"Maxprop" wrote in message
. net...
Let me see if I've got this right: Some people have been maligning Bush
for
apparent discrepancies in his military record, and despite the lack of
legitimate documentation to verify their position, they are telling the
truth.

But some people have been maligning Kerry for apparent discrepancies in
his
military record, and despite the lack of legitimate documentation to
verify
their position, they are liars.

Does that about sum it up?

Is our perception is wrong?

Are you telling us that Bush fought for his country in Vietnam while Kerry's
family helped him to dodge the draft?


I find this quite difficult to believe. Bush doesn't look as if he has
sufficient sphincter control to prevent embarrassment in a close quarters
combat situation.


Regards


Donal
--

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Perhaps he doesn't give a crap what other people
think.

Oh yeah, that certainly would be true in an election year. LOL.

Max

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote ...

You can't have it both ways.

Uh, you are talking to Jon, right?

Yeah. If I'd been talking to Kerry I'd know full well that HE can have it
both ways, and usually does.

Max

In article ,
DSK wrote:
Right on! Thank God for Dan Rather!

???

SAIL LOCO wrote:
There's a man of integrity. Ole Dan claims to be a marine. Problem is he quit
boot camp. If you don't finish boot camp you ain't a marine.

Now there I agree with you.

Doug, this was totally tongue in cheek....




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

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote ...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
bla bla bla bla liberal blather

You can't have it both ways.


Only Horass would make a statement like this. :-)


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

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Perhaps he doesn't give a crap what other people
think.

Oh yeah, that certainly would be true in an election year. LOL.

Well, that's certainly Bush's attitude!!



--
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

. I know that Kerry received medals
for his actions. His record is fairly complete and public for the most
part.
If
there is more information, I'd love to see it.

So would I. Particularly the applications for those medals. Ever wonder
who wrote 'em?

Given the two situations, I'm inclined to vote for someone who has had
distinguished military service and a long public record, most of which I
like
vs. someone who won't answer direct questions about his verified inability
to show up and who has made an immense number of mistakes while in
office.

What is being discussed is essentially fitness to be the Commander in Chief
of the US military forces. Bush has done this for four years. Like his
decisions or not, he's proven himself up to the job with consistency and
unflagging support for our troops. Kerry, OTOH, has not had the benefit of
demonstrating this. So we must rely on his fitness to be the CiC from his
previous military history. What bothers me most is that he maligned ALL the
US troops in Vietnam, calling them "war criminals" while aiding and abetting
the enemy (meeting with Madame Bihn, the titular leader of the PRG, or Viet
Cong, in Paris) while still a member of the Naval Reserves, which is truly a
war crime and treasonous. He is unfit for command, IMO, to quote the title
of the book.

YMMV. The voters will decide.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 23 Sep 2004 23:11:31 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

She
also said that the documents didn't look right, but the content
was accurate.

I've previously pointed out how muddle-headed that statement is.



Dave, Which is more important? ... the truth ... or the presentation?


Does it really matter if the presentation was flawed?



Regards


Donal
--

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So would I. Particularly the applications for those medals. Ever wonder
who wrote 'em?

And ever wonder who approved them??

Given the two situations, I'm inclined to vote for someone who has had
distinguished military service and a long public record, most of which I
like
vs. someone who won't answer direct questions about his verified inability
to show up and who has made an immense number of mistakes while in
office.

What is being discussed is essentially fitness to be the Commander in Chief
of the US military forces. Bush has done this for four years. Like his
decisions or not, he's proven himself up to the job with consistency and
unflagging support for our troops. Kerry, OTOH, has not had the benefit of

Totally wrong! He's put our troops in harms way for no good reason and
got 1000 of them killed, not to mention getting the rest of the world
to hate us! Great job. Sure he's been consistent... consistently
wrong.

demonstrating this. So we must rely on his fitness to be the CiC from his
previous military history. What bothers me most is that he maligned ALL the
US troops in Vietnam, calling them "war criminals" while aiding and abetting
the enemy (meeting with Madame Bihn, the titular leader of the PRG, or Viet
Cong, in Paris) while still a member of the Naval Reserves, which is truly a
war crime and treasonous. He is unfit for command, IMO, to quote the title
of the book.

Yes, Kerry has demonstrated his leadership abilities both in war and
in Congress. He never maligned "ALL" of the troops in VN. If you
actually listen to what he said, you'd know that. You're being quite
sloppy and fast and loose with the facts.
--
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

What has Kerry voted for while in office that you admire?

Just about everything if you bother to actually read about his votes.

Ah, then you must be happy that Kerry went out of his way to block The
Vietnam Human Rights Act, an amendment to HR 1950, which would provide for
improving human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam prior to that
country receiving money from, or trade status with, the US?

Max