|
Desperate Times
Have you seen Kerry lately?
Sheeze..... he's acting and sounding like Michael Moore.... more every day. Making up fake military documents ect.. I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs politely, and leaving the party. If he this desperate with so little pressure ...just think how he would cave in if America is attacked again. Wow,,, I hope he dosen't have a breakdown before the election. Joe |
In article ,
Joe wrote: Have you seen Kerry lately? Sheeze..... he's acting and sounding like Michael Moore.... more every day. Making up fake military documents ect.. I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs politely, and leaving the party. If he this desperate with so little pressure ...just think how he would cave in if America is attacked again. Wow,,, I hope he dosen't have a breakdown before the election. You're the one sounding desperate... are you worried that Kerry is going to rebound in the polls and throw out that bum in the White House, home of the Flip Flopper in Chief. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
I dunno, I think the Bush camp might have planted those so called fake
documents . "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article , Joe wrote: Have you seen Kerry lately? Sheeze..... he's acting and sounding like Michael Moore.... more every day. Making up fake military documents ect.. I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs politely, and leaving the party. If he this desperate with so little pressure ...just think how he would cave in if America is attacked again. Wow,,, I hope he dosen't have a breakdown before the election. You're the one sounding desperate... are you worried that Kerry is going to rebound in the polls and throw out that bum in the White House, home of the Flip Flopper in Chief. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"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. |
On 16 Sep 2004 09:44:05 -0500, Dave wrote:
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. It is an interesting situation. On the one hand, no one disputes the information contained in the memos, all the while focusing on the authenticity and the source. The only reason I wonder about the source is because I believe that Bush's files have been thoroughly scrubbed, well before now, and that the Bush group is carefully guarding what is allowed to be released. This could be a Karl Rove move, as he has been known to bug his own office the day before a debate in a Texas governor's race where he was working the campaign for the republican candidate. He calls the media and says "look what the democrats have done." As far as identifying sources, I am still patiently waiting to hear the source of the leak of the CIA agent to Bob Novak. One interesting bit of trivia. During 1980, Karl Rove was fired for leaking information to a journalist while working on the Reagan/Bush campaign. The journalist? Bob Novak. Interesting times:) |
On 16 Sep 2004 11:12:05 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:57:29 GMT, felton said: On the one hand, no one disputes the information contained in the memos, all the while focusing on the authenticity and the source. That's a very carefully crafted argument that CBS and the Dems are making. The question is just what the "information contained in the memos" is. If the information is that Killian thought somebody was pulling strings, that information is impossible to dispute, since it deals with what was in a dead man's head, and nobody knows. If the "information contained in the memos" is that somebody was pulling strings, that information has been disputed frequently (though also in carefully crafted language by the Republicans--"no one in the family....."). You might have found it interesting to watch 60 Minutes last night (Wed), when the secretary of Col Killian was interviewed. She did say that Killian kept a "cover your back" file regarding Bush. She recalled Lt Bush as a very nice young man with an attitude that the rules didn't apply to him. It was her belief that all the information in the memos was accurate, but she questioned their authenticity and didn't know their source. General Bobby Hughes, the Commanding Officer at the time, also confirms the substance of the memos, but also doubt their authenticity. Very interesting and mysterious:) This isn't to say I think no one pulled strings. I suspect someone did. But one has to look at arguments one way or the other with a careful view to the games people play with words. That said, the only part of the story that isn't old news is the documents themselves, and I think it's appropriate to focus on whether they are evidence of someone's tampering inappropriately with the electoral process, whoever that someone may be. I agree with your last conclusion. If I were a betting man, I would say that, as in the case of the Swift Boat group, all roads lead to Rove. |
"Philip Carroll" wrote in message ...
