Thomas Rangier wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

When there's an election coming up, you hear a
lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops"
and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly
liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice,
and risks our troops take to keep this country
protected from its enemies.

However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of
liberals in this country, a large majority of them,
who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster
on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the
our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what
they're told to do".

Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of
liberals
in this country don't support our troops?

Where the **** do you get this information?

Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen
giving
up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree?
Do
you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb
and
kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest
known
oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator
(which
years earlier was our staunch ally and tool).

We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy.

Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam
wasn't
a threat to our country.

The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were

provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to

kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just
as we
did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the
globe.

Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad.

jps

No offense intended. Please don't take this wrong. I never get
involved in
the OT posting stuff, but I have to make an exception here.

Please have a look at the headers. This and many others originate
from
Databasix. I think someone or some bodies are just trying to stir
things up.

Look at some of the headers supposedly posted by Peggie and Smithers
and
others. All from Databasix.

Just a heads up, and I will never post to an off topic thread again.
I swear
to God!.

Oh, it's Smithers all right. What I find funny is that Fritz, JohnH,
JimH and NOYB all befriended him, and now look at what's going on.

jps wrote:
In article ,

says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are
decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the
service, a
concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush,
"had-better-things-to-do"
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks
who think
nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves
and their
friends.

Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or
shooting off
your mouth like you are today?

Capt. Jeff

With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all
the
rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men
who died
while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by
President
Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the
harbors
in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia
and
England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and
saved our
soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that???????

He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were
cannon
fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry,
Clinton
or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are
NOT of this
mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current
Democrat
party.

It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns
of power
for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the
leadership
of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and
we are
headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it,
changing the
democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are
mainly
democrat anyway) is the way to go.

Well said.

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's
resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees
and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their

sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved
with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

jps

Ah, some people would rather goose-step to the party, than think for
themselves. This type of fool takes anything, and everything that
BushCo says as absolute truth, and does exactly as they are told.
That's exactly the way the Nazi's gained so much power, by persuading
people that they were right.

who the hell is smithers?


wrote in message
oups.com...

Thomas Rangier wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

When there's an election coming up, you hear a
lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops"
and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly
liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice,
and risks our troops take to keep this country
protected from its enemies.

However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of
liberals in this country, a large majority of them,
who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster
on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the
our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what
they're told to do".

Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of
liberals
in this country don't support our troops?

Where the **** do you get this information?

Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen
giving
up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree?
Do
you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb
and
kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest
known
oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator
(which
years earlier was our staunch ally and tool).

We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy.

Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam
wasn't
a threat to our country.

The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were

provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to

kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just
as we
did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the
globe.

Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad.

jps

No offense intended. Please don't take this wrong. I never get
involved in
the OT posting stuff, but I have to make an exception here.

Please have a look at the headers. This and many others originate
from
Databasix. I think someone or some bodies are just trying to stir
things up.

Look at some of the headers supposedly posted by Peggie and Smithers
and
others. All from Databasix.

Just a heads up, and I will never post to an off topic thread again.
I swear
to God!.

Oh, it's Smithers all right. What I find funny is that Fritz, JohnH,
JimH and NOYB all befriended him, and now look at what's going on.

"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal®
wrote:


"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
. ..
On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote:

Don't crosspost to our newsgroup.


Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising?

cruising

When did you buy it and how much did it cost you?

"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:59:43 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal®
wrote:


"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
m...
On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote:

Don't crosspost to our newsgroup.


Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising?

cruising

When did you buy it and how much did it cost you?


Why do you want to know? Who are you?

Thomas Rangier

1. I want to know if you got a good deal or not. Was it on sale when you
bought it?

2. I am the Walrus.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:59:43 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:36 -0400, Capt. Neal®
wrote:


"Thomas Rangier" nospam@nospam wrote in message
om...
On 23 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, wrote:

Don't crosspost to our newsgroup.


Which newsgroup is yours? rec.boats or rec.boats.cruising?

cruising

When did you buy it and how much did it cost you?


Why do you want to know? Who are you?

Thomas Rangier

1. I want to know if you got a good deal or not. Was it on sale when you
bought it?

2. I am the Walrus.


I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together .... Goo goo g'
joob. ;-)

The Snapper Trapper wrote:
who the hell is smithers?

Look in the mirror.