OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm4iq2$god$1@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns9593D54EBD9B8jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm39jp$fol$9@blue.rahul.net:


Bush has not promised everything and anything in order to get elected.

Yes, Bush has vowed to continue screwing up in exactly the same way
for four more years. This is his only real promise.


And he's no traitor like Kerry.

Kerry has been accused of many
things by the right wing nut cases. All of them have been proven
untrue.

You can't prove flase Kerry's meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in
Paris,WHILE he was still an officer in the US military.
And so MANY POWs all say Kerry's a traitor,and they know it to be true.



"John Kerry;betraying America since 1971."
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns95946C1B3B847jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
[...]

You can't prove flase Kerry's meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in
Paris,WHILE he was still an officer in the US military.
And so MANY POWs all say Kerry's a traitor,and they know it to be true.

So its guilty until proven....

Since I can't prove that all those documents weren't forged in some
massive world wide conspiracy you are right, but there is a huge amount of
evidence including the lack of any charges being brought at the time by a
government that would really have loved to that points very strongly to
Kerry's version of events being the right one.

John McCain trumps all the POWs you invent.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:53:50 -0800, Winfield Hill wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Ken Smith writes:

Chances are he won't even remember to go to the poles on Wednesday
like the republicans are supposed to.

The GOPers might want to go to the poles on Wednesday, but hopefully
they'll go to the polls on Tuesday.

Right, on Tuesday we'll all go to the polls. On Wednesday the Bushites,
seeing the results, will go to the poles, while the rest of us celebrate.

And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to the Poles. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm5mvf$clf$4@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns95946B210DC4Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm4iq2$god$1@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns9593D54EBD9B8jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm39jp$fol$9@blue.rahul.net:


Bush has not promised everything and anything in order to get
elected.

Yes, Bush has vowed to continue screwing up in exactly the same way
for four more years. This is his only real promise.


And he's no traitor like Kerry.


We've been over that ground before. It is the Bush admin. that
outed the CIA agent. They are the traitors. Kerry has been accused
of many things by the right wing nut cases. All of them have been
proven untrue. The charge of treason against Kerry is just a
rationalization for those who intend to return a known traitor to
the Whitehouse.


Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

[... a big long snip ..]

Go back and read it carefully if you haven't already and you will see
that none of it proves anything against Kerry.

Of course,because the evidence is protected by that Privacy Act and Kerry
will not release his records(by signing a Form 180).

***Because he has something to hide***.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm5nfe$clf$5@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns95946C1B3B847jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
[...]
You can't prove flase Kerry's meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in
Paris,WHILE he was still an officer in the US military.
And so MANY POWs all say Kerry's a traitor,and they know it to be
true.

So its guilty until proven....

Hell,it's public knowledge.Kerry met with the enemy;public knowledge.
He collaborated with them.He's a traitor.

Since I can't prove that all those documents weren't forged in some
massive world wide conspiracy you are right, but there is a huge
amount of evidence including the lack of any charges being brought at
the time by a government that would really have loved to that points
very strongly to Kerry's version of events being the right one.

John McCain trumps all the POWs you invent.

I don't have to "invent" any POWs,they came forward themselves.
They are real,just like the Swift Boat Vets.

Just because McCain is quiet does NOT diminish what the other,*numerous*
POWs are saying.

You just are in denial.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns9594C7057881Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
[...]

Hell,it's public knowledge.Kerry met with the enemy;public knowledge.

He met with them.

He collaborated with them.He's a traitor.

Neither of those are true. You have attempted to claim that many times
but never been able to document your claims. As I said before, by your
standards the Red Cross are bunch of traitors. It is simply false that
merely speaking to them is collaboration or treason.

If you want real treason, look at the outing of the CIA agent. You plan
on putting that traitor back in office.

Just because McCain is quiet does NOT diminish what the other,*numerous*
POWs are saying.

McCain is not quiet. He have spoken out. He has condemmed those who make
such charges.

You just are in denial.

You intend to vote to put a traitor back in the whitehouse and are
desparately trying to rationalize your actions.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41865DE7.4050302@nospam.com>...

