On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:30:21 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

I don't recall a lot of outrage whenever the media showed bagged remains
carried past lines of workers in the WTC wreckage.

I don't recall a lot of outrage at photos of Reagan pinning medals on
the coffins of Marines at Dover.

I don't recall a lot of right wing protests at Carter, Reagan, Clinton,
or George 1st grabbing all the sad photo ops that Dover provided.

Spare us your outrage and your hypocrisy. It smells of Bush's failed
adventures and decaying jingoism.

Rick

Does my response indicate, to you, outrage? Geez, I hope I never get angry with
you guys.

What is outrageouos is your belief that only you (et a few al's) can appreciate
the death of a soldier without seeing his coffin come out the back of an
airplane.

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised? Is it that most
families would not allow the media to do so? Could it be that privacy is
desired?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised?

Nothing at all. What I see as wrong is your cynical use of the hiding of
those deaths for your own political purposes.

This is the first time in US history that the news media has been
prohibited from covering a poignant and powerful symbol of American
military "sacrifice." Bush Sr. used the image of those caskets to
bolster his image. Did you protest then?

Bush followed every hearse after 9/11, he reveled in the images of death
until the dead of Afghanistan began to haunt his polls. Bush now fears
the power of the images of those caskets.

Is it that most families would not allow the media to do so?
Could it be that privacy is desired?

Are you speaking for them now? Those aircraft discharging their sad
cargoes at Dover are national symbols. Each individual funeral is a
local tragedy. They are covered locally, as they should be.

You are being disingenuous at best and more than a little hypocritical.
You wrote nothing here to complain of the scenes at WTC, you wrote
nothing to to complain of the scenes of dead Iraqis, Africans, so why
the sudden moral conversion when it comes to supporting the chimp's
cynical prohibitions at Dover, prohibitions imposed solely to protect
his political poll standings and diminish the negative impact of his
failed policies abroad.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your position then you are truly blind.

Rick

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:18:26 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised?

Nothing at all. What I see as wrong is your cynical use of the hiding of
those deaths for your own political purposes.

This is the first time in US history that the news media has been
prohibited from covering a poignant and powerful symbol of American
military "sacrifice." Bush Sr. used the image of those caskets to
bolster his image. Did you protest then?

Bush followed every hearse after 9/11, he reveled in the images of death
until the dead of Afghanistan began to haunt his polls. Bush now fears
the power of the images of those caskets.

Is it that most families would not allow the media to do so?
Could it be that privacy is desired?

Are you speaking for them now? Those aircraft discharging their sad
cargoes at Dover are national symbols. Each individual funeral is a
local tragedy. They are covered locally, as they should be.

You are being disingenuous at best and more than a little hypocritical.
You wrote nothing here to complain of the scenes at WTC, you wrote
nothing to to complain of the scenes of dead Iraqis, Africans, so why
the sudden moral conversion when it comes to supporting the chimp's
cynical prohibitions at Dover, prohibitions imposed solely to protect
his political poll standings and diminish the negative impact of his
failed policies abroad.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your position then you are truly blind.

Rick

Ricky, Ricky. I have not established a position. I have simply provided
alternatives and questions. You, et al, are all worked up (like a superball
bouncing off walls) about the lack of media coverage of arriving caskets. You
are the one with a political agenda. I am the one providing you with an
alternative -- televise the funerals! You'd get more tears and heart-rending
stuff to make Americans who (unlike you) don't appreciate death enough (assuming
they exist, which is your basic requirement).

I have no political purpose in hiding deaths. Show the funerals!

Did Bush really follow over 2000 hearses after 9/11? I didn't remember that.

You asked if I protested Bush Sr's use of caskets to "...bolster his image". No,
I did not protest because the action did not occur. I am not protesting now. You
are.

I asked the question, "Could it be that privacy is desired?" You somehow turned
this into me speaking for families. I simply asked a question. The families can
speak for themselves. I haven't heard any of them complaining of the lack of
media coverage of their deceased relatives' caskets arriving at Dover. Have you?
Shouldn't they be doing the ****ing and moaning since they're the ones who
suffered the loss?

No, I wrote nothing to complain of showing dead anybody! You, et al, are the
ones doing the complaining. I am just responding to it with reasonable
suggestions and alternatives, which you seem disinclined to address.

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

Let them eat cake, eh?

Your response is that of a patronizing and empty fool. You and your ilk
have no shame.

Rick

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:40:31 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

Let them eat cake, eh?

Your response is that of a patronizing and empty fool. You and your ilk
have no shame.

