I thought they were joking

RonSonic wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:47:35 -0600, Raptor wrote:


Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:05:32 -0600, Raptor
wrote:



The problem's not Kerry, it's Rove.


The problem is Kerry. Whether or not you place him ahead of Bush as
your choice as President is not the point - the Democratic nomination
process has not picked a particularly good nominee. The nomination
process is broken and the Democratic process is more broken than the
Republican one.

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?


Joe Leiberman.

Principled, honest, has noticed that a truly ugly enemy has declared war on us.
Has never lied under oath about the character and conduct of America's military.

Too Republican. Not acceptable on social policy grounds.

Dick Gephardt.

Understands business and labor issues; honest; wrong about the war, but at least
takes a clear stand on the issue. Has never lied under oath about the character
and conduct of America's military.

Charismatic as Spam.

Hilary Clinton.

Solid gold brass plated phoney, but understands the war and knows enough about
politics to let herself be pushed in the necessary direction while keeping the
votes of her loony-tunes base. Has never lied under oath about the character and
conduct of America's military.

Not her time yet.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

There is evidence to back up Kerry's claims of three decades ago (My Lai
for one). But you're part of the problem I see: the longer you obsess
over what took place decades ago, the more you play into Karl Rove's
strategy to assess the performance of our current president, and weigh
the alternative (which can only be better).

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

In article , Raptor
wrote:

RonSonic wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:47:35 -0600, Raptor wrote:

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?


Joe Leiberman.

(snipper)

Too Republican. Not acceptable on social policy grounds.

When they sent the candidates a memo during the primaries telling them
to think, "I can beat Bush!", Joementum thought it said for him to think,
"I can BE Bush!"

Dick Gephardt.

(snipper)

Charismatic as Spam.

You overestimate him, Lynn. I think he'd be a great guy to have in the
cabinet, but not as leader of the pack.

Hilary Clinton.

(snipper)

Not her time yet.

It's (very?) possible that it'll never be her time.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

There is evidence to back up Kerry's claims of three decades ago (My Lai
for one). But you're part of the problem I see: the longer you obsess
over what took place decades ago, the more you play into Karl Rove's
strategy to assess the performance of our current president, and weigh
the alternative (which can only be better).

Very good points.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:47:35 -0600, Raptor
wrote:

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?

If we look at the performance of the current president, a ham sandwich
could beat him. But Shrub has Karl Rove on his side.

Joe Leiberman, but the other replies were early and more complete than
I can argue with. Dick is more liberal than I care for, but I would
vote for him in a heart beat over either current candidate.

Your comment is your own refutation. The candidate comes with his
advisors. Kerry's have been either incompetent or delusional. If Bush
was such a bad candidate, the other candidate's advisors only have to
be good, not great. Or have a candidate with less baggage, less a tin
ear to what he himself is saying, and at least one good advisor that
he will actually, really listen to.

And the Democrats could stop spending so much time laughing about how
Bush garbles words and start realizing that when it comes to the
voters he is a lot better about not garbling the message. Department
of Wellness - that is not a phrase from a good candidate, even if he
spells each word right and pronounces each correctly.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 16 Sep 2004 23:18:54 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

From: RonSonic
Date: 9/16/2004 7:08 PM Easte

Joe Leiberman.

Principled, honest, has noticed that a truly ugly enemy has declared war on
us.
Has never lied under oath about the character and conduct of America's
military.

Dick Gephardt.

Understands business and labor issues; honest; wrong about the war, but at
least
takes a clear stand on the issue. Has never lied under oath about the
character
and conduct of America's military.

Hilary Clinton.

Solid gold brass plated phoney, but understands the war and knows enough
about
politics to let herself be pushed in the necessary direction while keeping
the
votes of her loony-tunes base. Has never lied under oath about the character
and
conduct of America's military.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

Ron


If I had to pick one of the above group, and I would've. I'd pick Leiberman
hands down. If he was the nominee he'd have my vote despite some serious
differences. He makes some of my friends involved in the 1st amendment movement
froth at the mouth though.
http://unquietmind.com/galileo.html
Overall he'd be huge improvement over both the options we have now.

I'm inclined to Bush over Lieberman, but since that hasn't been an option I
haven't had to examine it closely. Lieberman would be a candidate that I would
HAVE to consider seriously.

The others I just listed as being preferable to Kerry no matter how unlikely I
would be to vote for any of them over any (non-drooling) Republican opponent.
Frankly Bill Clinton at this point is preferable to Kerry

Our present primary system is badly flawed, especially as applied to the
Democrats. We'll see in 2008 how badly it works for Republicans.

Ron

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:13:21 -0600, Raptor wrote:

RonSonic wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:47:35 -0600, Raptor wrote:


Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:05:32 -0600, Raptor
wrote:



The problem's not Kerry, it's Rove.