YD wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:31:51 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:



In article <418307C0.8080002@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:


John S. Dyson wrote:



The high explosives issue, whether Kerry's claim happens to be the
same as reality OR NOT, has proven Kerry to be a liar (and his supporters
to either be intellectually dishonest or intellectual fools), because of
his absolute claims without supporting evidence. An honest person wouldn't
make the claims so strongly, and wouldn't be so condemning ON THAT TRUE
OR UNTRUE ASSERTION.


The hard facts are that the US allowed millions of tons of conventional
munitions to fall into the hands of the insurgency.


Please show where 'millions of tons' had been released to anyone. The
whole nonsense being talked about by Kerry was hundreds of tons, and
it is very likely that the munitions were evacuated by Russia. Many
of them were destroyed by the US (e.g. 100,000s of tons.) Kerry is whining
about 100s of Tons.

Again, Kerry is whining about 100s of tons, and our military has been
destroying 100,000s of tons. Again --

Kerry whines about 400 tons. (Probably much less)
US military has destroyed 400,000 tons. (Probably more)

I lined this up -- just in case your limited memory keeps you from
doing the comparison.

John


Oh, so it's only 400 tons gone missing. Nothing to worry about then,
can't possibly do any harm at all.

- YD.


Right - 800,000 pounds of extremely energetic explosive material- when
only 0.5 pounds is required to bring down an airline.


That's 799,200,000 pounds less than what they had before we invaded.
And all the more reason to kill the punks where they are at.

Even Duelfers states there are 100's thousands *tons* of HE on the loose
in Iraq. Go get 'em , cowboy.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm5nfe$clf$5@blue.rahul.net:


In article <Xns95946C1B3B847jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
[...]

You can't prove flase Kerry's meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in
Paris,WHILE he was still an officer in the US military.
And so MANY POWs all say Kerry's a traitor,and they know it to be
true.

So its guilty until proven....

Hell,it's public knowledge.Kerry met with the enemy;public knowledge.
He collaborated with them.He's a traitor.

[]

Jim Yanik

-------------------------
There is no such knowledge, nor even reasoned surmise to any such.

You're merely lying like a shit in abject desperation the day before
your side loses an election. At this point, you'll say ANYTHING!

-Steve

I want all these mindless scum permanently flamed to hell forever and a
day after the elections are over. They are goddammed scum.

 

[Daniel Haude]

On 1 Nov 2004 15:33:14 GMT,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
in Msg. <Xns95946B210DC4Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>

Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

[blurb snipped]

Jim Yanik is STILL playing that cracked record. Cute.

--Daniel

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:00:52 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

I want all these mindless scum permanently flamed to hell forever and a
day after the elections are over. They are goddammed scum.

---
I think they're called "The electorate".

Fortunately, it won't matter much who they vote for.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/

--
John Fields

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:54:29 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:00:52 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:




I want all these mindless scum permanently flamed to hell forever and a
day after the elections are over. They are goddammed scum.


---
I think they're called "The electorate".

Fortunately, it won't matter much who they vote for.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/


Actually an electoral college architecture is just an intermediate
partitioning of a popular vote. A popular vote is an electoral vote of
one. When the winner is declared it is as if *all* the popular vote went
to him, right?


---
"As if", but not "in fact".

Yeah it is a fact- the winner takes office- not just a portion of it.
Each candidate's percentage of popular vote is counted modulo zero/one.

If the electoral college votes one way and the electorate votes
another, the electoral college's vote prevails.

Right- that's a possibility but not the intent. The electoral college
was not designed to obliviate the popular vote, it was designed to
expedite the election process. I believe the original estimate was that
it would take three months to tally the popular vote in 18th century
America.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:41:39 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


Nobody with an IQ of 85 would be allowed to wash a jet fighter, much
less fly one.

You seem to be forgetting the age deterioration effect.

How old are you, Fred?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:58:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:50:46 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Reg Edwards wrote:

Bush is a dangerous idiot.

=============================

The multi-nationals are far too intelligent to employ a president with an
IQ greater than 75.


That is a credible number in my estimation.

Remember- Bush is a dangerous idiot and liar!