Rick
Rick, you apparently didn't get my complete post. If you can't address the whole
thing, which I can understand, at least don't snip the hard-to-answer stuff.
Here, just in case you missed it:

Ricky, Ricky. I have not established a position. I have simply provided
alternatives and questions. You, et al, are all worked up (like a superball
bouncing off walls) about the lack of media coverage of arriving caskets. You
are the one with a political agenda. I am the one providing you with an
alternative -- televise the funerals! You'd get more tears and heart-rending
stuff to make Americans who (unlike you) don't appreciate death enough (assuming
they exist, which is your basic requirement).

I have no political purpose in hiding deaths. Show the funerals!

Did Bush really follow over 2000 hearses after 9/11? I didn't remember that.

You asked if I protested Bush Sr's use of caskets to "...bolster his image". No,
I did not protest because the action did not occur. I am not protesting now. You
are.

I asked the question, "Could it be that privacy is desired?" You somehow turned
this into me speaking for families. I simply asked a question. The families can
speak for themselves. I haven't heard any of them complaining of the lack of
media coverage of their deceased relatives' caskets arriving at Dover. Have you?
Shouldn't they be doing the ****ing and moaning since they're the ones who
suffered the loss?

No, I wrote nothing to complain of showing dead anybody! You, et al, are the
ones doing the complaining. I am just responding to it with reasonable
suggestions and alternatives, which you seem disinclined to address.

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of
televising
funerals very tasteful?

You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill. The White House is so
stupid and mistrusting of Americans, it doesn't want us to know kids are
getting killed and will do whatever it can to make certain it's not covered.

No one suggested televising funerals. Just don't ban the press from access
to the body bags coming off the planes.

Give the kids who're wounded proper medical attention in a timely fashion.
Don't charge kids wounded in Iraq $8.25 a day for hospital meals. Don't
**** with their benefits, don't cut off their combat pay, give them all
bullet proof vests, not just two thirds of them.

Seems like this'd be a no-brainer for Republicans, who'da thunk the White
House would act so much in bad faith with the very people they're asking to
put their lives on the line.

This seems to once again come down to the old Republican adage, "We'll make
sure you get born, you do the rest." In other words, even in the perilous
service of your country, you need to look out for yourself, 'cause GW Bush
and his cabinet sure aren't going to.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:56:34 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of
televising
funerals very tasteful?

You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill. The White House is so
stupid and mistrusting of Americans, it doesn't want us to know kids are
getting killed and will do whatever it can to make certain it's not covered.

No one knows because the incidents aren't reported, or what?


No one suggested televising funerals. Just don't ban the press from access
to the body bags coming off the planes.

Why not televise funerals. If privacy and dignity are not a concern, which
apparently they are not (to you anyway), then why not get permission from the
families and show everything on the tube. It would get your message across,
wouldn't it?


Give the kids who're wounded proper medical attention in a timely fashion.
Don't charge kids wounded in Iraq $8.25 a day for hospital meals. Don't
**** with their benefits, don't cut off their combat pay, give them all
bullet proof vests, not just two thirds of them.

They get as good medical attention as we can offer. Wounded do not "pay" for
their meals in a hospital. Many soldiers receive a basic allowance for
subsistence (BAS), which is given to them monthly in lieu of meals. The military
has already paid for them to provide their own food (at the soldier's choice).
When the soldier eats military food, he reimburses the money he has received.
This has been the rule since I was a private (1965). Combat pay is stopped when
the soldier is no longer in a combat zone. Are you suggesting it continue for as
long as the soldier is a soldier? (That would have meant a hell of a lot of
money for me!) Lastly, soldiers had flak vests. All of them. Some of the vests
were of the newer design with ceramic inserts. All soldiers had not been
equipped with these when we started the war. The items had not been produced
yet. As they are getting produced, the vests are being upgraded. Maybe you
should complain that the soldiers in Vietnam didn't have these either. Hell, we
didn't even have Kevlar!

Seems like this'd be a no-brainer for Republicans, who'da thunk the White
House would act so much in bad faith with the very people they're asking to
put their lives on the line.

The bad faith is in your (et al) imagination. I know it must be infuriating to
want to **** and moan so much, and have it mean so little. But that's life in
the big city. Eventually you'll find someone who believes everything you say
simply because it was on the internet.

This seems to once again come down to the old Republican adage, "We'll make
sure you get born, you do the rest." In other words, even in the perilous
service of your country, you need to look out for yourself, 'cause GW Bush
and his cabinet sure aren't going to.

I wish to hell we had had the "looking out for" that today's soldiers have. I
would have loved to be able to call home once in a while, or send an email
almost every day, or even have my own web site.

jps, your arguments are trash. ****ing in the wind will get you wet.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD