John Kerry & the Bitch
 

"Michael" wrote in message
...
.In real life the reasons soldiers fight, is the same as the
reason NFL linebackers play football.

The taste of blood?


They support the team not the owners.
They work for money first, applause is a distant second. Same way it's
been
for thousands of years.

The NFL was formed in 1922.

SV

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

No. Impossible. I can't be right in your view. YOU WIN TOO!

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining
age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It
never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms
.. .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.


There is no draft, and there has not been a draft for a long time. As
Gayanzy
pointed out, it would require an act of congress to start a draft.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms . .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.

M.


Are you saying that a mandatory 15 minute trip to the Post Office to
fill out a form is the same thing as a two year tour with the Army?
Well, I guess some Post Offices are slow and have been known to be
dangerous, but your apples and oranges won't float. If no one is
drafted most folks would say we don't *currently* have a draft.


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:21:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

No. Impossible. I can't be right in your view. YOU WIN TOO!

Strange bedfellows in an election year:) I sure hope I spelled
election correctly...:)


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining
age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It
never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms
. .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.


There is no draft, and there has not been a draft for a long time. As
Gayanzy
pointed out, it would require an act of congress to start a draft.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

You do the Bobsprit imitation better than I do the Neal imitation. Think
I'll retire and keep my day and my night job.

M.


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in
for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?

You're still a bit light on the bigotry, misogyny and theft masquerading
as
libertarianism. You have the lying part down pretty good, but you have a
ways
to go before you're a true Republican.

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Translation: "But What ABOUT the REEEEpublicans?

Who cares? They are just politicians like the Democrats ergo not 'worthy'
people. Citing evil is not an excuse for evil. Sniveling is not a valid
point of discussion. And using your own negatives to describe someone else
is sort of silly don't you agree?

OK took a while but I understand the point . . .finally.

Soo. .. you excuse the misdeeds of your guy by citing the misdeeds of
someone else's guy?

Try harder, I expected better.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Not that well... morals... hmmm... like Bush's daughters getting busted.
Or, Gingrich telling his wife in the hospital that he's dumping her? Or,
maybe it's Rush's multiple marriages. Or, possibly Hatch releasing
classified information when he wasn't supposed to. Or, Ashcrap "anointing"
himself with oil when he was picked to be AG (well, that's not amoral,
just bizarre). Or, Henry Hyde's mistress. Oh, I know what you mean...
Bill and Hillary actually raising an intelligent, thoughful daughter
inside
the political fishbowl.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in
for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he
failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST
NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Deferment or not it's still conscription which is taking people against
their will. Another word for slavery no matter how well it's disguised.
Resorting to which is proof the societal system has failed and is not worth
saving. Such systems have always deferred the elite and drawn heavily from
the defenseless masses.

Think a minute. If the prosecution of the wars in Kosovo or Iraq was
dependent on the soldiers voting with their feet (Go Home or Go To War)
Or for that matter if the same was used in WWI, WWII, Korea,Viet-Nam what
would the vote have been?

Hint: In WWII the majority of those in uniform were drafted. Tell you
something?

Now as a professional soldier I looked at it a bit differently. I didn't
come forward for love of anything more than a paycheck. Well . .at first I
did but I learned fast.

So there are three choices.

a. One is military slavery as you seem to be promoting. It's the system
used by failures with big guns and bigger jails to coerce support. Can't
stand alone and needs professionals (see part b) to make sure they toe the
line.

b. One is using a professional military, mercenaries is a good word.
Buying loyalty with money in other words. Not bad if you are the highest
bidder and the end product is fantastically good at what it does. They
don't question the job, they just perform, get paid, and go on vacation.

c. Finally, seeing if what you are going to war about will get voluntary
support in sufficient numbers.

Which is the most democratic? (Small "d".) Which is the most dictatorial?
I know, it's obviously rhetorical.

I'll try again. Which group would you trust the most with a loaded weapon,
in the middle of Kansas?

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You shouldn't be surprised. He was advocating a non-deferment draft,
wherein
those who have privilege aren't exempt. Seems right to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to
active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is
either
a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they didn't)
or
a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth of
the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It would take an act of Congress. I believe Rangle (sp?) has
introduced
such legislation.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective
Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than
a
push of a button to create one.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Funnily enough we had a lot of Canadians in our unit. They traded Viet-Nam
time for citizenship in the US.


