OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Jim Yanik]

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in
news:m460n05fjuo9b2olqbmmij5uoom7apin5q@4ax.com:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:16:25 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

What you seem to be missing is that he owned up to
doing the same stuff as everybody else in the 'Nam, and when he woke
up and saw the horror of what was going on, he switched over to the
side of the good and right, and fought to stop the Vietnam hell.

John Kerry spoke to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations on April
23rd, 1971, speaking as a representative of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War. He was selected as their representative because of
his good standing and because he was "squeaky clean" himself. He was
a "poster boy," if ever there could be a Vietnam veteran with that
title.

I've listened to Kerry's testimony in Congress and just reviewed what
I remembered by reading it again at:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/
Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html

and he cited events recounted to him and well documented by other
Vietnam veterans, most particularly some 150 honorably discharged
Vietnam vets who testified in Detroit earlier that year. He didn't
admit any war crimes, personally, though he used an inclusive "we" in
his testimony because he was speaking as a representative of them and
others who were part of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It was
appropriate for him to use "we" in that role.

If you are interested in seeing the Winter Soldier testimony given
earlier that year, in 1971, see:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/
Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

or, this:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/
Manifestos/VVAW_Muller.html

Also, John Kerry made another speech at the University of Nevada on
September 30th, 1971.

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a group bitterly hated and
despised by some in the administration because these folks represented
a serious threat. In fact, in later testimony about actions of the
FBI, it was disclosed that this particular group was strongly targeted
by both federal and state law enforcement agencies for infiltration
and coercion. These veterans were informed and could recount specific
details and names, times, and places, and were also opposed to the
war. They were considered to be both a serious and a highly credible
threat in changing public opinion. And they were treated that way.

You can get a number of the Freedom of Information Act FBI records at
this conservative-action web site (in other words, a site dedicated in
some small part against Kerry, not for him):

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2006/Sectio
n%2006.pdf
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2007/Sectio
n%2007.pdf
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Section%2008/Sectio
n%2008.pdf

Section 8 above has some primary information, including this: "VVAW
is under active investigation in view of indications of communist and
other subversive infiltration." on page 4. By modifying the above
HTML links appropriately, you can get quite a lot (1000's of pages) of
this FBI documentation on the VVAW.

On balance in reading these materials and other primary documents,
though, you basically find that the leaders of the organization were
acting much as Larry Street (VVAW coordinator) who talked about "all
the unnecessary killing of Americans in Vietnam" and urged folks to
"write their Senators and Congressmen urging their support in ending
the war in Vietnam." This isn't "communist" or "subversive." It's
what our country is really about, yet it was painted quite differently
by those out to tar and feather this threatening group.

A lot of good primary material from this time can be found starting
at:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/

Bottom line is that VVAW was considered the primary, serious threat to
changing public opinion and it was thereby designated a subversive
group and subjected to rather improper state and federal police
practices. John Kerry, no less so, for being a representative and
having credentials which were difficult to publicly marginalize.

Jon

I note that a N.Vietnamese general gave Kerry an award for his support for
their cause. More proof of his treason.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.15.18.25.05.69414@example.net:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:33:44 -0700, Julie 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?

Because most people are programmed not to notice anything. They're
quite comfortable being nice and obedient, in their comfortable
little stock pens.

People don't want freedom, they want Mommy.

Cheers!
Rich

Kerry wants to have the GOVERNMENT run his healthcare.
He wants to "tax the rich" to help the "middle class",IOW;Marxism.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

"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.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:02:10 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com>
wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:21:51 GMT, PaulCsouls <paulcsouls@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

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

And here I thought that Bush supporters in the US were pushing the scare-tactic
that if Kerry gets in, he'll appoint her to the Supreme Court!

Jon

Not likely that the Senate would approve her nomination. Unless Kerry
has very long coattails and the balance of power shifts dramatically.

Which is exactly why it is a "scare tactic." It's not credible, but those
listening don't even realize it.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:53:38 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Better be careful with this "Truth" stuff. You might find yourself on the
suspected terrorists list.

Oh, cripes. I'm sure I've got a file somewhere. Had FBI agents working the
neighborhood and family when I got my clearances, years ago.

Jon

 

[Rolavine]

Dick Cheney's Daughter will explode at a white house tea?

Chicadas will come back every year?

Terrorists will run for congress get elected and run it better with less
corruption?

We won't end up with more fundies on the supreme court. Got to love the way it
is only an activist judge if he don't agree with reverend Bushie.

