Give three cheers and one cheer more.
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
CAPT. And I'm never, never sick at sea!
ALL. What, never?
CAPT. No, never!
ALL. What, never?
CAPT. Hardly ever!
ALL. He's hardly ever sick at sea!

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/artic...40824130358175

This is starting to look more and more like Muskie, 1972, New Hampshire.

Fox News? It is starting to sound more and more like a bunch of
right-wing freaks who can't get over the fact that they didn't like
what Kerry had to say and feel compelled to try and muzzle him.

Woof doggie.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote in message

"Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive
enemy fire that day."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5217-7993r.htm

Gimme a break. Kerry was there. If there was enemy fire, he certainly
should
be able to say yea or nay "definitively."

Interesting phenomenon, this one. Most of the prevaricating concerning
Vietnam service has traditionally been by those who weren't there but claim
they were. Kerry seems to be opening new territory.

Max

What about Cambodia. First he was in Cambodia on a secret
mission. And then he wasn't. Kerry is a fraud.

President Bush was right. Kerry should be honored for being
there. But it should also be recognized that he bailed out
after only four months, and became a turncoat when he
returned. Let's send Kerry back to Vietnam--he could get
elected there.

"Maxprop" wrote

"Dave" wrote in message

"Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive
enemy fire that day."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5217-7993r.htm

Gimme a break. Kerry was there. If there was enemy fire, he certainly
should
be able to say yea or nay "definitively."

Interesting phenomenon, this one. Most of the prevaricating concerning
Vietnam service has traditionally been by those who weren't there but
claim
they were. Kerry seems to be opening new territory.

Max

"Dave" wrote
"Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive
enemy fire that day."
Gimme a break. Kerry was there. If there was enemy fire, he certainly
should
be able to say yea or nay "definitively."

With all due respect, Kerry knowing something does not mean the freshman
volunteer at campaign HQ knows it.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 24 Aug 2004 16:11:33 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Fox News? It is starting to sound more and more like a bunch of
right-wing freaks who can't get over the fact that they didn't like
what Kerry had to say and feel compelled to try and muzzle him.

Jon, we're talking about a televised interview with the head of Veterans for
Kerry. Do you think somebody dubbed in the guy's words?

I wouldn't believe Fox news if it said Bush was the current president.

I guess the guy who Kerry plucked out of the water that day can't
remember correctly either.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Bart Senior wrote:
President Bush was right. Kerry should be honored for being
there. But it should also be recognized that he bailed out
after only four months, and became a turncoat when he
returned. Let's send Kerry back to Vietnam--he could get
elected there.

So, what you're saying is that even though he volunteered for
service, whereas Bush didn't, and he finally realized after four
months and being wounded several times that he should stay anyway even
if he had an opportunity to get the hell out of there. Talk about
pretzel logic.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Is that what you call a rhetorical question?

In article , OooozeOne wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:49:31 GMT, "Bart Senior"
scribbled thusly:

Bart, have you had a serious, honest look at the US economy under
Bush?

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Joe wrote:
(Jonathan Ganz) wrote in message ...
So, what you're saying is that even though he volunteered for
service, whereas Bush didn't, and he finally realized after four
months and being wounded several times that he should stay anyway even
if he had an opportunity to get the hell out of there. Talk about
pretzel logic.

Yes thats what he's saying Jonboy.

Well, if that's what he's saying, it sounds me like Kerry analyzed teh
situation, realized it was a cluster ****, that he had the option to
leave, and he did. Seems reasonable to me.

What good is it to volunteer and then quit? Or was he sent packing?
Why start something and not finish it? Like Kerry voting to go to war
then voting not to support the troops he had a part in sending.
Thats Kerry problem he always start something and in mid stream he
quits or starts heading the other way. We call him Flipper!

He volunteered, fullfilled his commitment as required by the rules,
and left. Seems to me that's pretty consistent with what any normal,
intelligent person would do.

