OT Flame War

True but you'd think they still should know something that basic

Actually, and in all seriousness, I agree with you. I've viewed some of Leno's
"Jay Walking" episodes and have been amazed...and disgusted...at the sheer
idiocy of those often depicted. Then again, I really don't think "most"
Americans are like them; these people are (I hope) screened to catch the truly
brain-dead.

Then again, looking at what passes for 'entertainment' these days on broadcast
television, you might be right....

sadness


James S. Prine

"Colonel David Crockett...would *not* have supported Kerry."

http://hometown.aol.com/jsprine/

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
Mr. Sherman also does not understand the nature of the Islamic religion
which advocates Jihad (Holy War). Until this religion is reformed, we will
always be in danger from them because they may be able to acquire nuclear
weapons....

Jihad is not holy war, but struggle. While holy war could be a jihad, it
could just as well refer to attempting to reach some goal of personal
achievement.

Of course, the mainstream US media often presents Arabs and Muslims in
the worst possible manner. And Mr. Dolan likes to reveal his opinionated
ignorance.

Mr. Dolan should learn more about the (fortunately small) Jewish sect
that wants to create cataclysmic disaster (such as nuclear war), since
they believe it will bring the Messiah who will lead the Jews to rule
the Earth.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

James S. Prine wrote:

...
That's pretty lame. Bush was an excellent fighter pilot, and his commanders
agreed on that. Flying is fighter aircraft is dangerous, no matter where it's
done. When Bush applied to go to Vietnam, there was already a glut of pilots;
he really wasn't needed as a pilot. He accrued more points than he needed to
earn his Honorable Discharge. He signed off on his Form 180, allowing total
access to his military records (something Kerry still hasn't done; the Navy is
withholding 94 PAGES of documents of Kerry's military records, at Kerry's own
request). Bush didn't travel to Paris to meet Communist agents (as did Kerry),
and Bush didn't lie about "earning" Purple Hearts from minor, self-inflicted
wounds....

And what revisionist right-wing website did you get this from?

All of these lies could be debunked here, but it is rather pointless,
since most already know better, and there is not much hope for those who
do not.

The quoted post does reveal Mr. James S. Prine as a partisan shill,
however, so it is of some service.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
I do not think the Dems could possibly have come up with a worse candidate.
Even the redoubtable Mr. Sherman is not going to vote for him. Instead he is
going to throw his vote away on another supreme asshole, Ralph Nader.

The Democrats could well have found someone worse: Zell Miller.

Mr. Dolan is likely wrong about who I will vote for.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Mark Leuck wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

James S. Prine wrote:


They have a long way to go to equal the 2-3 million Vietnamese civilians
killed by the US


Cites, please?...

This is common historical knowledge - would you ask for a citation that
Germany invaded Poland in 1939? Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant


When ask for facts you deflect the issue, I've yet to see any evidence the
US killed 2 to 3 million people

Considering all of the other complaints you seem to have about the US
perhaps you want to believe this happend?

AFP wire service published estimates of 2 million civilian deaths in
South Vietnam, 2 million civilian deaths in North Vietnam, and 1.1
Vietnamese military deaths for the war, for a total of 5.1 million. I
deliberately used very conservative numbers.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
I see that Mr. Sherman, the pedant, is falling down on the job badly. He
used to look up this stuff for us and present it as a fact. But of course, I
could always dispute his so-called facts, so maybe he has given up on that
particular liberal tactic. Now he can just have his "common historical
knowledge" and I can just have my "common historical knowledge." I will
leave it to the reader as to who has any intelligence and wisdom when it
comes to common historical knowledge.

See my post elsewhere, before exhibiting your smugness - I was using a
conservative number for Vietnamese casualties.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

James S. Prine wrote:

This is common historical knowledge - would you ask for a citation that
Germany invaded Poland in 1939?


No, the 'facts' about the Vietnamese civilians killed during the Vietnam War
were generated primarily by propaganda-happy the Communists...hardly people I'd
base any serious research on.

Yes, the North Vietnamese reported LOWER than actual numbers of
Vietnamese casualties to keep their morale up.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On 18 Oct 2004 19:07:07 GMT, othanks (James S. Prine)
wrote in message :


"Colonel David Crockett...would *not* have supported Kerry."


And Dwight D Eisenhower's son does not support Shrub ;-)

Neither does Ronald Reagan's son - and Bush II claims to be Reagan's
political heir.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mark Leuck wrote:

When ask for facts you deflect the issue, I've yet to see any evidence
the
US killed 2 to 3 million people

Considering all of the other complaints you seem to have about the US
perhaps you want to believe this happend?

AFP wire service published estimates of 2 million civilian deaths in
South Vietnam, 2 million civilian deaths in North Vietnam, and 1.1
Vietnamese military deaths for the war, for a total of 5.1 million. I
deliberately used very conservative numbers.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Where is the evidence the US killed 2 to 3 million people? You appear to
have deliberately not posted that

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

...
I see that Mr. Sherman, the pedant, is falling down on the job badly. He
used to look up this stuff for us and present it as a fact. But of
course, I
could always dispute his so-called facts, so maybe he has given up on
that
particular liberal tactic. Now he can just have his "common historical
knowledge" and I can just have my "common historical knowledge." I will
leave it to the reader as to who has any intelligence and wisdom when it
comes to common historical knowledge.

See my post elsewhere, before exhibiting your smugness - I was using a
conservative number for Vietnamese casualties.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

You used very conservative numbers yet avoided how many were killed by the
US which you originally stated was 2 - 3 million