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Not to mention a lot of our dregs went to Canada. And still live there.

SV


"Michael" wrote in message
...

minorities who did not qualify for a multitude of exemptions. In fact it
produced the exact opposite of what you suggest with middle and upper
class
whites getting married, going to college, or Russia or whereever.

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

They used to be called Gladiators.

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
...
.In real life the reasons soldiers fight, is the same as the
reason NFL linebackers play football.

The taste of blood?


They support the team not the owners.
They work for money first, applause is a distant second. Same way it's
been
for thousands of years.

The NFL was formed in 1922.

SV

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

And most folks would be wrong. The only change was the final step was
temporarily put on hold. Don't you get those ads on TV telling the kids to
sign up. You know the ones. "It's the right thing to do and IT'S THE LAW!"


"felton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining
age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It
never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms
.. .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.

M.


Are you saying that a mandatory 15 minute trip to the Post Office to
fill out a form is the same thing as a two year tour with the Army?
Well, I guess some Post Offices are slow and have been known to be
dangerous, but your apples and oranges won't float. If no one is
drafted most folks would say we don't *currently* have a draft.


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

"In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer
military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was
resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge
against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future
crisis."

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...afthistory.htm

or...

"The military draft ended thirty years ago when the U.S. armed forces
pulled out of Vietnam."

http://grassley.senate.gov/won/2003/won02-01-10.htm


As no one has been drafted since 1973, don't you think it is a bit
silly to say that we have a draft when all we have is a registration
requirement?




On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:06:16 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

And most folks would be wrong. The only change was the final step was
temporarily put on hold. Don't you get those ads on TV telling the kids to
sign up. You know the ones. "It's the right thing to do and IT'S THE LAW!"


"felton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males attaining
age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It
never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up forms
. .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to many
youngsters means . . .no college.

M.


Are you saying that a mandatory 15 minute trip to the Post Office to
fill out a form is the same thing as a two year tour with the Army?
Well, I guess some Post Offices are slow and have been known to be
dangerous, but your apples and oranges won't float. If no one is
drafted most folks would say we don't *currently* have a draft.


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

No. Of course not. However, there's a big difference between
getting a blow job and screwing a couple of nations. Was that
better?

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Translation: "But What ABOUT the REEEEpublicans?

Who cares? They are just politicians like the Democrats ergo not 'worthy'
people. Citing evil is not an excuse for evil. Sniveling is not a valid
point of discussion. And using your own negatives to describe someone else
is sort of silly don't you agree?

OK took a while but I understand the point . . .finally.

Soo. .. you excuse the misdeeds of your guy by citing the misdeeds of
someone else's guy?

Try harder, I expected better.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Not that well... morals... hmmm... like Bush's daughters getting busted.
Or, Gingrich telling his wife in the hospital that he's dumping her? Or,
maybe it's Rush's multiple marriages. Or, possibly Hatch releasing
classified information when he wasn't supposed to. Or, Ashcrap
"anointing"
himself with oil when he was picked to be AG (well, that's not amoral,
just bizarre). Or, Henry Hyde's mistress. Oh, I know what you mean...
Bill and Hillary actually raising an intelligent, thoughful daughter
inside
the political fishbowl.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part is a Democrat being silly enough to comment on
military service at all. Next thing you know they'll be talking
morals,
values, and standards. Bwa Ha Ha HA Ha . . . .. (damn this filling in
for
Neal is HARD!) How'd I do?


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he
failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST
NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

And, I still like the idea. I think that the privileges or citizenship
require
some sacrifice. Serving in the military seems reasonable to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Deferment or not it's still conscription which is taking people against
their will. Another word for slavery no matter how well it's disguised.
Resorting to which is proof the societal system has failed and is not
worth
saving. Such systems have always deferred the elite and drawn heavily
from
the defenseless masses.

Think a minute. If the prosecution of the wars in Kosovo or Iraq was
dependent on the soldiers voting with their feet (Go Home or Go To War)
Or for that matter if the same was used in WWI, WWII, Korea,Viet-Nam what
would the vote have been?

Hint: In WWII the majority of those in uniform were drafted. Tell you
something?

Now as a professional soldier I looked at it a bit differently. I didn't
come forward for love of anything more than a paycheck. Well . .at first
I
did but I learned fast.

So there are three choices.

a. One is military slavery as you seem to be promoting. It's the system
used by failures with big guns and bigger jails to coerce support. Can't
stand alone and needs professionals (see part b) to make sure they toe the
line.

b. One is using a professional military, mercenaries is a good word.
Buying loyalty with money in other words. Not bad if you are the highest
bidder and the end product is fantastically good at what it does. They
don't question the job, they just perform, get paid, and go on vacation.

c. Finally, seeing if what you are going to war about will get voluntary
support in sufficient numbers.

Which is the most democratic? (Small "d".) Which is the most dictatorial?
I know, it's obviously rhetorical.

I'll try again. Which group would you trust the most with a loaded
weapon,
in the middle of Kansas?

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You shouldn't be surprised. He was advocating a non-deferment draft,
wherein
those who have privilege aren't exempt. Seems right to me.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Yes I was surprised that Rangle of all people supported a return to
active
conscription. Another term for slavery. I think what it takes is
either
a
declaration of war by the Congress (and one of the reasons they
didn't)
or
a
Presidential order/decree whatever they call it. Whatever, the youth
of
the
country are very much on the hook.

M.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It would take an act of Congress. I believe Rangle (sp?) has
introduced
such legislation.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"

wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective
Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and
older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When
cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer
push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more
than
a
push of a button to create one.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

ahhahaaaa... ok

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:21:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

No. Impossible. I can't be right in your view. YOU WIN TOO!

Strange bedfellows in an election year:) I sure hope I spelled
election correctly...:)


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:44:04 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

El wrongo....Selective Service Act is still in force and males
attaining
age
18 or above are required to sign up. It can be used at any time. It
never
went away. Did you really not KNOW that? Try calling the local high
school. That and the post office is where the kids get the sign up
forms
. .
.and it' aint voluntary. No sign up, no federal benefits which to
many
youngsters means . . .no college.


There is no draft, and there has not been a draft for a long time. As
Gayanzy
pointed out, it would require an act of congress to start a draft.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

No way! Carter was a liberal. I guess the exception proves
the rule.

"felton" wrote in message
...

"In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer
military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was
resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge
against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future
crisis."

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

"felton" wrote
......., but for me, 600 is too many if we didn't have a justifiable
reason to go. Not to mention the huge expenditure of our tax dollars.

The justification is that we eliminated a threat to Israel - period!

I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few.

I doubt there'd be much difference thanks to our vast weapon superiority.
There wouldn't have been near the protests had we over ran North Viet Nam in
a month, with few losses, then jailed the communists, installed a puppet
government and left - instead of spending years and 50,000 American lives
trying *unsuccessfully* to "pacify" the place.

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote this crap:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push button
away.

I just got a letter from the Selective Service System today.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:18:40 GMT, wrote
this crap:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

Think again, bozo.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

No matter how many times you "go down" to the Army recruiting
office, they're going to tell you no.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:18:40 GMT, wrote
this crap:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.


We do not currently have a draft, and it would take a bit more than a
push of a button to create one.

Think again, bozo.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

No . ..you are think of the wrong box. They are in the box with the
Kosovo mass graves. You guys gotta get a better filing system.

M.

wrote in message
...
On 11 Feb 2004 18:03:54 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:

The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.

Last time I saw them, they were in a box with Iraq's WMD's.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Lonny wrote:
Vietnam war was started by a Democrat - Kennedy.

Vietnam war was expanded by a Democrat - Johnson.

Vietnam war was ended by a Republican - Nixon.

All facts beyond dispute.

And then, there's what really happened...

Kennedy increased the number of US troops already in Viet Nam... but the
net of treaties obligating us to do so were created under Eisenhower.

Expanded by Johnson- yes and you might also want to look up who was
complicit in misleading Congress over the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Viet Nam War ended by Nixon... six years after he won the office of
President based on his promises to do so... several tens of thousands of
American lives lost because Nixon could not honor his promise and did
not want to go down in history as a President who lost a war.

DSK

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Oh yeah, the war that that liberal clinton won, along with a little help
from General Clark.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
No . ..you are think of the wrong box. They are in the box with the
Kosovo mass graves. You guys gotta get a better filing system.

M.

wrote in message
...
On 11 Feb 2004 18:03:54 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:

The most amusing part about the Bush military issue is that he
failed
to show up for his physical.

You don't know this. Everything I have seen or read up intill LAST
NIGHT
states they are still looking for the records.

Last time I saw them, they were in a box with Iraq's WMD's.

BB

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

And, Kennedy was talking about reducing our involvement in VN.

And, despite Johnson committing 1000s of soldiers to VN, he also
pushed through the "Great Society," which included civil rights.

And, although Nixon did end the war eventually, he was an even
bigger liar than Bush.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Lonny wrote:
Vietnam war was started by a Democrat - Kennedy.

Vietnam war was expanded by a Democrat - Johnson.

Vietnam war was ended by a Republican - Nixon.

All facts beyond dispute.

And then, there's what really happened...

Kennedy increased the number of US troops already in Viet Nam... but the
net of treaties obligating us to do so were created under Eisenhower.

Expanded by Johnson- yes and you might also want to look up who was
complicit in misleading Congress over the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Viet Nam War ended by Nixon... six years after he won the office of
President based on his promises to do so... several tens of thousands of
American lives lost because Nixon could not honor his promise and did
not want to go down in history as a President who lost a war.

DSK

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...

And, Kennedy was talking about reducing our involvement in VN.

You are such a typical liberal. I guess as long as he was 'talking'
about it, then he is not to be held responsible for the way he
conducted the war. Oh my god!



And, despite Johnson committing 1000s of soldiers to VN, he also
pushed through the "Great Society," which included civil rights.

Doing so only with the help of the Republicans. Most liberals were
AGAINST this and voted so. Fact. Look it up.



And, although Nixon did end the war eventually, he was an even
bigger liar than Bush.

A bigger liar than Bush.... hmmmmm.... sort of like Clinton, then?
BWa hahahaha BWAaaaa

Lonny

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, LBJ's failed social programs, LBJ's huge national
debt increase, LBJ being run out of office and worse getting us stuck with
Tricky Dick, D Digit Carter et. al. that followed LBJ still has a lot to
answer for but being successful is not one of the questions. JFK where
were you when we really needed you!

M.



"Lonny" wrote in message
gle.com...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

And, Kennedy was talking about reducing our involvement in VN.

You are such a typical liberal. I guess as long as he was 'talking'
about it, then he is not to be held responsible for the way he
conducted the war. Oh my god!



And, despite Johnson committing 1000s of soldiers to VN, he also
pushed through the "Great Society," which included civil rights.

Doing so only with the help of the Republicans. Most liberals were
AGAINST this and voted so. Fact. Look it up.



And, although Nixon did end the war eventually, he was an even
bigger liar than Bush.

A bigger liar than Bush.... hmmmmm.... sort of like Clinton, then?
BWa hahahaha BWAaaaa

Lonny

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Typical bull****.

"Lonny" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

And, Kennedy was talking about reducing our involvement in VN.

You are such a typical liberal. I guess as long as he was 'talking'
about it, then he is not to be held responsible for the way he
conducted the war. Oh my god!



So what you're saying is that republicans supported LBJ's "failed"
policies??? Hahahah... well, ok. Look it up. LBJ's policies were
enormously expensive. The right thing to do, but expensive. Thank
you Republicans for being fiscally conservative.

And, despite Johnson committing 1000s of soldiers to VN, he also
pushed through the "Great Society," which included civil rights.

Doing so only with the help of the Republicans. Most liberals were
AGAINST this and voted so. Fact. Look it up.



And, although Nixon did end the war eventually, he was an even
bigger liar than Bush.

Yeh, Clinton who lied about a blow job, yeh, like Bush who lied
about a war, lied about doing coke, lied about not doing his duty
during the VN war, lied about his drinking. Yep, bigger than Clinton.

A bigger liar than Bush.... hmmmmm.... sort of like Clinton, then?
BWa hahahaha BWAaaaa

Lonny

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

And, freedom and liberty for more of our society. Umm... Nixon was a
Republican last I heard.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, LBJ's failed social programs, LBJ's huge
national
debt increase, LBJ being run out of office and worse getting us stuck with
Tricky Dick, D Digit Carter et. al. that followed LBJ still has a lot to
answer for but being successful is not one of the questions. JFK where
were you when we really needed you!

M.



"Lonny" wrote in message
gle.com...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

And, Kennedy was talking about reducing our involvement in VN.

You are such a typical liberal. I guess as long as he was 'talking'
about it, then he is not to be held responsible for the way he
conducted the war. Oh my god!



And, despite Johnson committing 1000s of soldiers to VN, he also
pushed through the "Great Society," which included civil rights.

Doing so only with the help of the Republicans. Most liberals were
AGAINST this and voted so. Fact. Look it up.



And, although Nixon did end the war eventually, he was an even
bigger liar than Bush.

A bigger liar than Bush.... hmmmmm.... sort of like Clinton, then?
BWa hahahaha BWAaaaa

Lonny

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Michael wrote:

What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, LBJ's failed social programs, LBJ's huge national
debt increase, LBJ being run out of office and worse getting us stuck with
Tricky Dick, D Digit Carter et. al. that followed LBJ still has a lot to
answer for but being successful is not one of the questions. JFK where
were you when we really needed you!

Whoa, dude... you are seriously uninformed.

"Guns *or* Butter" is a catch phrase referring to a basic principle of
economics and finance. The basic principle is that a given unit of money
(dollars, euros, yen, whatever) can only be spent once. The phrase "Guns or
butter" refers to a particular gov't or administrations orientation... spend
the money on military/defense porkbarreling, or social programs. LBJ was
challenged on this and said "We can have guns and butter" but that was long
after the Viet Nam war was way out of control.

About LBJ's "failed" social programs.... wow I guess if you think that the New
Deal was a failure then why not say that the civil rights movement and school
integration was also a failure. It is a way of admitting that you have a dim &
twisted view of happenings in the real world.

And Lonny.... get a clue... which Republicans had very much push behind the
civil rights movement? I want names and specific acts & dates.

This wholesale rewriting of history would be amusing if it didn't reveal such
abysmal ignorance and mean-spiritedness. Oh, and BTW... history is written (and
re-written) by the winners. That means... not you!

DSK

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

When I post something like that I can always count on my good buddy Doug to
set it straight. I get the fun and he gets the credit. Together we
actually get somewhere instead of the usual round and round and round of
nothing. Actually while The Great Society was well meant and set us on the
right track I'd have to say the Education portion was, and for that matter
still is, a dismal failure. All I see is out of control education costs
and little to show for it. May be dim and twisted but the New Deal did not
result in more jobs. WWII and the runup to it resulted in, and created far
more jobs (for a while).

Thanks Doug.

Now for the good news!

The evil wand has waved and the call of work beckons once again. 24th I fly
out to the next ship. Make some money. Spend it on my boat. Hey! It's
only a "trickle" comparatively
but it's keeping one nautical business from going 'down'.

You just got to do your best.

Now for the better than good news. There will be something in the not so
distant future for you all to discuss, and chew into pieces. I just found
out my first magazine article was not only accepted by Lats and Atts but is
slated for the May issue . . .barring changes.

From one side of it only Rick will know of what I speak. But form the other
.. . .ouch, ouch, ouch . ..brickbats etc.

Michael


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, LBJ's failed social programs, LBJ's huge
national
debt increase, LBJ being run out of office and worse getting us stuck
with
Tricky Dick, D Digit Carter et. al. that followed LBJ still has a lot
to
answer for but being successful is not one of the questions. JFK where
were you when we really needed you!

Whoa, dude... you are seriously uninformed.

"Guns *or* Butter" is a catch phrase referring to a basic principle of
economics and finance. The basic principle is that a given unit of money
(dollars, euros, yen, whatever) can only be spent once. The phrase "Guns
or
butter" refers to a particular gov't or administrations orientation...
spend
the money on military/defense porkbarreling, or social programs. LBJ was
challenged on this and said "We can have guns and butter" but that was
long
after the Viet Nam war was way out of control.

About LBJ's "failed" social programs.... wow I guess if you think that the
New
Deal was a failure then why not say that the civil rights movement and
school
integration was also a failure. It is a way of admitting that you have a
dim &
twisted view of happenings in the real world.

And Lonny.... get a clue... which Republicans had very much push behind
the
civil rights movement? I want names and specific acts & dates.

This wholesale rewriting of history would be amusing if it didn't reveal
such
abysmal ignorance and mean-spiritedness. Oh, and BTW... history is written
(and
re-written) by the winners. That means... not you!

DSK

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Michael wrote:

When I post something like that I can always count on my good buddy Doug to
set it straight. I get the fun and he gets the credit.

What credit do I get?

Together we
actually get somewhere instead of the usual round and round and round of
nothing. Actually while The Great Society was well meant and set us on the
right track I'd have to say the Education portion was, and for that matter
still is, a dismal failure.

Speaking for yourself? ;)




May be dim and twisted but the New Deal did not
result in more jobs.

Ahem... back to this old favorite lie again? Did you look at *any* of the
references I posted last time? Do you keep repeating this because you enjoy
getting laughed at?


WWII and the runup to it resulted in, and created far
more jobs (for a while).

Now there I agree. Nothing like a war to get the economy jump-started. I wonder
if anybody in DC realizes it's not working too well in the current case, at
least not for most people.

And congrats on the article. I don't read Latts & Atts but will look for your
byline.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:58:32 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:
Now for the good news!

The evil wand has waved and the call of work beckons once again. 24th I fly
out to the next ship. Make some money. Spend it on my boat. Hey! It's
only a "trickle" comparatively
but it's keeping one nautical business from going 'down'.

Have a good trip Michael.

You just got to do your best.

Now for the better than good news. There will be something in the not so
distant future for you all to discuss, and chew into pieces. I just found
out my first magazine article was not only accepted by Lats and Atts but is
slated for the May issue . . .barring changes.

From one side of it only Rick will know of what I speak. But form the other
. . .ouch, ouch, ouch . ..brickbats etc.

Michael


Congrats on your article.
Mark E. Williams

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Thanks! Here's the sites you want to visit. www.dol.gov with emphasis on
the statistics. Shows best employment rate at 1983 and a marked decline
from 1992 to 1998 roughly with a spike from there to 2000. The figures only
go back to 1948.

No conclusions drawn, draw your own.

Another good site for those of you who think we had balanced budgets or
surpluses is:

www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

You can check back a couple hundred years. But for recent years compare the
amount of surplus claimed with the increase in debt.

What I did notice was the rate of debt increase slowed in the 90's. I would
attribute this to the increased sale of US Gov't financial instruments use
to finance the annual shortfalls, which changed from long term low interest
to short term high interest.

Be interesting to see what happens when those come due.

Back to the safety of the ______ early next week. I fly half way round the
world and meet the new ship in my favorite port of ______. Did you know in
_____ you can be DVD movies (three on a disk sometimes) for as little as
$3.00 US? Time to stock up on a supply for the new sailboat! Would that
make me a real pirate?

________ by the way is located in the _______Gulf. Just in case you were
wondering.

M.

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

Thanks for the links.

Here is a brief comment-

Michael wrote:
What I did notice was the rate of debt increase slowed in the 90's. I would
attribute this to the increased sale of US Gov't financial instruments use
to finance the annual shortfalls

Sigh... another basic fact of economics wrong. When the Federal Reserve
sells financial instruments, (T-bills and T-bonds), the US debt does not
change. Those instruments have already been issued, the debt has already
been incurred. What changes is the money supply, often referred to as
M1, M2, or M3.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html

Don't thank me, it's what I'm here for!

If you want to see some interesting economic facts that are not in any
public discussion I'm aware of, see

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html




Be interesting to see what happens when those come due.

US debt has been coming due now for the past 200+ years. So far only
very little doubt about Uncle Sam honoring his debt obligations... but
it is certainly possible that we will see double digit inflation again.
That will be quite a shock to Gen-X and the younger crowd!

Regards
Doug King

civil rights history quiz
 

DSK said:
which Republicans had very much push behind the
civil rights movement? I want names and specific acts & dates.

Dave wrote:
Here's a little history quiz for you, Doug.

When are you going to answer my questions?


Who was the first president since U.S. Grant to send federal troops to the
South to enforce integration?

Eisenhower... although it happened before I was born.


How many Republican senators voted against their minority leader, Ev
Dirksen, on final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? How many
Democratic senators joined Senators Byrd, Ervin and Gore, Sr. in opposing
passage?

You could look it up.

You could, but the important facts are that Southern Democrats had a
rather mixed outlook on civil rights, and Republicans almost universally
opposed it. This is one big contributing factor in why the South
switched to a Republican majority in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I remember quite well some of the race-baiting political speeches of
that era. However, it certainly not the sole property of the South. Many
northerners (and westerners and midwesterners) opposed civil rights, and
the worst riots were in the big cities outside the South.



Those were, of course, before the struggle for equal rights became a demand
for special privilege.

Like what?

When black Americans are allowed to own white Americans as slaves, and
this legal system is in place for 150-odd years, then things will be
equal. Short of that, WTF do you have to complain about?

DSK

civil rights history quiz
 

Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell of a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid could just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb that
person is.

DSK

civil rights history quiz
 

And, you should have mentioned, being the kid of an alumni is taken into
consideration even at colleges like UofM. Things being what they are, most
of the alumni are white folks.
John Cairns
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her
college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that
does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell of
a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a
wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be
colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of
their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case
all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid could
just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being
rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb
that
person is.

DSK

civil rights history quiz
 

Racism is racism is racism. It matters not what direction or what
circumstance. I see no difference between those who would put a person in
school based on their being 'the right color' than one who would keep a
person out based on their being 'the wrong color'. It's just another case
of supporting a pesonal definition 'lesser evil' and is, therefore, simply a
case of perpetuating evil. I find the government forms in this regard to be
highly offensive and patently racist. Why is one group marked by their area
of geographical origin, regardless of color of skin. Whle another is
denoted by their ethnic background and yet another by color alone? The only
'right' thing to do in the US today is check the block marked "Decline To
Answer." Anything else is just racism and those who perpetuate it 'in any
form' can cross the room and join Neal's Group. That's where you truly
belong.

M.






"John Cairns" wrote in message
...
And, you should have mentioned, being the kid of an alumni is taken into
consideration even at colleges like UofM. Things being what they are, most
of the alumni are white folks.
John Cairns
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her
college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that
does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell
of
a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the
one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a
wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be
colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting
into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of
their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case
all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid
could
just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being
rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb
that
person is.

DSK

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

"Michael" wrote in message
...
What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, .....

Sorry old man but LBJ did NOT contrive the war in Vietnam; it was contrived
by JFK's "Whiz Kids" - a pack of north-eastern Brahmins who despised Johnson
as an uncouth southern red neck. Their buddy JFK had let Ike's plan to win
Vietnamese hearts and minds over to capitalism fail. They erroniously
believed the plan could be salvaged by committing US troops. Knowing that
LBJ, congress, the Military and the American people were all "too stupid" to
see the merit in their ivory tower logic they contrived a huge conn job and
it worked. With McNamara as Sec of Defense and Bunker as ambassador
controlling in country intellegence they pulled the wool on everybody,
including LBJ.

LBJ's failed social programs, ...

Agreed, but ....
LBJ's huge national debt increase, LBJ being run out of office .....

My recollection of the period differes from yours - or perhaps you are just
repeating the BS you were told. LBJ's debt increase was tiny compared to
Reagan's or The Shrub's. And as far as being run out of office, LBJ elected
to quit soon after learning how he'd been duped into the war.

JFK where were you when we really needed you!

Bwahahahahaha! That's a good one!!

John Kerry & the Bitch
 

LBJ took the information sent to him from the Turner Joy and used it as a
pretext to start a war. Even though there's enough evidence to show the
ship, along with the Maddox, was either not under attack, was not attacked
on the high seas, or had violated the territorial integrity of N. Vietnam.
JFK had ordered a complete troop and adviser withdrawal. LBJ reversed that.
JFK did not rule out the use of the National Guard, that was LBJ once again.
That war was Lyndon's War pure and simple. All those names on that monument
in Washington? Because of one meglomaniac. LBJ is not someone the
Democratic party should point to with pride. On top of everything else he
gave us Nixon. Sheesh . . .that's three strikes in one all by itself.

No arguments on the McNamara Gang.

M.

That aside and from a pure professional military viewpoint, I did love the
work.





"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
...
What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, .....

Sorry old man but LBJ did NOT contrive the war in Vietnam; it was
contrived
by JFK's "Whiz Kids" - a pack of north-eastern Brahmins who despised
Johnson
as an uncouth southern red neck. Their buddy JFK had let Ike's plan to
win
Vietnamese hearts and minds over to capitalism fail. They erroniously
believed the plan could be salvaged by committing US troops. Knowing that
LBJ, congress, the Military and the American people were all "too stupid"
to
see the merit in their ivory tower logic they contrived a huge conn job
and
it worked. With McNamara as Sec of Defense and Bunker as ambassador
controlling in country intellegence they pulled the wool on everybody,
including LBJ.

LBJ's failed social programs, ...

Agreed, but ....
LBJ's huge national debt increase, LBJ being run out of office .....

My recollection of the period differes from yours - or perhaps you are
just
repeating the BS you were told. LBJ's debt increase was tiny compared to
Reagan's or The Shrub's. And as far as being run out of office, LBJ
elected
to quit soon after learning how he'd been duped into the war.

JFK where were you when we really needed you!

Bwahahahahaha! That's a good one!!