They also debunk your
misrepresentations below.

Factcheck.org was mentioned by Cheney during the 2004 VP debate, so you
won't be able to credibly call it a left-wing partisan group.

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.

Thanks, I've been taking a crash course, given by jaybirds like you.

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.

Again, read the link above.

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.

You analyzed it, eh? The military, and the entire Bush administration
analyzed it. You came up with one answer. EVERYBODY ELSE CAME UP WITH
ANOTHER ANSWER. Hmmm, who should I believe?

If this were true, it would be on the evening news. You are blinded by
prejudice, and obviously can't be trusted to say *anything* credible.

Here is the link to JK's records again, for our esteemed readers:

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

(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.

Yawn. He got three purple hearts. The "Swifties" say he didn't earn
them. Everybody else, including the President, says he served with honor
and distinction. Again, who do we believe? You and the "Swifties"?
Sorry, not me.

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.

Geez, don't you clowns ever give up? He threw away his salad. He kept
his medals.

WRT to the senate testimony, he was relating what others said during the
winter soldier investigation:

<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_03_1Marine.html>

Do you think *they* were lying? How about the accusers of Lt. Calley?

Do you deny the holocaust too?

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.

He protested the vietnam war, like most of the people in the US who were
under 30. Get over it. Somebody had to stop it. It was, like Iraq, a
horrible mistake. That is my opinion, but its also the opinion of most
people who look back on it now, I would guess. It's sad that people had
to die for such a stupid, wrongheaded policy, both in Vietnam and lately
in Iraq.

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.

Which shipmates are you talking about?

The people who were under his command seem pretty loyal, to a man.
O'Neill and others don't like him, but that's because he broke the code
of silence, and became a 'whistleblower'. Their judgement might be
clouded by 30 years of hatred, and several million dollars in campaign
funding by Republicans close to Bush. O'Neill in particular has been
snapping at Kerry's heels for 30 years, ever since he was humiliated on
nationwide TV.

<http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill>

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.

Yawn. You haven't done anything of the sort. If anything, you've pointed
out, again, what a prejudiced, partisan hack you are.

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



Then why do you keep responding?

I keep responding because I simply can't stand by and let you get away
with repeating the same sorry lies that then have to be debunked, again
and again. Its a page from the "Official Carl Rove Playbook". Repeat the
lies often enough, and some people believe them, or at least consider
them plausible.

If you had any real, non-partisan evidence, you would post it. I've
posted credible information debunking each of your allegations.

If you look on http://www.FactCheck.org, you can find real problems with
both Kerry and Bush, lies or misrepresentations they have both told.
Sadly, Kerry is starting to gear up a negative campaign in the last 2
weeks, matching distortions one to one with the Bush ads. I find this
offensive, and really wish he would have stuck to the truth, which is,
in my mind, enough to get Bush fired.

The articles on http://www.factcheck.org aren't the partisan lies you've
swallowed, but seem to be real non-partisans analysis. Get your material
there in the future, not from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading John
O'Neill, or, heaven forbid, doing your own analysis.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[PaulCsouls]

Hilary's running for President of Iraq in January. Someone tried to
explain to her that she's not from there but ...


On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:30:18 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:05:28 -0700, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

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...

Given that neither candidate promises to do anything very different
from the other (and, in fact, *can't* do much different) the election
will pretty much decide who gets blamed. And whether Hilary takes a
shot at 2008.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:lITdd.435482$Fg5.416906@attbi_s53:

I guess I'm going to have to go through and refute these obvious lies.
What a bore.

Nobody is refuting any charges until Kerry signs a Form 180 and releases
his records.Or when the Navy finishes it's review of Kerry's medals.

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.


You analyzed it, eh? The military, and the entire Bush administration
analyzed it. You came up with one answer. EVERYBODY ELSE CAME UP WITH
ANOTHER ANSWER. Hmmm, who should I believe?

No,"everybody" did NOT come up with another answer.The DATES do nopt
coincide,and the comment about a review board for a Honorable discharge is
very unusual.

If this were true, it would be on the evening news. You are blinded by
prejudice, and obviously can't be trusted to say *anything* credible.

Here is the link to JK's records again, for our esteemed readers:

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

Only a few pages out of more than 100 pages.

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



Then why do you keep responding?



I keep responding because I simply can't stand by and let you get away
with repeating the same sorry lies that then have to be debunked,
again and again. Its a page from the "Official Carl Rove Playbook".

Never read it,if it exists other than in your imagination.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <1a1fc02.0410211559.5a965f4f@posting.google.com>,
anita1766@yahoo.com (anita) writes:

No flames please. I ask this in all sincerity from the perspective of
a non-American (although I live here for now- so I am as scared about
terrorism as anyone else...)

Sincere and kindly asked questions will sometimes elicit kind responses,

even from those who might disagree with you. However, there are always
extremists who don't tolerate anything but their party line.

I find the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" a very curious way to
approach the problem of self-defense. Dont Americans think that
someone could apply the same doctrine to THEM ?

In my opinion, the idea of 'pre-emptive strike' is only valid if the

probability of an attack is fairly high (e.g. Putin tells Bush that
Saddam has an attack plan in force now), and that the damage or long
term cost of an attack is incredibly high. For example, something that
would impede an attack like 9/11 would be valid for pre-emption. The
cost to the nation and the world was very high, and the probability of
over 20k deaths in the attack was also very high.

Given the information provided to the President (assuming that the
information exposed so far) probably did justify the Iraq liberation
as a pre-emptive attack against Saddam's government. However, the
threshold was much lower for Iraq because of the ongoing violation of
the agreement that led to the disengagement of the (mostly US) forces
during the liberation of Kuwait. The reasons for toppling Saddam's
dictatorship were both numerous and at least several were sufficient
(given the information provided by the CIA and other world governments
was correct.)

Since much of the information against Saddam was at least partially
untrue, then the reasons for the correct decision to liberate Iraq
were were untrue. This made the toppling of Saddam's government
wrong based upon a few of the previously believed reasons. There
were definitely more EMOTIONAL reasons for eliminating Saddam, but
those EMOTIONAL reasons don't justify the liberation of Iraq.

With a partisan hat on, it is fairly clear that almost all sides of
the American government believed that the reasons that Bush initially
used were at least partially valid, even though they might not have
believed that the 'threshold' for pre-emption or even liberation had
been met. Appealing to 'other' world leaders for partisan hit-pieces
has even been weakened because any 'moral' authority from Chirac
has been spent by his industrial/military/criminal complex making
profitable deals with Saddam, and also Chirac's personal dealings
with Saddam (including intermingling of political funds.) So, Chirac,
Russia, Germany, China each had too much of a profit motive to be
unbiased, and there was also some benefit to each, no matter which way the
US behaved. The relatively recent 'freshness dates' on French military
goods helps, along with other policies, to prove that Franch have
disinterest in the health/welfare of Americans. We just cannot
trust the French government even as much as we had, even before 9/11.

Afterall USA is
preceived by some countries, even non-"rogue" nations as a threat to
their security... The problem is when you push people into a corner
they are at their most dangerous...

Yes, and that is what has happened to the US. Much of our infrastructure

has been built with the assumption that people who stay/visit in the US
are somewhat civilized. We had made a mistake, and now realize that our
critical infrastructure is too available to be severely damaged. It is
relatively easy to destroy multiple billions of dollars in infrastructure
in the US, yet it is difficult to find that level of infrastructure in
many third world nations. A most dangerous nation would be the US if
a nuke goes off on its territory. It would be in the best interests
of the entire world community to keep it from happening, yet China, France,
Russia and probably Germany keep on proliferating nuke technology that
would highly probably be used against the US. There just is very little
commercial need for anything more than 10% U material (isn't it actually
smaller?) Highly enriched U (probably except in very limited experiments)
has little purpose except for bombs. Perhaps the most disgusting problem
is where the US politicians are enticed to allow our companies to sell
such technology (whether nuke or delivery system technology) to
proliferators like China.

With technology getting smaller
and faster and cheaper and sneakier, maybe a terrorist can do
substantive damage with next to nothing.

Bingo... The problem is both the hatred (which pre-existed Bush,

and 9/11 was fully planned before Bush became president.) Clintons'
soft attitude and almost random attacks against Bin Laden were both
relatively ineffective and was almost 'funny' because of spending
many millions on cruise missiles to destroy thousands (perhaps a few $M)
value of assets. The ineffective Clinton attacks against Al Queda and
other terrorists are NOT just due to Clinton's attitude, but also
an inappropriate mindset along with severely weakened intelligence
assets.

What good are bombs when you
cannot differentiate a terrorist from a regular person ?

They can kill the 'bad guys', but will also kill 'good guys'

also. Although not important to those who are killed as
collateral damage, the intent of the US is to AVOID killing non
combatants, and the US is well aware of the political damage.

The intent of the 'bad guys' is to kill non-military, non-combatants
and even not caring about killing mainstream Moslems.

I feel its
kind of like chemo for cancer, you kill some good cells along with a
lot of bad cells, but how to we know the body be able to withstand it
?

Yes, that is probably a reasonable analogy. The problem is that our

current 'chemo drugs' were severely weakened by previous laws, where
the most effective mechanisms for choosing the targets were severely
restricted. The last most recent severe damage against the intelligence
community occured in approx 1995, and the Church commission (two decades
earlier) also seriously defanged the CIA.
Actually, the CIA was definitely doing some very wrong things, but taking
away some of the most important abilities was perhaps more wrong (relative
to the good and needs of America) than leaving them TOO WEAK.

My other question: About nuclear weapons- this is probably common
knowledge but I dont really know. The US has a very strong stand about
certain countries not making nuclear weapons.

Yes -- it is because of a track record of instability, but most basically

it is due to treaties. If someone cannot follow a treaty, then how can
they be trusted with a technology that has no purpose other than to destroy
and poison large areas. If nukes were so very useful for a civilized
society, then why has the US never used them in war since WWII? Before
the first use, the total effects weren't as well known as immediately
afterwards. In reality, even in war, ignoring the heinous nature of
the weapons, the real effectiveness is against civilian populace. There
is an interesting paper by Freeman Dyson about the very intense usage
of the bomb necessary to cause significant effect in the Vietnam war.
The left-over mess would have been incredible, but it would have also
required huge numbers of the bombs.

Because if they did not what legal grounds
does any outside country have to dictate what another nation does ?

Perhaps the simplest is that denying nukes is the most basic and the

least expensive form of pre-emption.

Might does not make right because if used it woudl blow everyone up
anyway, or is there a real reason other than "because we say so" ?

Well, for warmaking purposes, the large nitrate type chemical bombs

with accurate delivery will tend to be more effective against
military targets than a nuke anyway. Nukes are most effectively a
terror weapon (not necessarily a terrorist weapon), and the nations
who have to deal with the responsibility of owning the weapons are
cursed with the logistics.

Is this common knowledge in the us ? So what defines "rogue" nations
other than the fact that the state department says so ?

Iraq was rogue, N.Korea is rogue, Iran is rogue, etc. See the pattern?

It is questionable if Syria is rogue, but it is certainly a supporter
of terrorism.

I am neither republican nor democrat (although you can tell I am more
of a liberal- universal health care good etc., ) and could not care
who wins either way because all frankly there is no way Kerry or
anyone can get us out of this mess, so it has to work itself out-
whatever that means.

Speaking of the mess, it was the immediately previous administration

that weakened the intelligence gathering capapbility of the US, downsized
by 2-3 more military divisions than wise to do, and 9/11 along with numerous
other terror attacks were perpetrated during the previous administration,
while SOME of the terror attacks were treated practically as law enforcement
matters. The term 'nipping it in the bud' would have been effective if
the US mindset was more oriented towards treating terror more seriously.
The Iraq "mess" was a direct result of inaccurate intelligence, ongoing
lack of enforcement of the cease fire, profiteering from the oil-for-food
which helped to maintain the corrupt status-quo, and an activist president
who was appropriately motivated to protect the nation. Just because
it was only Japan that initially attacked America, it didn't mean that
Germany wasn't also an enemy. A similar argument should be used about
Al Queda (essentially a stateless entity that resides in many places
in/around the middle east), and Saddam (who was an ongoing supporter of
terrorism and terrorists, along with relationships with Al Queda members.)
(Anyone who claims that Saddam wasn't involved in terror is spinning you
badly.)

Note that USers were even a prominent source of funding for the IRA, and
we (our government) apparently almost ignored it. If the US had previous
bad behavior, it was against one of best allies (far better than Canada),
the UK. All terror (that is, destruction that is targeted against
civilians for the purpose of producing a desired change in behavior or
policy) needs to be condemned and/or stopped.

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41752AF1.10208@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4172B620.5000304@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4171AACF.2060204@nospam.com>...



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.


Dodging a sticky issue (for Kerry) again. Kerry, among other things,
said that the crimes had "the full awareness of officers at all levels
of command." This was a lie made under oath.

No it wasn't- there was not only awareness but participation. You do
know that the rank of Lieutenant (O-1 or O-2) is that of commissioned
officer don't you?


The language is clear and understandable by anybody with a grade
school education. Oh, guess that leaves you out, fredrook.

Your trash propaganda is the most blatant part. You are a liar and Bush
campaign ioperative. We have caught you numerous times in your cheap
trash fraud.


You are the PROVEN LIAR, fredrook. You said that you would not respond
to any more of my posts, yet you do. You LIED then, you're LIEING now.
Lies, lies, lies... that is your stock in trade, freddy BOY!.

"LIEING"? What is that?- Something you do all day at the office? Every
single one of Kerry's accusations are true- and there are many more than
that. Your Republican President of the era was forced out of office for
lying too- just like you.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <6c71b322.0410211530.47bbbb45@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

So a $5 BILLION award makes sense (it happened)?

How much would I have to have offered you at age 15, in exchange for you
spending the rest of your life crippled? We will pay for the medical
bills and put a tube in to feed you.

Bush wants to set a limit of $250K, would you take the deal?

Yes some thing sensible needs to be done but Bush's proposal just
exchanges one unfair rule for another.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns9589D0583B6A9jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:lITdd.435482$Fg5.416906@attbi_s53:

I guess I'm going to have to go through and refute these obvious lies.
What a bore.

Nobody is refuting any charges until Kerry signs a Form 180 and releases
his records.Or when the Navy finishes it's review of Kerry's medals.

So you suggest that no other public documents will do to refute any
charge. Is that your position?

How about where the law that he is claimed to have broken contains
explicit language allowing the actions he engaged in?

In previous arguments, I compared what was charged against the actual text
of the law that was sited and discovered that the charge was without
foundation. Kerry's actions were perfectly legal in that case. I did not
need any records that I could not find with www.google.com.

You analyzed it, eh? The military, and the entire Bush administration
analyzed it. You came up with one answer. EVERYBODY ELSE CAME UP WITH
ANOTHER ANSWER. Hmmm, who should I believe?

No,"everybody" did NOT come up with another answer.The DATES do nopt
coincide,and the comment about a review board for a Honorable discharge is
very unusual.

Ok, so who besides you agrees with you? Do they have a web site? Are
they a trustworthy site. If I claim that there is a little old lady that
lives in a shoe, I could find a site to agree with me and add a detail
about lots of children.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <20041021022254.27979.00002913@mb-m02.aol.com>,
Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote:
[...]

We have not been attacked because we have been lucky.

Just to stir up more trouble:

On 9-11 15 people killed themselves other than them we are fairly sure
about Osama. Beyond that 16 how do we know that any of these guys
actually exist? Is it the same bunch that told us Saddam had WMDs that we
are taking at their word?

"There are many brain eating termites coming to get you.
lucky for you we've rounded up 3/4 of them and the rest
are on the run. You should raise our funding so we can
find the rest."

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:5cg2n0lrs082srmrb8495qfv0iuqiigv17@4ax.com...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:43:38 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> schreef in bericht
news:Xns9583D4B2CF361jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83...
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
news:41706987$0$14941$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:




It's not just politics. Piles of dead bodies are not just politics.

Saddam and his family have created far more "piles of dead bodies" than
the
Iraq war.

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?


Absolutely! To do anything else would be profoundly immoral. The same
logic explains why doctors perform surgery, even though it will kill
some fraction of the patients.

Another smoke curtain. Sigh. Doctors have a rule that a treatment
should always be beneficial to the patient. And, surprise, surprise,
they won't treat if they know for sure it will kill a patient.

But okay, apperently you find it okay to invade a country and kill
a thousands. Human life is of little value, eh? The US has killed
less Iraqis then Saddam before the Gulf War. Fanstastic! You are
truly brilliant.


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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:56:35 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <20041021022254.27979.00002913@mb-m02.aol.com>,
Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
We have not been attacked because we have been lucky.


Just to stir up more trouble:

On 9-11 15 people killed themselves other than them we are fairly sure
about Osama. Beyond that 16 how do we know that any of these guys
actually exist? Is it the same bunch that told us Saddam had WMDs that we
are taking at their word?

"There are many brain eating termites coming to get you.
lucky for you we've rounded up 3/4 of them and the rest
are on the run. You should raise our funding so we can
find the rest."

Fortunately, when they reached the White House, they starved to death...