Vets will be sent into battle not only without body armor but in underwear from
Victorias Secrets?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:32:21 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:21:51 GMT, PaulCsouls <paulcsouls@worldnet.att.net
wrote:

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

And here I thought that Bush supporters in the US were pushing the scare-tactic
that if Kerry gets in, he'll appoint her to the Supreme Court!

Can you see that? How about her, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Burt Rutan

on the supreme court?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:54:01 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <ZkWbd.14040$nj.3943@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[... hillary ...]
that if Kerry gets in, he'll appoint her to the Supreme Court!

Jon

Now THAT is a scary thought!

Say it isn't so!

Ok, it isn't so. How does Justice Jane Fonda strike you?

With a leather cat-o-nine-tails.

Rowr!
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Julie 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...

Kerry states his platform in detail on his website- it is extensive and
addresses serious domestic problems not even considered by the
Republican platform. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
A fair and balanced comparative analysis of the candidates can be found
here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

 

[Julie]

Rich Grise wrote:

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."

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

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

What are your 'instructions'? I have my own set.

 

[Julie]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Julie 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...

Kerry states his platform in detail on his website- it is extensive and
addresses serious domestic problems not even considered by the
Republican platform. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
A fair and balanced comparative analysis of the candidates can be found
here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

I don't know if I'd consider Frontline balanced... In fact, I don't consider
any single source balanced.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:20:03 +0200, Frank Bemelman wrote:


"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:416FE738.CDEE3700@nospam.com...

If Kerry is elected and the state of the nation stays the same or worsens

(high

oil prices, mess in Iraq, no UBL, etc.), are the anti-Bushers just going

to

blame it all on the previous Bush administration?

I've hardly decided my vote, but I'm almost tempted to hope/vote Kerry

just to

see what magic he will have to perform to pull off all of his promises...

Don't expect miracles from Kerry. The state of the nation is ruled by
other forces than just the administration. But the alternative, voting
for a proven war criminal, is totally immoral, so what choice do you have?


Michael Badnarik.
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres

And everybody knows one vote doesn't make any difference - So vote Libertarian
just for the fun of it! Just to do that one little rebellious thing that
nobody knows about - Or announce proudly, "I voted against BOTH of them!"
In your heart you can know that you have contributed to the impetus to correct
what's wrong with America. Little things like that really do make a difference,
you know.

Cheers!
Rich

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.
*************************
Published on Thursday, October 14, 2004 by the Portland Press Herald (Maine)
Green Officials Urge Voters to Back Kerry
by Rep. John Eder and Stephen Spring


George W. Bush's sister, Doro Bush Koch, traveled to Maine last weekend,
following on the heels of the president's recent visit to the state.
Several weeks ago, first lady Laura Bush also rallied here.

Three Bushes in such a short period of time? While it might seem that
the first family might be searching for a new vacation spot, political
scientist Christian Potholm had a better answer: "I don't think they
would be sending the president to Bangor if they didn't think they had a
shot at all four (electoral) votes."

The Bushes clearly understand that this year, Maine's residents may be
decisive in selecting the next president. Luckily, these visits from the
Bush family have helped clarify how Mainers should vote this November.

Laura Bush declared that "W stands for women" during her swing through
Maine last month. It is our understanding that the first lady reads the
newspapers for her husband, but it seems she missed the articles where
George W. Bush declared himself a "war president."

That seems to accurately describe our president - but we give credit to
Laura Bush for trying to help her husband. In fact, we'll say that her
"L" stands for loyalty. Unfortunately for residents of Maine, loyalty
won't give us health care, livable wages or a woman's right to choose,
and it won't save our environment. Our self-proclaimed "war president"
has lived up to that description, declaring war on women's rights, equal
civil rights, working people and the environment.

Both of us are elected officials and members of the Green Party, but
given the destructive record of the Bush administration and the threat
posed by a four-year continuance thereof, we are compelled to break with
tradition and, at grave risk to our party status in Maine, ask voters in
battleground states such as Maine to support Democrat John Kerry.

TIPPING THE BALANCE IN CLOSE STATES

Though we are pulled by loyalty to our party, unlike Mrs. Bush, we won't
allow blind allegiance to come before the interests of Maine residents.

For four years, we have watched an unchallenged right-wing cabal allow
corporations to pollute our air and water, while diverting funds from
our schools so that the Bush administration can play G.I. Joe with the
lives of Maine's servicemen and women. As Green Party officials, we
won't stand by and watch this happen.

Even as Maine Democrats have waged a relentless war against our highest
elected official, John Eder, by redistricting him out of his seat, we
ask our supporters to vote for John Kerry in the state. We do this
because it is the right thing to do. We are not scared to do so, as we
know that Mainers take pride in their independence, and are wise to the
severe failings of, and the dirty tricks played by, the two corporate
parties.

President Bush has pulled even with John Kerry in polls tracking the
preferences of Maine voters, and now is not the time for Greens and
Democrats to allow their differences to better Bush's chances of
re-election.

Because November's election is likely to be so close, progressives can
play kingmaker and tip its outcome. Progressive solidarity is especially
important in Maine, given its formidable liberal presence, its history
of environmental activism and its many Green elected officials.

NADER DIVIDES THE LEFT

But despite the mainstream media's characterization of Democrats as
unified and progressives as mobilized, former consumer advocate Ralph
Nader continues to divide the left, bashing Democrats for shifting to
the right and attacking the Greens for challenging his monopoly on the
progressive vote.

The overwhelming majority of those who share our values, including the
many constituents of elected Greens who live in Portland, believe the
differences between Bush and Kerry are vast, making it imperative that
Bush lose his re-election bid. We agree, and that's why we've formed the
committee GreensforImpact.com to mobilize progressives against the Bush
administration.

To foster a more cooperative political environment, we encourage the
citizens of Maine to focus energy on implementing Instant Runoff Voting.
Under IRV, voters rank candidates rather than choose just one.
Candidates with the fewest first-choice votes are eliminated from the
race, and the second-choice votes are transferred to the other
candidates. This process is repeated until a candidate achieves a majority.

IRV allows voters to vote their consciences without the unintended
consequence of aiding their political adversaries, diminishing the
so-called "spoiler" problem. John Eder has introduced a bill to
implement IRV. The reform is being studied by Maine's secretary of state.

Please continue to support Greens for local office, and vote for John
Kerry for president this Nov. 2.

Rep. John Eder of Portland serves in the Maine Legislature and Stephen
Spring of Portland is a member of the Portland School Committee.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <vk_bd.31092$QJ3.889@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ckpke9$hq2$2@blue.rahul.net...
[...]
Ok, it isn't so. How does Justice Jane Fonda strike you?

You mean "Barberella?" I would stay out of her reach.

That was her best movie wasn't it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <41706502.EBBA578A@Hovnanian.com>,
Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
[... justice Hillary ..]

Not likely that the Senate would approve her nomination. Unless Kerry
has very long coattails and the balance of power shifts dramatically.

He just has to wait for the senate to be out of town and then do the
appointment.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:38:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <vk_bd.31092$QJ3.889@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ckpke9$hq2$2@blue.rahul.net...
[...]
Ok, it isn't so. How does Justice Jane Fonda strike you?

You mean "Barberella?" I would stay out of her reach.

That was her best movie wasn't it.

Cat Ballou (sp?) was OK.

John

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Of_bd.31091$QJ3.6398@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ckpl0t$hq2$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <AcUbd.13859$nj.7891@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]
You seem confused. Kerry is the one who confessed to war crimes!

No actually he didn't. Some right wing hate groups are spreading the lie
that he did to rationalize their vote to put a known traitor back into the
white house.


I saw the replay of the hearing in which he said he was only one of many who,
and listed many very gory details. SO if that wasn't him, who was the actor
pretending to be Kerry in front of the congressional hearing?

Go get the transcript and read it very carefully. If you concentrate you
can overcome your programming.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Larkin]

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>...
"Julie" <julie@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:416FE738.CDEE3700@nospam.com...
If Kerry is elected and the state of the nation stays the same or worsens
(high
oil prices, mess in Iraq, no UBL, etc.), are the anti-Bushers just going
to
blame it all on the previous Bush administration?

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

Don't bother voting for Bush unless you honestly believe he can do different
from what he has already done.

Just a thought.

Dave

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.

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

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

John

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:12:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

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

John

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

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

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

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

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:12:05 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:


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

John

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


You don't believe that some people are smarter than others?

Once you cross a certain threshold of complexity, it is the performance
that matters. If the work is so specialized, you've personally lost the
ability to judge any other measure.

If you
don't, why do you keep calling people idiots?

I only call you and a few select others "idiots".

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

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

If that's what keeps your boat afloat then go for it.