I dunno, I think the Bush camp might have planted those so called fake documents. FOOL! Or typical liberal responce number 57. I thought only M. Moore was low enough to use dead people for gain. Guess not huh? Did ya see the latest Swiftboat ad? Kerry Quote: "I gave back ahhhh..6.........7.......8...9." While talking to a reporter on all the medals he received in Vietnam. Here they are folks: http://indi.blogs.com/indica/KerryMedals.png I only see 5 Ohhhhhhh what a tangled web he wove. Joe "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article , Joe wrote: Have you seen Kerry lately? Sheeze..... he's acting and sounding like Michael Moore.... more every day. Making up fake military documents ect.. I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs politely, and leaving the party. If he this desperate with so little pressure ...just think how he would cave in if America is attacked again. Wow,,, I hope he dosen't have a breakdown before the election. You're the one sounding desperate... are you worried that Kerry is going to rebound in the polls and throw out that bum in the White House, home of the Flip Flopper in Chief. -- 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 15 Sep 2004 16:00:23 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Wow,,, I hope he dosen't have a breakdown before the election. You're the one sounding desperate... Keep whistling past that graveyard, Jon. You mean the one for one-term presidents like Bush I? I heard they're getting a spot ready for his boy. -- 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 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. If the documents are fake, that should be exposed and the perp prosecuted. If they're true, Bush should resign. -- 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: Ohhhhhhh what a tangled web he wove. Joe Despite your relatively low intelligence, you almost got it right. It's what a tangled web Rove weaves. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
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. |
|
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. |
"DSK" wrote ...
You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the stock. Vito wrote: 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. ??? Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying, but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics." .... 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. Not really. It's a natural by-product of our culture... very few people have any practical use for a firearm, and many many people have irrational fears. It's the same thing as the anti-drinking movement of the late 1800s which eventually got enough political muscle to push Prohibition. But unlike Prohibition, a gun ban will probably remain permanently on the books. 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. ??? Are you talking about riding 'em on a rail? IMHO the *sureness* of punishment, not it's severity, is the best deterrent. If you knew unequivocally that you *would* get caught & punished, even mildly, then you would be very very unlikely to risk it. OTOH I think it would be just if drunk drivers were given a good ass-whipping by the side of the road, and made to walk home barefoot. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message
... Vito wrote: 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. ??? Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying, but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics." You are looking a few years too early. Corporal punishment was still common in the late 1700 and early 1800s. .... 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. Not really. It's a natural by-product of our culture... very few people have any practical use for a firearm, and many many people have irrational fears. It's the same thing as the anti-drinking movement of the late 1800s which eventually got enough political muscle to push Prohibition. But unlike Prohibition, a gun ban will probably remain permanently on the books. It's not just firearms as witness Kerry pandering to the hunters; it's a movement to make self defense seem immoral and ultimately illegal. Like any cultural drift it'd hard to define a start date, but at some time in the 1800s we quit punishing criminals and began locking them away - not as an alternative punishment but to reform them. As you say it seems to coincide with the religious hysteria that led to prohibition and the Comstock Act. Why? Some blame the trauma of the (civil) war of yankee aggression. I admit I do not understand why otherwise rational people act as they sometimes do. 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. ??? Are you talking about riding 'em on a rail? No, there is such a board in the jailyard in Colonial Williamsburg Miscreants were forced to sit on the narrow side for hours. IMHO the *sureness* of punishment, not it's severity, is the best deterrent. If you knew unequivocally that you *would* get caught & punished, even mildly, then you would be very very unlikely to risk it. OTOH I think it would be just if drunk drivers were given a good ass-whipping by the side of the road, and made to walk home barefoot. To be sure. Funny thing is technology makes it feasible. Empanel courts 24/7. Cop shows drunk test via TV. Judge & Jury say guilty. Cops take drunk to small fenced-in area (to protect them) and puts him in stocks til morning (or whatever). |
Frankly, I can see a connection between history and what you're saying,
but it's very thin & tenuous. Very few of the U.S. founders, early leaders and judges, were "ivory tower clerics." Vito wrote: You are looking a few years too early. Corporal punishment was still common in the late 1700 and early 1800s. Yep. Especially if you call flogging "corporal punishment" and the 1830s & 1840s "early." ;) It's not just firearms as witness Kerry pandering to the hunters; it's a movement to make self defense seem immoral and ultimately illegal. Like any cultural drift it'd hard to define a start date, but at some time in the 1800s we quit punishing criminals and began locking them away - not as an alternative punishment but to reform them. As you say it seems to coincide with the religious hysteria that led to prohibition and the Comstock Act. Why? Some blame the trauma of the (civil) war of yankee aggression. I admit I do not understand why otherwise rational people act as they sometimes do. Tell me about it. IMHO the expense of attempting to reform people who have already failed to benefit from public education (in many cases, disrupted the education of others to boot)is an unreasonable burden on taxpayers. But it seems unlikely that the U.S. "corrections" system is going to undergo any type of major reform in the foreseeable future. Eventually we may just go back to tribal law & feuds. DSK |
"DSK" wrote
Eventually we may just go back to tribal law & feuds. It's already beginning with motorcycle gangs and now street gangs. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com