;-)
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:00:58 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Wrong answer- this is pure selfishness. Even the Green Party in Maine is
urging its members to vote for John Kerry because Maine is a state where
the race is so close and the responsible course of action is to make
their vote count.


"Responsible"? To endeavor to be a member of the biggest herd? Does that
"make their vote count"?

Not for me, thanks.

Cheers!
Rich

You don't seem to be getting it. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU AND FEELING
GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF. Read and re-read that about 100x until you know it
by heart. Get it through your thick skull that, like it or not, it comes
down to Kerry or Bush- that is your choice- there are no more and no
less. Now if you want to do something about that, now is not the time.
The first order of business is to remove Bush from office, and then if
you still want to pursue popularizing the Progressive party, you have
four years to work on it.

 

[Clarence]

"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.

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:59:17 -0700, anita wrote:

OK, I came here looking for info about capacitance calculations and I
found this thread on full force. Since it appears that people in this
groups are not shy of expressing their opinions I ask you two
questions.

No flames please.

I think in this thread, the threshold of what's considered a "flame"
versus what's considered "constructive criticism" may be, shall we say,
"enhanced," from other groups you might frequent. ;-)

I ask this in all sincerity from the perspective of
a non-American (although I live here for now- so I am as scared about
terrorism as anyone else...) I dare not ask people I know because its
hard for people to not assume that it is an attack and I dont want to
be lynched!

I sincerely, seriously, thank you, literally from the bottom of my heart,
for mentioning your concerns here. I'm the group lunatic, and I claim
that I'm a messenger from the metaphysical realms, come to bring a message
of Healing for the world.

In this context, it is EXTRREMELY WONDERFUL that you have expressed these
feelings here, now.

We are going to live.

</fanatic rave>

I find the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" a very curious way to
approach the problem of self-defense. Dont Americans think that
someone could apply the same doctrine to THEM ?

Unfortunately, it would seen that the Americans presently in power,
and their supporters, don't "think" at all.

Afterall USA is
preceived by some countries, even non-"rogue" nations as a threat to
their security...

This perception is not wrong.

The problem is when you push people into a corner
they are at their most dangerous...

There are many people right now, as we speak, endeavoring to bring this
very message to the ones in power. So far, it's been falling on deaf
ears. Or, maybe even worse, "divinely inspired" ears.

With technology getting smaller
and faster and cheaper and sneakier, maybe a terrorist can do
substantive damage with next to nothing. What good are bombs when you
cannot differentiate a terrorist from a regular person ? I feel its
kind of like chemo for cancer, you kill some good cells along with a
lot of bad cells, but how to we know the body be able to withstand it
?

She can't, and that's the reason that the situation is coming to a head,
in a way way beyond what anybody's imagined before.

It is the first time, _ever,_ that Spirit has made an avowed commitment
to _not_ pretend healing is complete until _all_ of the lost will is
recovered.

My other question: About nuclear weapons- this is probably common
knowledge but I dont really know. The US has a very strong stand about
certain countries not making nuclear weapons. I want to know if this
has an actual justification for this - other than just "because".

America's current rulers simply want to be king bully, and they want
to be assured that they are the only ones in the world with the power at
their fingertips to destroy everything.

They are evil, and the evil that has possessed the bodies is being
reclaimed by its creator, and the essence that's been in its grip is
being healed. While the denial energy gets worked out of the essence
that's being freed from its prison of infinite pain, there will be
some presentation of symptoms, possibly in the form of upheavals -
but as long as you stay present with your own loving acceptance for
this movement, healing will manifest.

Eg:
did these countries say they wont develop nuclear weapons by signing
some treaty or something ? Because if they did not what legal grounds
does any outside country have to dictate what another nation does ?
Might does not make right because if used it woudl blow everyone up
anyway, or is there a real reason other than "because we say so" ?

It's because they're victims of the imprints that were the result of
the Original Gap.

Is this common knowledge in the us ? So what defines "rogue" nations
other than the fact that the state department says so ?

It's all pure bullshit, as you've suspected all along.

I am neither republican nor democrat (although you can tell I am more
of a liberal- universal health care good etc., ) and could not care
who wins either way because all frankly there is no way Kerry or
anyone can get us out of this mess, so it has to work itself out-
whatever that means.

I can do it, but I'd have to be elected commander-in-chief to do it.
As commander, I'd say, "Cease fire now, and come home. International
affairs department, please let the Iraqi folks know that the soldiers
have been ordered to not fire first, althought they're still allowed
to return fire, which shouldn't be necessary, since they're going
home, and they're just boys and girls like yourselves, who'd like to
get out of this mess in one piece."

Vote for me!
You'll be glad you did!

Thanks

You're Welcome!

Anita

Rich

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:uBccd.14481$nj.5251@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4171055a$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:s8a1n0d2a3ab89no4fsbbr3h3f17qoee67@4ax.com...
On 15 Oct 2004 21:08:13 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

"Dave" <db5151@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ckpapr$su2@library2.airnews.net>...

A quote from the President:

"I'm not the smartest fellow in the world, but I can sure pick smart
colleagues."

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

It would be pretty much impossible for your precious W to pick
'colleages'<SPELLING> that are less smart than himself. Not that it is
of
great importance, because it neglects social intelligence, a virtue
he doesn't posses either.


Not so hard, he could hire YOU!

No he can't. I'm not for hire.

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

 

[normanstrong]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.15.22.06.35.581738@example.net...

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:00:16 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:33:44 -0700, Julie <julie@nospam.com
wrote:

Frank Bemelman wrote:

The state of the nation is ruled by other forces than just the
administration.

Why don't more people realize that?

Don't you have a comedy like our "Yes, Minister"?

Probably not, but what's it about, if you don't mind my asking? I
do know I like most Brit humour.

As in "What's that racket?"

"That's Brahms' 3rd racket."

(I think it was Cleese.)

Cheers,

Norm Strong

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <41715BF6.4070907@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

Abd-er-Rahman III wrote:
http://www.mypetgoat.com/goatquotes.htm

I do not care much for Bush, but nonetheless must disagree with the
popular analysis of his demeanor in that classroom. His mind was
anything but vacant and he was not looking for guidance. He was clearly
stunned and his mind was racing. The 9/11 attacks were against him as
well as the US.

Note that the timescale for Al Queda attacks shows that the plans were

formulated during the Clinton administration. The attacks weren't really
against any one president, but indeed against the US.

One thing that Bush didn't do is to panic. When the Secret Service
and intelligence agencies got involved, then his flight "all over the nation"
took place. What happened on that day seems to make sense from the
standpoint of cold war strategy, and apparently the plans hadn't
changed during Clinton's regime.

John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.10.16.01.05.30.902326@example.net...

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:24:41 +0200, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in

Gosh, you *aren't* amused. Are you ever amused, any day?

You've got your priorities and principles screwed up. There is
nothing to be amused about this subject. We all sit on our
fat asses and it is damn easy to be amused about everything
that gets dropped on our desks, in the knowledge that lunch
and dinner will be tasty and enjoyable not matter what happens,
and that at the end of the day we have a warm and comfortable
bed. It would serve you if you realized what portion of your
tax dollar is spent on the demolition of other peoples lives.

Larkin is part of the problem. He couldn't give a shit less about
people dying and suffering, as long as John Larkin can "rise
above" and have "fun."

Having 'fun' seems to be the most important things these days. It
seems he thinks he has done his bit when he buys his employees a
pizza on Friday afternoon, and a bottle of red wine to share.

Well, Judgement Day is upon us, boys and girls, you mark my
words.

I'm not that pessimistic yet. But in a way you could call Election
day as the day of Judgement. Here's actually a chance for the US
to repair a lot of damage, with little effort and costs. A <10%
votes for Bush would be a tremendous step forward in gaining back
the loss of reputation.

(Oh, and if you're interested in surviving, I have the instructions.)

Take care.


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

 

[Winfield Hill]

Rolavine wrote...

From: soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim)

I definitely don't think we haven't been attacked because we're
lucky. Does that mean the Spanish are unlucky? No, it means we
are a much more hardened target than Spain or the Phillipines.

That is like saying we are more hardened than Richard Simmons?

Apparently Tom thinks we're hardened against the old cell-phone
in the backpack trick.


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)

 

[Clarence]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
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.

Which has no jurisdiction over US citizens and no standing with Americans.
The Constitution does not permit a court to impose it's self on America by
declaration.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:57 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

Oh, I see, this is about Bush getting credit for us not getting attacked! Heck,
lets give him credit for us not getting hit by astroids too. Tell me, what

Well, see, we're not getting attacked because we've got one of those bombs

http://www.comics.com/creators/wizardofid/archive/images/wizardofid2004114644022.gif

Maybe the powermongers could ask themselves the same question.

And maybe pigs will fly out of my butt.

Cheers!
Rich