The problem is Kerry. Whether or not you place him ahead of Bush as
your choice as President is not the point - the Democratic nomination
process has not picked a particularly good nominee. The nomination
process is broken and the Democratic process is more broken than the
Republican one.

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?


Joe Leiberman.

Principled, honest, has noticed that a truly ugly enemy has declared war on us.
Has never lied under oath about the character and conduct of America's military.

Too Republican. Not acceptable on social policy grounds.

Dick Gephardt.

Understands business and labor issues; honest; wrong about the war, but at least
takes a clear stand on the issue. Has never lied under oath about the character
and conduct of America's military.

Charismatic as Spam.

Hilary Clinton.

Solid gold brass plated phoney, but understands the war and knows enough about
politics to let herself be pushed in the necessary direction while keeping the
votes of her loony-tunes base. Has never lied under oath about the character and
conduct of America's military.

Not her time yet.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

There is evidence to back up Kerry's claims of three decades ago (My Lai
for one). But you're part of the problem I see: the longer you obsess
over what took place decades ago, the more you play into Karl Rove's
strategy to assess the performance of our current president, and weigh
the alternative (which can only be better).

My only concern about how any of these guys behaved decades ago is what they
have said or done about it since. Bush KNOWS he was a spoiled, drunken putz, has
said so and apparently redeemed himself.

Kerry apparently still thinks he was right all along. While My Lai happened it
was prosecuted and is known to be an aberration, not a policy and not
representative of the millions of American men who served in Vietnam. Kerry gets
a pass from me on his conduct in country, yeah the home movie thing's a little
weird and the medals may be shakey, I don't give a ****. He was called, he
served, he went home - those are all to the good.

His "testimony" after coming home, I'll never forgive him. Or at the least, I
won't forgive without his apology and he doesn't even seem to understand what
I'm talking about here. He acknowledges no fault or even youthful excess.

It gets a little personal on my part, I know. As a somewhat confused teenager,
Kerry appeared to me to be the sort of guy I could and should believe. He told
me what I should think of the Army and its people and it's extension of American
foreign policy. Later as a somewhat less confused young man I learned the truth
of it and will forever despise Kerry for causing me to distrust and fear people
and institutions who I should have known were my friends and which served me
well.

Anyone but Kerry.

Ron

Richard Adams wrote:

gwhite wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


This stuff is all paid for with taxes.


I'm all for cutting taxes. LOL

Here's a real laugher for you. If that damn debt were paid off we'd
only be paying 1/2 what we do for the level of service we currently get
from the Feds. ~50% of revenue pays interest on the debt.


Cite? I had thought that service on the national debt was around the 15% of
revenues range. No?

RonSonic wrote:
His "testimony" after coming home, I'll never forgive him. Or at the least, I
won't forgive without his apology and he doesn't even seem to understand what
I'm talking about here. He acknowledges no fault or even youthful excess.

He's (at least) acknowledged that he shouldn't have said some things. I
don't know if he's actually *apologized* for what he said, but I've
watched my share of Vietnam war movies and know it was a time of great
tension all around. So for me, no blatant apology is needed.

Besides, it was 30 years ago and much has happened since. Kerry's record
is good enough.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

From: Raptor
Date: 9/18/2004 1:01 AM Eastern

Besides, it was 30 years ago and much has happened since. Kerry's record
is good enough.

--
--
Lynn Wallace

The record lasted for most of that 30 years. Mostly right up until he needed
the military for this campaign. Kerry has never been a friend to anyone in the
military and had kept hammering them. My personal experience is that Ted
Kennedy who is his mentor will at least get involved and help military people,
Kerry would not.
Kerry got good mileage out of his anti-military/anti-war stance with his core
supporters now he's got to convince America that, "Oh no, I didn't really mean
they were ALL war criminals and scumbags."
His record since then is pretty sad unless you are from the far left and share
his particular world view. Which you seem too.
I'm really insulted that all these people who spent years calling vet's and
active military people names ans ****ting on them all of a sudden care about
us. It's totally transparent. The military suicide rate hasn't gone up that
much, for the SF types guys neither has the rotation cycle. These guys were
already doing 179 days out, home for 10, 179 out to somewhere else under
Clinton. We lived with w bunch of the Ranger Bat guys families at Ft. Lewis. I
wont say the guys because we nevr saw them.
They didn't give a **** about the suicide, divorce or any other rate before,
other than spousal abuse and rape which they used to say "See, they really are
scumbags."
To use a phrase I'm sure you like.
No Justice, No peace. And Kerry has not given us justice for the things he's
done since then.
Bill C

TritonRider wrote:
Kerry got good mileage out of his anti-military/anti-war stance with his core
supporters now he's got to convince America that, "Oh no, I didn't really mean
they were ALL war criminals and scumbags."

