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."

(Jonathan Ganz) wrote in message ...
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.

Yes thats what he's saying Jonboy.

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!

Joe

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.