In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Joe" wrote

I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs .....

There are NO smart Democrats. If there were, they'd knock off the anti-gun
retoric. Jeeze, even Carvel (sp?) knows that every time a Democrat says
"gun" he looses 1000 votes.

I guess that accounts for Clinton being reelected.



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

On 16 Sep 2004 12:29:13 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:35:26 GMT, felton said:

It was her belief that all the information
in the memos was accurate

I've read the reports of the interview. The above, of course, begs the
question what is the "information in the memos." I take it that question
wasn't asked.

You know what happens when you "assume".



But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary,
said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry
Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is
correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.

.... had previously told the same story to the Dallas Morning News in a
report that was published Wednesday morning.

The newspaper said Knox "spoke with precise recollection about dates,
people and events."

She told the Morning News, "I remember very vividly when Bush was
there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."

In the memos, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugar
coat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush
failed to meet performance standards, including getting a required
physical exam.

The author also wrote that Bush -- whose father was a Texas
congressman at the time -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get
permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a
Senate campaign.


Knox told Rather that Killian was "upset" that Bush did not obey his
order to have a physical, and she said the young lieutenant showed
disregard for the rules to a degree that irritated other pilots.

On 16 Sep 2004 10:41:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote:

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Joe" wrote

I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs .....

There are NO smart Democrats. If there were, they'd knock off the anti-gun
retoric. Jeeze, even Carvel (sp?) knows that every time a Democrat says
"gun" he looses 1000 votes.

I guess that accounts for Clinton being reelected.

I have to wonder about the gun issue. I think this is just an issue
that might "mobilize the base", but doesn't move any voters. I doubt
there are many hard core gun folks who don't vote republican, just
like there aren't any hard core anti-abortion folks who would consider
crossing the line and voting democratic.

Given that the majority of Americans supported the ban, it seems more
likely that this sort of issue would help democrats, but "gun nuts",
or whatever term you prefer, are often single issue voters, while
"anti-gun nuts" typically are not single issue voters.

Get ready. The republicans are supposed to trot out the tired old
"flag burning" bill before the election, which is becoming an election
year tradition, to further stir up the "patriots". I think I'll break
my radio until New Year, as I can't stand Christmas music, either:)

I don't think it is so vast, as shrewd.
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:28:29 -0400, "Philip Carroll"
said:


I dunno, I think the Bush camp might have planted those so called fake
documents .

Ah, part of the vast right wing conspiracy, eh?

If so, CBS must be in a most uncomfortable position in refusing to
identify
its source.

"felton" wrote
I have to wonder about the gun issue.

It isn't really a gun issue, it is a religious issue. Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago. Criminals were fined, whipped and tortured,
subjected to public embarassment, or executed. But these punishments
horrified certain religious sects who believe only God should punish sinners
and they began lobbying to instead lock dangerous offenders away in
'penetentiaries', there to do penence and reflect on their sins. Our current
prison system is the result - and thanks to this system criminals no longer
fear the law as much as they do their victims. A young gang banger who
shares a flat with 6 brothers and sisters isn't afraid of doing a few months
in his own cell with his own TV and access to a gym - and that only after 3
or 4 convictions. He's a lot more concerned about some home owner shooting
him while he's burgling their house - and so are the religious kooks.
They're working overtime to make self defense a crime! They don't mind
hunting or target shooting, they just want to protect criminals so they
argue against "guns with no sporting purpose" - the kinds of guns intended
for self defense. These ivory tower clerics divert $millions intended for
church maintenance, missions, and charity to specialists like Sara Brady who
in turn spread lies and half truths that convince the ignorant that guns
cause crime.

Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK


You're right Doug. I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Vito wrote:
You're right Doug.

Well, thanks. I try.

.... I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Well, that's still not quite right. "Common criminals" still went to
prison fairly often. Remember that courts were often controlled by the
local aristocracy, but a close reading of actual history shows that
their justice was recognizably similar to ours. Usually, prison was a
holding area for people condemned to be executed, or people who had been
convicted & fined and were trying to extort the fine money from their
relatives. But it was not uncommon for people to simply locked up for
long periods of time. For example, check out the history of the Tower of
London (punch "Tower London" into Google, find your own links, you don't
seem to like mine).

You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock. This meant being handcuffed to a bench in the public square for a
defined period... usually 3 days or less. This was a more horrible
punishment than it sounds, in fact it was often fatal. Need I explain
why? I don't want to go into it right before lunch.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:

.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.


Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?


Jeeze Doug, and you pride yourself on your historical knowledge, everybody knows they were for apple storage, the locked
doors were to keep the local urchins from making of with them (and thus have to be put to death for stealing). ;-)

Cheers
Marty

"DSK" wrote in message
t...
You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock. This meant being handcuffed to a bench in the public square for a
defined period... usually 3 days or less. This was a more horrible
punishment than it sounds, in fact it was often fatal. Need I explain
why? I don't want to go into it right before lunch.

No, I did not dismiss such punishments. My whole point was that these
punishments so revolted the ivory tower clerics who believe man has no right
to punish other men that these clerics successfully lobbied to replace these
punishments with time doing penance in a penetentiary - a penetentiary that
was not intended to punish but rather to reform and, as such, provided
little if any deterrent to crime. Moreover, without the deterrent these
punishments provided, a criminal's worst fear isn't being caught and
punished; it is being maimed or killed by a victim. So, the spiritual
descendents of the churchmen who abolished punishment are now trying to
abolish self defense by funding such as Sara Brady.

IMHO we should reinstate these punishments. An hour or two sitting on the
skinney edge of a 2x6 would deter most drunk drivers far more than a fine.