And you servered in what service and where? Why is military experience so
important now?

It isn't. Did you miss this part?

Figger it out, you guys. We're trying to figure who is most qualified to
be
POTUS, not which of these inept characters is least qualified to lead men
into
combat.

I get a case of the hee-haws, however, when the GOP rounds up 250 guys who
claim they served with Kerry on his 7-man boat during his four months of combat
duty
and then tries to make a case that because of the nature of his military
experience he is unqualified to serve as CIC.

Flunking or refusing the drug test in the Texas Air National Guard seems to be
GWB's sole claim to military experience, so you guys should lighten up on Kerry
about his.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And you servered in what service and where? Why is military experience so
important now?

It isn't. Did you miss this part?

Figger it out, you guys. We're trying to figure who is most qualified
to
be
POTUS, not which of these inept characters is least qualified to lead
men
into
combat.

I get a case of the hee-haws, however, when the GOP rounds up 250 guys who
claim they served with Kerry on his 7-man boat during his four months of
combat
duty
and then tries to make a case that because of the nature of his military
experience he is unqualified to serve as CIC.

Flunking or refusing the drug test in the Texas Air National Guard seems
to be
GWB's sole claim to military experience, so you guys should lighten up on
Kerry
about his.



LOL! I guess you missed the convention and most of his ads........Kerry has
made it a key note issue. He has to suffer through the fallout and
criticism.

You never commented on what Maureen Dowd, a fairly liberal editorialist, had
to say about him and his touting of his military service. I posted her
comments for you yesterday but never read a reply from you.....as expected.
;-)

You never commented on what Maureen Dowd, a fairly liberal editorialist, had
to say about him and his touting of his military service. I posted her
comments for you yesterday but never read a reply from you.....as expected.
;-)


If I wanted to debate Ms. Dowd I would e-mail her directly.



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth". http://www.sftt.org/

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You never commented on what Maureen Dowd, a fairly liberal editorialist,
had
to say about him and his touting of his military service. I posted her
comments for you yesterday but never read a reply from you.....as
expected.
;-)


If I wanted to debate Ms. Dowd I would e-mail her directly.

Meaning, I know us Democrats, I mean Progressives, have been caught in a
hypocritical vice and we really can't figure out how to get out of it so
we'll ignore the issues when it suits us.

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Better yet, why did he ask
Spielberg to add the effects of gun fire in the water to those
films
and
add
them to his video at the convention? Very strange.

Cite?


My bad...James Moll, partner of Spielberg.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407301059.asp

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc81.htm


Let's try for some legit sources, eh, crap-for-brains?



Why are they not legit? Because *you* say so?

I offered the proof. Perhaps you can show that the links are wrong.



You offered up two notoriously conservative websites. No more credible
than the Moonie paper, Faux news, or NewsCraps. Don't you look at
anything legit? No wonder you are so ****ed in the head.

They are more credible than the New York Times.


There's your problem right there, fella. You're beyond salvation. Even
Jesus can't save you now.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Meaning, I know us Democrats, I mean Progressives, have been caught in a
hypocritical vice and we really can't figure out how to get out of it so
we'll ignore the issues when it suits us.

Meaning, if a poster can't express his ideas in his own words and must put up a
wholesale cut and paste instead- it's extremely unlikely that person would
comprehend a rebuttal.

You deserve a rebuttal when you say something in the first person, not when you
cut 'n paste. Same goes for some of the folks with less repressive ideals, too.

In article ,
says...
On 03 Aug 2004 14:57:22 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Better yet, why did he ask
Spielberg to add the effects of gun fire in the water to those films and add
them to his video at the convention? Very strange.

Cite?

************



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth". http://www.sftt.org/

Or better yet:
http://www.swiftvets.com

Hey Schmuck,

Swiftvets weren't on Kerry's boat. All the men who were stand by
Kerry's side.

Who better than to judge Kerry than the men who relied on him to
command?

Someone from another boat?

Right.

In article ,
says...
On 03 Aug 2004 06:55:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

More than 250 Swift boat veterans have now signed an open letter to Senator
Kerry challenging his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief of America's
armed
forces.

Heck yes. We're much better off with the guy who ran and hid from his duty than
a guy who at least showed up.

Kerry sure got around, apparently. 250 people that he met in Viet Nam while
commanding his swift boat were all consciously forming opinions of the
20-something's fitness to be president.

No one ran and hid, Harry. Bush went into the Guard and flew F102's.


Until they started testing for drugs. Then he mysteriously didn't show.

jps

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
Why look
at biased news sources when you have statements direct from the individuals?



250 individuals who all claim to have served with Kerry on a boat with a six
man crew.

And all six are accounted for, the remaining that are alive that is --
all standing by Kerry.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Meaning, I know us Democrats, I mean Progressives, have been caught in a
hypocritical vice and we really can't figure out how to get out of it so
we'll ignore the issues when it suits us.

Meaning, if a poster can't express his ideas in his own words and must put
up a
wholesale cut and paste instead- it's extremely unlikely that person would
comprehend a rebuttal.

You deserve a rebuttal when you say something in the first person, not
when you
cut 'n paste. Same goes for some of the folks with less repressive ideals,
too.


I only offered one paragraph of her editorial, which followed several
paragraphs of my own thoughts. I believe I was responding to one of your
posts, a post that was 99% cut and paste with credit given to the original
author.

Hypocrite.