|
OT Is the nation drunk?
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:32:46 -0400, JohnH
wrote: I agree with the idea of allowing UN folks to accompany those who are too damn stupid to vote properly. John H So people who were unjustifiably put on a fellons list, and those that were denied access to voting places by police road blocks are too damn stupid to vote now? Nice rationalization, JohnH. bb |
"basskisser" wrote in message om... And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam Sorry, but Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea that he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam. |
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:27:08 -0400, JohnH
wrote: I agree with the idea of allowing UN folks to accompany those who are too damn stupid to vote properly. John H So people who were unjustifiably put on a fellons list, and those that were denied access to voting places by police road blocks are too damn stupid to vote now? Nice rationalization, JohnH. bb Did I say all that? You certainly implied that. The UN is being asked to oversee the elections because many voters were denied their right to vote. The issues inFlorida go far beyond voters making mistakes on confusing ballots. As an American I would think you would be outraged anyone was denied their legal vote, but it would appear you find it justifiable because it benefits "your" guy. bb |
"bb" wrote in message You certainly implied that. Or, maybe you inferred it. The UN was asked to oversee the elections by a small group of Democrat Congressmen because, they claim, some voters were allegedly denied their right to vote. Congresspersons have no authority to request such action from the UN. Only the US State Dept can make such a request. The election monitoring that will take place is ancillary to a treaty entered into several years ago by numerous international signatories, and the monitors have, in fact, been present at several local and regional elections in the US since that time. The requested monitoring at this time is part and parcel of a DNC strategy to try to "fail-safe" the election. The DNC reportedly has some 6000 lawyers ready to observe polling places nationwide, and react with legal maneuvering to any "irregularities" they may see. You can bet that there will be no irregularities in locales where exit polling indicates a strong Kerry lead. In other locations, it will only take a few dozen of these mercenaries to tie the election up in various courtrooms. |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:43:28 GMT, bb wrote: On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:32:46 -0400, JohnH wrote: I agree with the idea of allowing UN folks to accompany those who are too damn stupid to vote properly. John H So people who were unjustifiably put on a fellons list, and those that were denied access to voting places by police road blocks are too damn stupid to vote now? Nice rationalization, JohnH. bb Did I say all that? No. soebody has been slurping the kerry kool-aid though John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:36:36 GMT, bb wrote: On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:27:08 -0400, JohnH wrote: I agree with the idea of allowing UN folks to accompany those who are too damn stupid to vote properly. John H So people who were unjustifiably put on a fellons list, and those that were denied access to voting places by police road blocks are too damn stupid to vote now? Nice rationalization, JohnH. bb Did I say all that? You certainly implied that. The UN is being asked to oversee the elections because many voters were denied their right to vote. The issues inFlorida go far beyond voters making mistakes on confusing ballots. As an American I would think you would be outraged anyone was denied their legal vote, but it would appear you find it justifiable because it benefits "your" guy. bb I don't see how blocking the absentee ballot vote (by the Dems) by overseas military personnel in 11/2000 befitted GWB. And as an American I was certainly outraged over that. |
"Comcast News" wrote in message news:2rJXc.55086$9d6.30566@attbi_s54...
I am glad you are back to cut and pasting articles, it is something you are much better at, than trying to discuss anything coherently. PS - Did I tell you that cut and pasting is a violation of the copyright laws and is stealing intellectual property. ; ) Did I tell you, you are stupid? |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
"Comcast News" wrote in message news:2rJXc.55086$9d6.30566@attbi_s54... I am glad you are back to cut and pasting articles, it is something you are much better at, than trying to discuss anything coherently. PS - Did I tell you that cut and pasting is a violation of the copyright laws and is stealing intellectual property. ; ) yeah....but mark morford is anything but intellectual :-) Tell me, what do you know of him? Why would you say he's anything but intellectual? Oh, I know, because you don't agree with him!!!!! Man, you are one stupid person.... |
"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message om... And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam Sorry, but Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea that he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam. Have any proof of that? |
"basskisser" wrote in message m... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message om... And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam Sorry, but Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea that he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam. Have any proof of that? Yes. The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy." The article was written on February 18th, 1970...so don't try to tell me that it's just a partisan political attack. |
"NOYB" wrote
... Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea that he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam. Have any proof of that? It's rather difficult to "prove" what somebody else was thinking... even more difficult when it was 30+ years ago... almost as difficult as proving that George Bush Jr. showed up for his ANG duty. NOYB wrote: Yes. The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy." How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept. The article was written on February 18th, 1970...so don't try to tell me that it's just a partisan political attack. Agreed. It's not any kind of attack. And thus, it utterly fails to prove your point. That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute. After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar deferments. Do you have some kind of mental problem linking cause and effect? It must be relatively common among some types of people, for example those who believe that they'd be better off becoming suicide bombers. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . "NOYB" wrote ... Kerry applied to the draft board for a deferment to study in Paris. When he was turned down, he enlisted in the Navy, with the idea that he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam. Have any proof of that? It's rather difficult to "prove" what somebody else was thinking... even more difficult when it was 30+ years ago... almost as difficult as proving that George Bush Jr. showed up for his ANG duty. NOYB wrote: Yes. The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, "John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress", published on February 18, the paper reported: "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy." How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept. Because that's what The article was written on February 18th, 1970...so don't try to tell me that it's just a partisan political attack. Agreed. It's not any kind of attack. And thus, it utterly fails to prove your point. That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute. After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar deferments. ....for which Cheney has taken a lot of heat. Just because guys like Cheney and Bill Clinton were lucky enough (or well-connected enough) to get deferments, doesn't make them any less brave than a guy who tried and failed to get a deferment. Hvaing failed to get a deferment, and failed to get stationed on a ship out of the combat zone, Kerry then fabricated the circumstances of a couple of his purple hearts, so that he could flee the country in a mere 4 months. But that's not the outrageous and unforgivable part. Many people did whatever it took to save their lives back then. What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and provided propaganda for the enemy...the same propaganda that the Vietcong tortured our guys to obtain. For that reason, he's unfit to be called "Commander in Chief". |
How does this prove that he joined the Navy "with the idea he'd be on a
ship at sea somewhere and never have go to Vietnam." Odd how you consider this article as "proof" when it doesn't even mention the concept. NOYB wrote: Because that's what ??? That Kerry applied for a deferment to study in Paris is not in dispute. After all, Vice President Cheney applied for (and got) several similar deferments. ...for which Cheney has taken a lot of heat. From who? It is occasionally mentioned in passing by some of the more liberal press. The mainstream media doesn't mention it any more than they mention that many of the Halliburton no-bid contracts were overturned by the Pentagon... some for non-performance. ... Just because guys like Cheney and Bill Clinton were lucky enough (or well-connected enough) There you go, being a socialist agitator again... do you expect any your supposed fellow Religious Republican Right-wingers would compare Cheney to Clinton? You're supposed to be helping Cheney (and Bush) here! What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and provided propaganda for the enemy... ??? The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing propaganda for the enemy"? ... the same propaganda that the Vietcong tortured our guys to obtain. ??? ... For that reason, he's unfit to be called "Commander in Chief". In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy Viet Nam dodging ANG post. Don't you ever get tickled by the irony of demanding that Kerry "release his military records" when Bush blandly announces that his are "lost"? Or is this just more agitprop? DSK |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:38 -0400, DSK wrote:
What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and provided propaganda for the enemy... ??? The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing propaganda for the enemy"? ... the same propaganda that the Vietcong tortured our guys to obtain. ??? ... For that reason, he's unfit to be called "Commander in Chief". In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy Viet Nam dodging ANG post. You have to realize that, in those days, anyone who questioned our involvement in that war--in ANY way--was seen by many as traitorous. Remember the bumper sticker slogans, "America--love it or leave it"? In those days, speaking the truth about the war was seen by many hawks as being "propaganda" or "support of the enemy." It's not too different today, is it? Those who question the current positions of the administration (whatever today's positions might be) are criticized as "soft on terrorism" or "supporting bin Laden." Part of the outcry with regard to Kerry's positions against the war--and his testimony to Congress--is that he was an articulate spokesman for that position. And even though his time served in country was short, he did have quite a lot more credibility than many of his contemporaries who spoke out against the war without having served in the military in any way. Parrot Don't you ever get tickled by the irony of demanding that Kerry "release his military records" when Bush blandly announces that his are "lost"? Or is this just more agitprop? |
"Parrot" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:38 -0400, DSK wrote: What's truly outrageous, however, is that Kerry came back to the states and provided propaganda for the enemy... ??? The fact that the Religious Republican Right-wingers fabricated a photo of him standing next to Hanoi Jane makes Kerry culpable for "providing propaganda for the enemy"? ... the same propaganda that the Vietcong tortured our guys to obtain. ??? ... For that reason, he's unfit to be called "Commander in Chief". In the opinion of many (including this veteran), Kerry is more fit to be CinC than a rich well-connected frat boy who went AWOL from his cushy Viet Nam dodging ANG post. You have to realize that, in those days, anyone who questioned our involvement in that war--in ANY way--was seen by many as traitorous. Remember the bumper sticker slogans, "America--love it or leave it"? In those days, speaking the truth about the war was seen by many hawks as being "propaganda" or "support of the enemy." It's not too different today, is it? Those who question the current positions of the administration (whatever today's positions might be) are criticized as "soft on terrorism" or "supporting bin Laden." Part of the outcry with regard to Kerry's positions against the war--and his testimony to Congress--is that he was an articulate spokesman for that position. And even though his time served in country was short, he did have quite a lot more credibility than many of his contemporaries who spoke out against the war without having served in the military in any way. Once our troops are committed to a conflict, then it's the responsibility of our nation to support those troops by all means possible, and see to it that they win that war no matter how ill-conceived the war may or may not have been in the first place. To do otherwise may not be traitorous, but it certainly is an act of sedition. This is why countries invest so much resources in propaganda...because it works, and it wins wars. The anti-Vietnam War demonstrations provided a ray of hope for the enemy, with the idea that if they could just inflict enough casualties, turn American public opinion, and hold on a little longer until the next President was elected, then they'd win the war. Our country's actions during the Vietnam War sent a dangerous message to our enemies. Reagan and Clinton unfortunately reinforced that message by their respective troop withdrawals in Beirut and Somalia. The voters in Spain also reinforced that message in their most recent election. With our Presidential election in November, I think we can send an extremely strong message to would-be enemies that the US will never, ever back down in the face of adversity. Unfortunately, we can also send the exact opposite message by electing Kerry. |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:43:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Yes, we should elect somebody who will capture Osama Bin Laden and go after terrorists, not carry out personal vendettas, and not curry favor with terrorist sponsors who also happen to have a lot of oil,. Glad to see that you have finally come to your senses and that you plan on voting for Bush! "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001 "I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com