Seems to me that you're unable to finish anything. You attack Kerry
for serving honorably by saying he left when he was entitled to
leave. When someone points that out, you change the subject to
something else.

Seems to me that you're pretty stupid or gulible.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Bart Senior wrote:
President Bush was right. Kerry should be honored for being
there. But it should also be recognized that he bailed out
after only four months, and became a turncoat .....

Everybody I know who supports the Vietnam War has been been suckered into
imagining that an evil communist regime in the north attacked the free
democratic government of the south - kind of like happened in Korea. That's
what I thot too because that's what JFK's whiz kids told us.

Sorry suckers, but that isn't the way it happened. After whupping the frog,
Vietnam partitioned *itself* to see if capitalism would be better *for them*
than communism. Ike figured that, with a little US help, North and South
Vietnam would be like East and West Germany by the time the election came,
but that didn't happen. The North thrived by 3rd world standards (with help
from the USSR) but the South got stuck with a murdering Catholic dictator
who funneled US aid into his family's Swiss bank accounts - a dictator so
repressive that Buddists (the majority religion) were burning themselves in
protest! So, as the election scheduled to reunify the country approached it
was obviously going to be Commies by a landslide. Meanwhile, JFK conferred
with the Pope, made sure Cuba stayed communist, then went to Dallas, leaving
his Whizzers in charge of 'managing' LBJ. Whizz Kids were Ivy League bean
counters with inflated self esteem, who looked down on both the military and
LBJ. Appalled at the thot of loosing another country, and prolly all SE Asia
to communism on their watch they 'reasoned' that the dictators who replaced
Diem could win the hearts and minds of the people given a US military
presence. They knew that LBJ, Congerss and the American People would never
agree so they first created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident then set their plan
into motion.and when it failed they added more and more men. It is an
indisputable fact that it failed even then. After bankrupting the USA and
getting 50,000 or so American boys killed, McNamara quietly admitted they'd
been wrong, wrote The Pentagon Papers, and moved on to head the world bank
where he orchestrated the collapse of the dollar.

Gradually, enough Americans wised up to make Nixon pull out (As some say his
dad should have done) and now Vietnam has essentially the same government it
would have had if the Whizzers had allowed the election to be held on
schedule. That is an indisputable fact. But oddly, many Americans prefer to
remain ignorant of these facts and blame the people who got us out of there
for loosing the war - perhaps because they suspect that *they* lost it and
need to cover the guilt. But guess what suckers - winning was SecDef
McNamara's biggest nightmare because winning would have made us look like
France. That's why you would *never* have been allowed to "win".

JFK worshipper Kerry believed the whizzers and volunteered for 'nam; but
when he got there he learned the truth - that even non-communists were
fighting us for the self determination our puppet dictators refused them -
and went home to try to end that idiotic war before more of America's best
got sent there to die. To the ignorant, who's lives he and folks like him
saved, that made him a turncoat.

It took 30 years till my father finally admitted that the war was
bogus, and he had 3 sons eligable for the draft.


On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:20:07 -0400, "Vito" wrote:

Bart Senior wrote:
President Bush was right. Kerry should be honored for being
there. But it should also be recognized that he bailed out
after only four months, and became a turncoat .....

Everybody I know who supports the Vietnam War has been been suckered into
imagining that an evil communist regime in the north attacked the free
democratic government of the south - kind of like happened in Korea. That's
what I thot too because that's what JFK's whiz kids told us.

Sorry suckers, but that isn't the way it happened. After whupping the frog,
Vietnam partitioned *itself* to see if capitalism would be better *for them*
than communism. Ike figured that, with a little US help, North and South
Vietnam would be like East and West Germany by the time the election came,
but that didn't happen. The North thrived by 3rd world standards (with help
from the USSR) but the South got stuck with a murdering Catholic dictator
who funneled US aid into his family's Swiss bank accounts - a dictator so
repressive that Buddists (the majority religion) were burning themselves in
protest! So, as the election scheduled to reunify the country approached it
was obviously going to be Commies by a landslide. Meanwhile, JFK conferred
with the Pope, made sure Cuba stayed communist, then went to Dallas, leaving
his Whizzers in charge of 'managing' LBJ. Whizz Kids were Ivy League bean
counters with inflated self esteem, who looked down on both the military and
LBJ. Appalled at the thot of loosing another country, and prolly all SE Asia
to communism on their watch they 'reasoned' that the dictators who replaced
Diem could win the hearts and minds of the people given a US military
presence. They knew that LBJ, Congerss and the American People would never
agree so they first created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident then set their plan
into motion.and when it failed they added more and more men. It is an
indisputable fact that it failed even then. After bankrupting the USA and
getting 50,000 or so American boys killed, McNamara quietly admitted they'd
been wrong, wrote The Pentagon Papers, and moved on to head the world bank
where he orchestrated the collapse of the dollar.

Gradually, enough Americans wised up to make Nixon pull out (As some say his
dad should have done) and now Vietnam has essentially the same government it
would have had if the Whizzers had allowed the election to be held on
schedule. That is an indisputable fact. But oddly, many Americans prefer to
remain ignorant of these facts and blame the people who got us out of there
for loosing the war - perhaps because they suspect that *they* lost it and
need to cover the guilt. But guess what suckers - winning was SecDef
McNamara's biggest nightmare because winning would have made us look like
France. That's why you would *never* have been allowed to "win".

JFK worshipper Kerry believed the whizzers and volunteered for 'nam; but
when he got there he learned the truth - that even non-communists were
fighting us for the self determination our puppet dictators refused them -
and went home to try to end that idiotic war before more of America's best
got sent there to die. To the ignorant, who's lives he and folks like him
saved, that made him a turncoat.

Vito wrote:
Everybody I know who supports the Vietnam War has been been suckered into
imagining that an evil communist regime in the north attacked the free
democratic government of the south - kind of like happened in Korea. That's
what I thot too because that's what JFK's whiz kids told us.

Umm, yeah. That's pretty much what *did* happen.


Sorry suckers, but that isn't the way it happened. After whupping the frog,
Vietnam partitioned *itself*

WHAT?!?

You are really high on cheap drugs. I suppose the Geneva Convention was
a code name for an all-Viet congress, and the delegates from other
countries were all secretly Vietnamese?


... The North thrived by 3rd world standards (with help
from the USSR)

North Vietnam, 1954 ~ 1962, traded everything they had in the way of raw
materials to Russia ( and to an increasing extent China) in order to
build the largest military they could. The average persons standard of
living declined significantly compared to the colonial period (pre
1954), if you doubt it then check the record of "famines" during that
time frame. Starving & universal conscription is not "thriving" unless
you have a really odd definition.

... but the South got stuck with a murdering Catholic dictator
who funneled US aid into his family's Swiss bank accounts

That is somewhat accurate. Actually Diem was elected Prime Minister at
first. Over time, more and more nepotism made his gov't corrupt &
inefficient... OTOH faced by a ruthless communist insurgency, he placed
a higher value on loyalty than on efficiency. There's a lesson here for
those who pay attention.

... - a dictator so
repressive that Buddists (the majority religion) were burning themselves in
protest!

With encouragement from Communist inflitrators forming a subversive
"opposition" party. You might say the Buddhists were willing dupes...
that is Lenin's words for them.


... So, as the election scheduled to reunify the country approached it
was obviously going to be Commies by a landslide.

Sorry, that's exactly backwards. There was a tremendous flow of refugees
from North to South Viet Nam all through this period. The election was
cancelled in the North and Communist agents in the South had orders to
disrupt the election by the most violent means possible.



Gradually, enough Americans wised up to make Nixon pull out (As some say his
dad should have done) and now Vietnam has essentially the same government it
would have had if the Whizzers had allowed the election to be held on
schedule.

Umm, no. Not even.

Is this version of "history" the same one where Ho Chi Minh was not a
Communist, and didn't make a lot of promises to the ComIntern about
'revolutionizing' all South East Asia? A version where the same Ho Chi
Minh didn't form communist parties in Laos & Camobodia in the 1920s and
1930s... look it up. Wait for the drugs to wear off first.


... That is an indisputable fact.

yeah right.

... But oddly, many Americans prefer to
remain ignorant

Really? And you're at the head of the list, right?


.... But guess what suckers - winning was SecDef
McNamara's biggest nightmare because winning would have made us look like
France. That's why you would *never* have been allowed to "win".

Depends on how you define "winning." A big part of the problem is that
the U.S. strategic concept of "winning" in Viet Nam would have meant
simply maintaining South Viet Nam as an independent non-communist
country... no plans for converting the North, no plans for reducing the
North's motivation or capacity to attack the South...

Oh wait, you don't believe that happened. Maybe you believe that after
the U.S. left, all of South Viet Nam had marvelous party and joyfully
reunited themselves with the North...

The fact is that once we left, and they'd had a few years to rebuild,
North Viet Nam invaded the South with more tanks that Hitler sent into
France in 1940.

If you take a look at how the French got there in the first place, then
you may get a chance at understanding the situation in Viet Nam in the
1960s and early 1970s. Why don't you take a look at their own short
version of their history.

http://www.asia-discovery.com/Vietnam/history.htm

This will probably not work, you have a lot to un-learn first.

Regards
Doug King

**** I hope not! I'll be unemployed.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:54:48 +1000, OooozeOne said:

Bart, have you had a serious, honest look at the US economy under
Bush?

Hey Oz, you trying to unseat Ganz as the group's subject-changer in chief?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

I suspect the real problem is that Kerry isn't being true to the
Democratic party. He needs to stop ****ing around and let Bush have
it in the face with the facts. Living in California, we don't see
the ads from either side, since this state is solidly, sanely,
significantly pro-Kerry. But, from what I've heard, he's really not
doing all he can to confront that piece of horse's ass in the WH.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:22:40 -0400, "Vito" said:

With all due respect, Kerry knowing something does not mean the freshman
volunteer at campaign HQ knows it.

I suspect that is indeed the problem. I've noted before that the Kerry
campaign seems to have a lot of amateurs shooting from the lip before they
think from the head.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 25 Aug 2004 11:57:34 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

So, what you're saying is that even though he volunteered for
service, whereas Bush didn't,


You are really full of ****, aren't you, Jon-boy? The French-looking
John Kerry in no way volunteered for service. That's a flat-out lie.

John Kerry requested a deferment to study in Paris, and was turned
down. Trying to duck service, he enlisted in the Navy Reserve.

The only difference between the French-looking John Kerry and honest
George is that Kerry's unit was called up, and W's wasn't.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

The French-looking
John Kerry in no way volunteered for service. That's a flat-out lie.


What can you do with someone so obviously out of their mind idiotic like
Horvath is?
It's a mystery.

RB

Good one... so if he didn't volunteer after his deferment was
denied, does enlist mean drafted on the planet you're from?

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 25 Aug 2004 11:57:34 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

So, what you're saying is that even though he volunteered for
service, whereas Bush didn't,

You are really full of ****, aren't you, Jon-boy? The French-looking
John Kerry in no way volunteered for service. That's a flat-out lie.

Nope... you're wrong:

John Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966. After completing Naval
Officer Candidates School, he began his first tour of duty on the USS
Gridley, a guided-missile frigate in the waters adjacent to
Vietnam. In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and
volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat, one of the most dangerous
assignments of the war.

John Kerry requested a deferment to study in Paris, and was turned
down. Trying to duck service, he enlisted in the Navy Reserve.

The only difference between the French-looking John Kerry and honest
George is that Kerry's unit was called up, and W's wasn't.

Bull****. GWB, enlisted in the National Guard.

If you can't get your facts straight, well, that wouldn't be
different from the rest of you.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
The French-looking
John Kerry in no way volunteered for service. That's a flat-out lie.


What can you do with someone so obviously out of their mind idiotic like
Horvath is?
It's a mystery.

This is typical of right-wing wackos... can't cite facts, so make
things up.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave, I think there were a few. I went sailing many days in the last
couple of weeks. Is there a single post you've made in the last three
weeks that showed a modicum of intelligence?

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Jonathan, is there a single post I've made in the last 3 weeks, replying to
anyone, that you didn't reply to? Just wonderin'.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
That sounds like something from a Kerry propaganda site. Like most of the
stuff his campaign puts out, it includes a germ to truth but is deliberately
designed to mislead.

It's a fact.

My understanding is that while a Swift boats turned out to be a dangerous
assignment, that was because they were re-tasked after Kerry volunteered for
one. They were initially assigned to relatively safer coastal patrol duty.
After he volunteered they were reassigned to brown water patrol, a change he
complained about loudly.

Your understanding?? That's not saying much.

But the real heroes of the brown water Navy were not the Swift boats, but
the PBRs, smaller boats that were involved in river patrol from the
beginning, and were manned entirely by enlisted men. I remember that a
couple of sailors who worked for me requested assignment to a PBR as their
next tour because for a career Navy enlisted man that was the place to be if
you wanted to get promoted.

So, now you're the authority on who is and who isn't a hero or who
served his or her country with valor and distinction??

Sorry Mr. Poodle, but you're full of ****.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

So, now you're the authority on who is and who isn't a hero or who
served his or her country with valor and distinction??

Well, he doesn't agree with Bush, who is now defending Kerry's record. I guess
he's calling Bush a liar.

RB

Now I'm confused. Is Dave or Bush the flip flopper?

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
So, now you're the authority on who is and who isn't a hero or who
served his or her country with valor and distinction??

Well, he doesn't agree with Bush, who is now defending Kerry's record. I guess
he's calling Bush a liar.

RB


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

No need to. It's not about my our your military experience. It's about
you nor I have the authority to decide who is or isn't a hero.

Nice try at changing the subject Mr. Poodle (yes, you're still full of
****).

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004 11:15:40 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, now you're the authority on who is and who isn't a hero or who
served his or her country with valor and distinction??

Sorry Mr. Poodle, but you're full of ****.

So, Jon, why don't you tell us again about your military experience.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 26 Aug 2004 17:51:26 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

John Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966. After completing Naval
Officer Candidates School, he began his first tour of duty on the USS
Gridley, a guided-missile frigate in the waters adjacent to
Vietnam. In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and
volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat, one of the most dangerous
assignments of the war.


John Kerry did not volunteer to serve on Swift boats.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 27 Aug 2004 10:17:06 -0500, Dave wrote this
crap:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:53:14 -0400, Horvath said:

John Kerry requested a deferment to study in Paris, and was turned
down. Trying to duck service, he enlisted in the Navy Reserve.

The only difference between the French-looking John Kerry and honest
George is that Kerry's unit was called up, and W's wasn't.

Sorry, Horvath, but you're full of **** on this one. Anyone volunteering for
the Navy Reserve in those days knew he was facing at least 3 years of active
duty.

That's bull****. It was two years.

I'd post some stuff from "Swift veterans for truth," but the server is
continously swamped.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 26 Aug 2004 17:51:26 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:
John Kerry did not volunteer to serve on Swift boats.

Maybe not on your planet, but on ours he did.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
I'd post some stuff from "Swift veterans for truth," but the server is
continously swamped.

More likely you're just stupid.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Aug 2004 12:31:12 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Now I'm confused. Is Dave or Bush the flip flopper?

Nah. Bobsprit is just under the sophomoric impression that he's clever.

I get it! You're the flip flopper. Bush is just the liar.. or wait,
is he both a liar and a flip flopper??




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:54:04 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On 27 Aug 2004 10:17:06 -0500, Dave wrote this
crap:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:53:14 -0400, Horvath said:

John Kerry requested a deferment to study in Paris, and was turned
down. Trying to duck service, he enlisted in the Navy Reserve.

The only difference between the French-looking John Kerry and honest
George is that Kerry's unit was called up, and W's wasn't.

Sorry, Horvath, but you're full of **** on this one. Anyone volunteering for
the Navy Reserve in those days knew he was facing at least 3 years of active
duty.

That's bull****. It was two years.

Jeez louise. It was not two years. There was a sliding scale in
those days. You could enlist in the Marines or the Army for two
years, with the Navy and Air Force considerably longer..I am thinking
four years, but I could be off by a *bit* and the Coast Guard, if you
could get in at all, for something like six years. There was not a
two year Navy enlistment deal in those days.


I'd post some stuff from "Swift veterans for truth," but the server is
continously swamped.

As is their credibility.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 27 Aug 2004 16:13:02 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

No need to. It's not about my our your military experience. It's about
you nor I have the authority to decide who is or isn't a hero.


You're spinning. Your correct answer is, "I have no military
service."




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

The correct answer is, "Horass has nothing intelligent to say."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 27 Aug 2004 16:13:02 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

No need to. It's not about my our your military experience. It's about
you nor I have the authority to decide who is or isn't a hero.


You're spinning. Your correct answer is, "I have no military
service."




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

You're spinning. Your correct answer is, "I have no military
service."


Like Bush. Unlike Kerry.


RB

On 29 Aug 2004 11:22:22 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You're spinning. Your correct answer is, "I have no military
service."


Like Bush. Unlike Kerry.

President George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Like Bush. Unlike Kerry.

President George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.


Bush learned to fly. He was never in any action. Kerry saw action and Bush has
defended that. Are you calling Bush a liar?
Poor Horvath!!! Even Bush doesn't agree with him!

RB

A fighter pilot?? Yeah, at a bar stole. He fought over who
was going to buy the next round.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 29 Aug 2004 11:22:22 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You're spinning. Your correct answer is, "I have no military
service."


Like Bush. Unlike Kerry.

President George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 29 Aug 2004 13:51:00 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Like Bush. Unlike Kerry.

President George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.


Bush learned to fly. He was never in any action. Kerry saw action and Bush has
defended that. Are you calling Bush a liar?

You are stupid, aren't you? George W. Bush was a fighter pilot, and
served honorably.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Bush learned to fly. He was never in any action. Kerry saw action and Bush has
defended that. Are you calling Bush a liar?

You are stupid, aren't you?


Let's see you be honest for once. George Bush has defended Kerry's war record.
Are you calling Bush a liar?
"The president said Senator Kerry served "admirably" and called for attacks by
external campaign groups to be banned. "
Sooooo, Hovath...is Bush a LIAR???

RB

Forget it Bob. Horass isn't up for it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Bush learned to fly. He was never in any action. Kerry saw action and
Bush has
defended that. Are you calling Bush a liar?

You are stupid, aren't you?


Let's see you be honest for once. George Bush has defended Kerry's war
record.
Are you calling Bush a liar?
"The president said Senator Kerry served "admirably" and called for
attacks by
external campaign groups to be banned. "
Sooooo, Hovath...is Bush a LIAR???

RB

On 29 Aug 2004 19:43:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Bush learned to fly. He was never in any action. Kerry saw action and Bush has
defended that. Are you calling Bush a liar?

You are stupid, aren't you?


Let's see you be honest for once. George Bush has defended Kerry's war record.
Are you calling Bush a liar?


Not at all. Everyone knows that the French-looking John Kerry served
honorably, even if there is six months missing from his service record
after leaving Vietnam early.







Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:06:08 +1000, OzOne wrote this crap:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:25:56 -0400, Horvath
scribbled thusly:

Not at all. Everyone knows that the French-looking John Kerry served
honorably, even if there is six months missing from his service record
after leaving Vietnam early.
Awww Holly, you're just jealous because you spent your time handing
out weapons and never got more than a paper cut so you had to do a
full tour.


Not at all. My 22 years of honorable service was fully volunteered.
I could have got out at any time.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!