An article in The New York Times estimated the IQ of Bush and Kerry
from available test results. They estimated Kerry at 120, Bush as "mid
120's." Both graduated from Yale.

John




Can you cite that article. My guess would have been Kerry at 150+ and
Bush no greater than 85- no way can I believe Bush is higher- he's an
impulsive idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html

You'll see a lot of similar stuff if you google "Bush Kerry IQ". Most
conclude that they are close, in the 120's, with W maybe a little
ahead.

Nobody with an IQ of 85 would be allowed to wash a jet fighter, much
less fly one. And 150+ is genius, which JK isn't; that's obvious from
the way he's run his campaign.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:17:16 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:56:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:58:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:50:46 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Reg Edwards wrote:

Bush is a dangerous idiot.

=============================

The multi-nationals are far too intelligent to employ a president
with an
IQ greater than 75.


That is a credible number in my estimation.

Remember- Bush is a dangerous idiot and liar!



An article in The New York Times estimated the IQ of Bush and Kerry
from available test results. They estimated Kerry at 120, Bush as "mid
120's." Both graduated from Yale.

John




Can you cite that article. My guess would have been Kerry at 150+ and
Bush no greater than 85- no way can I believe Bush is higher- he's an
impulsive idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html

You'll see a lot of similar stuff if you google "Bush Kerry IQ". Most
conclude that they are close, in the 120's, with W maybe a little ahead.

Nobody with an IQ of 85 would be allowed to wash a jet fighter, much less
fly one. And 150+ is genius, which JK isn't; that's obvious from the way
he's run his campaign.


140+, thank you very much.

And I am a living example that a high IQ is no guarantee of, well,
anything.

Only the ability to do well on IQ tests. I went to one of the
country's first "magnet" schools (barely got in, barely stayed in,
mostly because of laziness) and I soon learned that there are some
very smart, very disfunctional people around. Smarter is generally
better, but it can distort a life. I don't think that an IQ of, say,
150 is a good predictor of success or happiness.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm4iq2$god$1@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns9593D54EBD9B8jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm39jp$fol$9@blue.rahul.net:


Bush has not promised everything and anything in order to get elected.

Yes, Bush has vowed to continue screwing up in exactly the same way
for four more years. This is his only real promise.


And he's no traitor like Kerry.


We've been over that ground before. It is the Bush admin. that outed
the CIA agent. They are the traitors. Kerry has been accused of many
things by the right wing nut cases. All of them have been proven
untrue. The charge of treason against Kerry is just a rationalization
for those who intend to return a known traitor to the Whitehouse.

Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
November 1, 2004

A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has
built
a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy
by
1975, The New York Sun has learned.

The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter
administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's
record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's
Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a
judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the
Navy
between 1975 and 1977.

On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly
insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site
atjohnkerry.com, except for his medical records.

"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on
the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable
discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975,if not earlier, three years
after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."

Another retired Navy Reserve officer, who served three tours in the Navy's
Bureau of Personnel, points out that there should also have been a
certified
letter giving Mr. Kerry a choice of a reserve reaffiliation or separation
and
discharge. If Mr. Meehan is correct and all the documents are indeed on the
Web site, the absence of any documents from 1972 to 1978 in the posted
Kerry
files is a glaring hole in the record.

The applicable U.S. Navy regulation, now found at MILPERSMAN 1920-210
"Types
of Discharge for Officers," lists five examples of conditions required to
receive an honorable discharge certificate, four required to receive a
general
discharge "not of such a nature as to require discharge under conditions
other
than honorable," and seven for "the lowest type of separation from the
naval
service. It is now officially in all respects equivalent to a dishonorable
discharge."

Kerry spokesmen have also repeatedly said that the senator has an honorable
discharge. And there is indeed a cover letter to an honorable discharge
dated
February 16,1978,on the Kerry Web site. It is in form and reference to
regulation exactly the same as one granted Swiftboat Veterans for Truth
member
Robert Shirley on March 12, 1971, during a periodic "reduction in force
(RIF)"
by the Naval Reserve. The only significant difference between Mr. Kerry's
and
Mr. Shirley's is the signature information and the dates. In a RIF,
officers
who no longer have skills or are of an age group the Navy wishes to keep in
reserve are involuntarily separated by the Navy and given their appropriate
discharge. This is a normal and ongoing activity and there is no stigma
attached to it.

Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr. Kerry was other
than honorably discharged before he was honorably discharged.

"Mr. Meehan may well be right and all Mr. Kerry's military records are on
his
Web site," Mr. Sullivan said. "Unlike en listed members, officers do not
receive other than honorable, or dishonorable, certificates of discharge.
To
the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer
separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation are not deemed
consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor. The absence of an
honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is,
therefore, a
harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who
are dismissed after a general court-martial."

With the only discharge document cited by Mr. Kerry issued in 1978, three
years after the last date it should have been issued, the absence of a
certificate from 1975 leaves only two possibilities. Either Mr. Kerry
received
an "other than honorable" certificate that has been removed in a review
purging it from his records, or even worse, he received no certificate at
all.
In both cases there would have been a loss of all of Mr. Kerry's medals and
the suspension of all benefits of service.

Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying
to
law school.

Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston
College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."

It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application
since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of
November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school
the
following September of 1973.A member of the Harvard Law School admissions
committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was
because
the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than
honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state
bar.

The fact that Mr. Kerry had cancelled his candidacy for a Congressional
seat
in 1970 in favor of Father Robert Drinan cannot have hurt Mr. Kerry's
admission to Boston College. The Reverend Robert Drinan's previous position
was dean of the Boston College Law School.

Given this, it is likely that a legal review took place that effectively
purged Mr. Kerry's Navy files and arranged for the three-year-late
honorable
discharge in 1978.There were two avenues during the 1977-1978 time period.
This could have been under President Carter's Executive Order 11967, under
which thousands received pardons and upgrades for harsh discharges or other
offenses under the Selective Service Act. Or it might have merged into
efforts
by the military to comply with the demands of the 1975 Church Committee.
Mr.
Sullivan was personally involved in the 1976 and 1977 records review
answering
Senator Kennedy's demands to determine the scope of any counterintelligence
abuses by the military.

In the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1977, legislation introduced by Mr.
Kennedy
to enforce the findings of the Church Committee, there is language that
literally describes the behavior of Mr. Kerry. The defined behavior that
could
no longer be subject to surveillance without warrants includes: "Americans
having contact with foreign powers in the case of Americans who were active
in
the protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Some of them may have
attended international conferences at which there were representatives of
foreign powers, as defined in the bill, or may have been directly in
communication with foreign governments concerning this issue."

One of Mr. Kerry's first acts of office as he entered the Senate on January
3,
1985, was making sure what was still in the Navy files. A report was
returned
to Mr. Kerry by a Navy JAG on January 25, 1985, and appears on the Kerry
Web
site. There is an enclosure listed that may have contained a list of files,
according to David Myers, the JAG who prepared it, that is not on Mr.
Kerry's
Web site. It could have provided an index for all of Mr. Kerry's Navy
files.

All officials with knowledge of what specifically happened in Mr. Kerry's
case
are muzzled by the Privacy Act of 1974.The act makes it a crime for federal
employees to knowingly disclose personal information or records.

Only Mr. Kerry can do that. As of this writing, Mr. Kerry has failed to
sign a
Standard Form 180 giving the electorate and the press access to his Navy
files.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns95946B210DC4Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm4iq2$god$1@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns9593D54EBD9B8jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cm39jp$fol$9@blue.rahul.net:


Bush has not promised everything and anything in order to get elected.

Yes, Bush has vowed to continue screwing up in exactly the same way
for four more years. This is his only real promise.


And he's no traitor like Kerry.


We've been over that ground before. It is the Bush admin. that outed
the CIA agent. They are the traitors. Kerry has been accused of many
things by the right wing nut cases. All of them have been proven
untrue. The charge of treason against Kerry is just a rationalization
for those who intend to return a known traitor to the Whitehouse.


Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

[... a big long snip ..]

Go back and read it carefully if you haven't already and you will see that
none of it proves anything against Kerry.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge