OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Frank Bemelman]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:4171B021.9070708@nospam.com...

Clarence wrote:
"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.



LOL- what a moron! The US is a party to many treaties which allow for
extradition of Americans to a foreign nation for prosecution under their
criminal law.

Well, as far as I know, the US refused to sign a treaty that allowed
to hand over Americans to the Internation Court of Justice, when
requested. Which is strange, plenty civilised countries had no problems
with it.

But perhaps the US wakes up on a sunny day, and signs the treaty and
delivers Bush for trial. It won't repair all damage, but it would be
the most decent thing to do, given the circumstances.

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

 

[Clarence]

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:3e23n0962dmrlj51203vudi3rc72lr15pp@4ax.com...

On 16 Oct 2004 00:50:26 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

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

Nothing to say about the facts I presented. Just more dung added to the
heap.

I've no doubt that many credit Kerry with helping end US involvement in the
war
in Vietnam. I do, too. So what?

Jon

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

 

[Robert Monsen]

Clarence wrote:

"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3decd.270293$3l3.247123@attbi_s03...

Clarence wrote:

"Madelin McKinnon" <rstacey@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:8916096a.0410160759.1eb62f7d@posting.google.com...


I think the low blows are actually being thrown by the Cheney family
(specifically Lynne) and the republicans. It was pretty convenient for
Lynne and Dick to bring up their daughter when it makes Bush and
Cheney look "compassionate." It would be one thing if they never
brought it up in any speech or anything that furthers their campaign
with moderates...but they have.


So your an apologist for the attacks on Chaney's daughter?
You seem to agree that Mary is "Fair Game" and Kerry / Edwards may use her

as a

punching bag. SHAME ON YOU!


You are making the baseless assumption that the statement by Kerry was
an attack. You must have been listening to a different debate, or had it
filtered through the Limbaugh filter.


I haven't heard what Rush had to say. Do not listen to him normally.


Here is what he said:
I think


No, you don't

Repeating the Insulting remarks are not going to change anything.
Is was an attack, and I just spent an hour listening to some national news
saying that it may have been the most damaging thing Kerry could have said. He
shot himself in the foot while trying to drive a wedge between Cheney and Bush.

I notice you clipped the remarks. Here they are again, so people can
judge for themselves whether your claims are accurate:

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

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who
struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because
they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa
when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who
they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that. "

--
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.

 

[Mike Ng]

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 our Executive branch is being helped along by a willing
Legislature. What also worries me is the practice of the Executive
branch's Judicial nominees requiring confirmation from the Legislative
branch. When one party controls two branches of the government, they
can eventually take over the third...

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:24:14 -0700, Mike Ng
<ude.yelekreb.scee.yroc@gnm.ROTATE> wrote:

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 our Executive branch is being helped along by a willing
Legislature. What also worries me is the practice of the Executive
branch's Judicial nominees requiring confirmation from the Legislative
branch. When one party controls two branches of the government, they
can eventually take over the third...

This is an interesting and very thoughtful piece:

http://www.policyreview.org/oct04/lindberg.html


I especially liked his recognition of the servoing, self-centering
nature of the US political system... most political writers are
entirely ignorant of system dynamics. That 'autozero' mechanism will,
for several reasons, keep the Court in pretty good longterm balance.

"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." Good
line.

John

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <ckrspb$1oq0$4@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]

N Korea problem, hoodwinked by a crazy dictator.

N. Korea was only a slight problem at the end of the Clinton era. It is
only in the last 2 years that they have turned into a major problem, but
I'll let you have that one.

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

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

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

The ongoing festering terror problem treated as law enforcement.

He used military assets to try to take OBL out and did so more than once.
While the nonsense with Monica wass in the news, people were crying "wag
the dog" and he could not get support for further and more extreme action
on the subject.

Until 9-11 the Bush folks "never heard of OBL"

BTW: calling OBL crowd "a criminal gang", is a better match to most of
what they do. They don't run governments and are in fact against the law
in most places where they operate. It also makes it harder for them to be
called martyrs. I personally don't care what they are called as you load
them on the bus to hell.

The associated left over Iraq problem and the no-fly-zones.

That was left from Bush 1. It worked quite well Saddam was firmly in a
box and stayed there for 8 years.

The excess decrease of a couple more military divisions than BushI.

The divisions would not be needed if the Iraq operation was delayed until
the Afgan one was done with. It is a basic scheduling problem. Saddam
would have been there the next year too.

The severe weakening of CIA intelligence capability.

The CIA was an inteligence side show for 10 years before anyone thought to
reduce its budget. I've met CIA people. I was stunned on one case at the
obvious lack of up to date information. This was before Clinton.

Rush's apparent self-medication problem when trying to emotionally deal
with Clintons misbehavior... .

His self-medication problem got worse when he saw cowboy boots on the
whitehouse lawn.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <9ev2n0dc7il2k642ua8ugp8id5k3ns9jac@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
[...]

Will Kerry pay me, then?

Go to his web site and apply.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <1aicd.14557$nj.1516@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]

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.

So maybe they have to invade and take over the country to do it. That
wouldn't be hard. Just show up on superbowl sunday diguised as pizza
delivery drivers.

It is really who has the guns that controls who gets arrested for their
crimes. That doesn't change the moral situation though.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <LNecd.270564$3l3.86185@attbi_s03>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]

Maybe democracy actually works, despite the efforts of Rupert Murdoch,
Sun Myung Moon, and Richard Mellon Scaife to the contrary.

Maybe its because of their efforts. They become so obviously biased that
people start to read between the lines to see what the real story is. If
Fox says that the sky is blue, more and more people will check for
themselves. The ham handedness could be producing exactly the results
they don't want.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <6c71b322.0410161338.658e3a3b@posting.google.com>,
Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
[.. about Kerry ..]

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

Your claim about what Kerry said makes you either (a) misinformed or (b) a
liar. Kerry testified to nothing of the sort.

I invite anyone who thinks there may be so much as a shred of truth in Tom
Seim's statement to go look it up and read it carefully. You will find
that it is completely clear that Kerry said no such thing.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

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

Tom Seim wrote:

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


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


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

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

[...]


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

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

--


When Ghengis Khan rises from the dead:

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

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


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

Where were you in Vietnam?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<417141B0.1040605@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4170A068.3050000@nospam.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 debatable. The real question people should ask
themselves is do we want four more years of the same- or
possibly worse is what it looks like with each passing day. The
record makes the answer clear: NO!


You went for the bait, hook line & sinker, fredrook. That quote
is from FDR!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

It makes no difference, the context was Bush. Note that FDR has not
been "the President" for quite some time now. Americans need to ask
themselves if they want to ride this downward spiral for four more
years. The answer should be : NO! NO MORE BUSH!


That's vintage Bloggs - don't let the F**KING facts get in your way,
just blow off your major league mouth!!!!!

I got you!! Be a MAN and admit it!!!!!!

We were talking about the referendum...errr...election 2004.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417194AF.5040604@nospam.com>...

John S. Dyson wrote:

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


I think it runs deeper than that. You might recall that several
terrorist organizations attempted to donate to Bush's 2000 campaign
through front men. It was imperative that the WTC attack occur at the
earliest possible time into the Bush administration to maximize the
ensuing chaos. Terrorism wants Bush to win this election, he is doing
more for them to stir up a hornets nest of American hatred and has
accelerated their schedule for a major fundamentalist state. The last
thing terrorism wants is an intelligent and carefully programmed US
counter-attack that sets the whole world against them.


It's a well known fact that Kim Jon Ill MUCH prefers Kerry over Bush.

That could be- because he does not want to actually *use* his weapons

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:06:31 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:40:01 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:17:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:27:27 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
...
It would be pretty much impossible for your precious W to pick
'colleages' that are less smart than himself.

Well, he managed to graduate from Yale. Where did you graduate?

My dad couldn't afford to buy me a diploma.

---
Or, no doubt, spell it.

I gusss by now, I should know to expect this sort of disrespect
from the likes of you.

You have insulted my father, who is not present to defend himself.

You, sir, are beneath contempt.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:42:54 +0000, normanstrong wrote:

We can discuss electronics, sure. But to sweep all things in life
under
the carpet of, eh, 'interesting' is simple minded. Wasn't it your
precious W recalling 9/11 as 'an interesting day'. The election of
W makes quite a difference. It means that the majority has voted
for a proven war criminal. Wake up.

--
Thanks, Frank.

You're not a criminal until you're tried and convicted. That sort of
thing only happens to those who lose a war. Lt. Calley didn't serve
much time considering that he was a mass murderer. Saddam is being
held in hopes that he will be tried and convicted of some crime,
although he has not yet been indicted.

So, in plain English, he's nothing but a kidnap victim.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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

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


Here is what he said:

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



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

John



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

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

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

Unfortunately, the cult they're pushing worships the god of death and
destruction.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:34:47 +0200, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> schreef in
bericht news:9lg2n0h0srjo8r700i0msvn0s69me4m81i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:56:09 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

Simple-minded is shrieking and name-calling and calling people idiots
because they don't agree with you.

In general yes, but there is nothing wrong with calling people idiots
when they are. But your eyes are glued.


What a lovely example of Liberal Logic (if you'll pardon the
oxymoron): "Freedom of speech is right for me, because I'm right, but
not for you, because it's obvious to me that you are wrong."


Another smoke curtain. I never said you should not have
freedom of speech. But freedom of speach does not mean you
can say everything you like and get it away with it.

Sorry, Frank, but that's _exactly_ what freedom of speech means.

I think Larkin needs medical attention, but I don't try to silence
him - I'd like to see him choose to educate himself, but I have to
fall back on the wisdom of my Dad, rest his soul: "I may not agree
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
remain uninformed."

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

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

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

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

Jon

 

[Rich Grise]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Remember who the invader is, here.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:45:48 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

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.

You must be an Aryan.