I don't think he ever said that. Besides, he IS a vet, and is therefore
*entitled* to his opinion. He, more than any peacenik, has earned the
right to speak his mind.

His record since then is pretty sad unless you are from the far left and share
his particular world view. Which you seem too.

Doesn't he have a pretty good record on veterans assistance? (I must
confess that, my mind having been made up about two months into Shrub's
term, I haven't researched Kerry's record in Congress. But I hope to
find time to do so so as to sway others.)

I'm really insulted that all these people who spent years calling vet's and
active military people names ans ****ting on them all of a sudden care about
us. It's totally transparent. The military suicide rate hasn't gone up that
much, for the SF types guys neither has the rotation cycle. These guys were
already doing 179 days out, home for 10, 179 out to somewhere else under
Clinton. We lived with w bunch of the Ranger Bat guys families at Ft. Lewis. I
wont say the guys because we nevr saw them.
They didn't give a **** about the suicide, divorce or any other rate before,
other than spousal abuse and rape which they used to say "See, they really are
scumbags."
To use a phrase I'm sure you like.
No Justice, No peace. And Kerry has not given us justice for the things he's
done since then.

Watch yourself. I've NEVER dis-respected a veteran. I've spent long
periods of time working as a military contractor and I respect everyone
who's ever worn our uniform. Even the jerks.

In fact, I feel I respect them more than their current CiC, because I
demand that we are more careful about risking their lives in combat, and
I am happy to pay whatever taxes are needed to compensate them for their
service in whatever way is necessary. (I'd never pass the physical
myself, so I haven't served.)

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

From: Raptor
Date: 9/19/2004 12:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time

"Oh no, I didn't really mean
they were ALL war criminals and scumbags."

I don't think he ever said that. Besides, he IS a vet, and is therefore
*entitled* to his opinion. He, more than any peacenik, has earned the
right to speak his mind.


Review the Winter Soldier stuff and the others there who are claimimg Kerry
and VVAW coached them on what to say.
I agree that he has earned the right to speak out, but not to lie and coerce
others to lie.


Doesn't he have a pretty good record on veterans assistance?

No. He has gone along with some of the votes but has been MIA for almost
anything the military has needed, and has had very little good to say about the
military in 30 years. Ted Kennedy who I vehemently disagree with on many issues
has been there for vets and the military and done an honorable job. My personal
experience with this was that Kerry refused to get involved into an
investigation of violence in DOD schools even when provided with all kinds of
documentation. After Kerry refused to become involved Kennedy worked with Judd
Greg from NH across the aisle to really put some heat on and save a lot of kids
some bad experiences.


Watch yourself. I've NEVER dis-respected a veteran. I've spent long
periods of time working as a military contractor and I respect everyone
who's ever worn our uniform. Even the jerks.

I apologize to you then. Growing up here in Northampton I got to grow up
watching the people here scream obscenities, and spit at Veterans Day parades,
vandalize recruiting offices repeatedly until they had to be either shut down
or moved to other towns. Run anti-military counseling for HS students. Run the
Jr ROTC program out of town. Any attempt that the CIA has made, as long as I
can remember to recruit at the area colleges, has been met with violent protest
and unbelievable hatred. In a publicly funded health center here where my wife
worked the Director had a poster of a Sandinista woman with a baby on her back
holding a captued m-16 in the air as she stood withone foot the back of a US
soldier. The poster said "Solidarity with the people, Death to the opressors"
This is a pretty common attitude in my experience.
I will grant that some of this was greatly reduced after the first Gulf War
and Bosnia, but it is still simmering right under the surface.



In fact, I feel I respect them more than their current CiC, because I
demand that we are more careful about risking their lives in combat, and
I am happy to pay whatever taxes are needed to compensate them for their
service in whatever way is necessary. (I'd never pass the physical
myself, so I haven't served.)

--
--
Lynn Wallace

I Am in complete agreement with you about Bush and company's ability to run
the military. They are actually doing far more damage behind the scenes. They
laid out the plan well before the first election and the only thing that has
kept it from becoming a complete disater is that the military has been too bust
to massively re-organize. I think if you google you could find a discussion
between me and Henry here and my horror when I found out he was appointing
Rumsfeld.
I'm incredibly frustrated because Bush has screwed up beyond what I thought he
was capable of and the Democrats aren't giving me an option that I could even
hold my nose and live with. The strategy was pretty obvious when you had Clark
who may be the most hated arrogant political hack in the military, Kerry who is
regarded about the same way as Jane Fonda, and Howard Dean leading the primary
field. There was no attempt to provide anything other than a diametrical
opposite to the Neo-Con morons.
You personally have my apology. Kerry and his friends do not.
Bill C