OT Flame War

James S. Prine wrote:

Agreed. And a self-proclaimed war criminal with what appear to be specious
wartime medals, who never served more than 3 months in combat (out of the 12
months he'd volunteered for), who returned to his nation and became a
celebrated traitor, is probably a lot *less* capable of serving as President.

Even if it's true about the "self-proclaimed war criminal" it doesn't
hold that a fighter pilot is a better raw material for a US president.
Neither is particularly relevant.

It's the law. If Kerry *did* receive a dishonorable discharge...and a lot of
information is surfacing that he probably did...then he cannot hold any public
office, period.

Including the one he's been holding for years? Both sides seem to be
into coming up with details which should technically have been important
years ago but which somehow nobody seemed to think important at the
time, suggesting both sides are throwing mud in the hope that some of it
sticks. This happens very regularly, but very little of the mud ever
sticks either way. In part because politicians at that level are quite
slippy, but mostly because the mud is basically irrelevant straw men.

Agreed. Bush has shown, through recent history, that he's done a remarkable
job.

So you say, but from where I'm sitting he's shown himself to be a puppet
directed by less accountable forces.

The same might be said for your opinion...from your email address you aren't an
American and you have no say in who we vote for (or against), so your relevancy
on the issue is somewhat suspect.

I am a UK citizen and don't vote in the US, but I am affected by what
the US does today and tomorrow and Davy Crockett isn't, and his values
would be outmoded and outdated today. In fact I rather doubt that if he
were alive today that Davy Crocket would enjoy the support of George W.
Bush, his administration and corporate backers in his stand to retain
his way of life that included the Texan belief that it was Perfectly All
Right to keep slaves.

My point isn't that you should vote for X, but that saying vote for
someone for irrelevant reasons is, at best, daft.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:02:35 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Agreed. Bush has shown, through recent history, that he's done a remarkable
job.

So you say, but from where I'm sitting

Better get off there, then, before you get a big red ring around your
arse.

Even if it's true about the "self-proclaimed war criminal" it doesn't
hold that a fighter pilot is a better raw material for a US president.
Neither is particularly relevant.

Agreed! But we can view that a different way, too...Bush has been acquiring
experience during his "on the job training" for the past few years, and Kerry
has demonstrated for all the years that he's been a Congressman, that he's
basically more of a talker than a "doer"...his voting record is abysmal and he
hasn't been particularly effective.

The point is probably moot...Kerry has already decided that he's the next
President, no matter what the election results happen to be.

I am a UK citizen and don't vote in the US, but I am affected by what
the US does today and tomorrow and Davy Crockett isn't, and his values
would be outmoded and outdated today.

It is amazing that you seem to think that David Crockett's values would be
"outmoded and outdated" today...I most sincerely hope that staunch courage
against overwhelming odds *never* becomes "outmoded and outdated".

Texan belief that it was Perfectly All
Right to keep slaves.

If you would perchance do some research on Crockett, you would discover that he
was hardly a proponent of slavery...quite the opposite. Crockett even publicly
clashed with President Jackson over the latter's treatment of American
Indians...which took remarkable courage in those times.


James S. Prine

"No Moore Lies"

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

"James S. Prine" wrote in message
...
Even if it's true about the "self-proclaimed war criminal" it doesn't
hold that a fighter pilot is a better raw material for a US president.
Neither is particularly relevant.

Agreed! But we can view that a different way, too...Bush has been
acquiring
experience during his "on the job training" for the past few years, and
Kerry
has demonstrated for all the years that he's been a Congressman, that he's
basically more of a talker than a "doer"...his voting record is abysmal
and he
hasn't been particularly effective.

Small quibble, Kerry is a Senator not a Congressman

James S. Prine wrote:

...
That is one way of looking at it. I happen to know that flying jet fighters,
even while not engaged in combat, is a *very* dangerous activity; even their
support crews are in mortal danger when operating round them....

Yeah, but can Bush II back a BD-1 descendant Grumman into a crowded
hanger with a tow bar?

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Small quibble, Kerry is a Senator not a Congressman

You are absolutely correct, and I stand corrected. Thank you!

even now peering at a video of Sen. Kerry on my other monitor.


James S. Prine

"No Moore Lies"

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

Yeah, but can Bush II back a BD-1 descendant Grumman into a crowded
hanger with a tow bar?

I have no idea, but I'd like to see him try it. No, that's not true...I *like*
airplanes, and what you suggest would be very tricky for most anyone.

Hey, you raised a good point...we know Bush learned to fly a fighter, but I
wonder if he ever transferred his experience and training into an FAA airman's
certificate?

Kerry also became a pilot while at Yale; apparently he liked it enough to get
into aerobatics. I wonder if he's stopped flying altogether (as PIC)?

Recumbents...small aerobatic airplanes...life is good.





James S. Prine

"No Moore Lies"

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

James S. Prine wrote:

The point is probably moot...Kerry has already decided that he's the next
President, no matter what the election results happen to be.

Well, ignoring the votes seemed to work for the Republican Party last
time around...

It is amazing that you seem to think that David Crockett's values would be
"outmoded and outdated" today...I most sincerely hope that staunch courage
against overwhelming odds *never* becomes "outmoded and outdated".

You could quite reasonably say say that elements of the Hitler Youth
defending Nazi Germany against impossible odds in 1945 showed "staunch
courage against overwhelming odds", but I would still very much lay
their values open to question.

If you would perchance do some research on Crockett, you would discover that he
was hardly a proponent of slavery...quite the opposite. Crockett even publicly
clashed with President Jackson over the latter's treatment of American
Indians...which took remarkable courage in those times.

But the natives weren't black, so they were different. It was taken for
granted by Texans of the time that keeping black slaves wasn't a Bad
Thing. That view is outmoded and outdated.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
[...]
You could quite reasonably say say that elements of the Hitler Youth
defending Nazi Germany against impossible odds in 1945 showed "staunch
courage against overwhelming odds", but I would still very much lay their
values open to question.

I will say this for Hitler - he had more courage in his little finger than
most of the rest of us have in our entire bodies. Kerry comes across as
being the champion of cowards. He ought to be running for Secretary General
of the UN, a body that is full of cowards and knaves. They run and hide
whenever a genocide is taking place in the world, like right now in the
Sudan.

If you would perchance do some research on Crockett, you would discover
that he
was hardly a proponent of slavery...quite the opposite. Crockett even
publicly
clashed with President Jackson over the latter's treatment of American
Indians...which took remarkable courage in those times.

But the natives weren't black, so they were different. It was taken for
granted by Texans of the time that keeping black slaves wasn't a Bad
Thing. That view is outmoded and outdated.

Old Pete here is against slavery. Way to go Pete! I wonder if he knows that
the Arabs are the world's greatest slavers, then and now. Their Muslim
religion does not prevent slavery or killing Black Christians in the Sudan,
even women and children. It was the Christian religion that was mostly
responsible for eventually abolishing slavery in the West.

As for the Indians, our pioneer forefathers mostly just wanted to kill them
all (the only good Indian was a dead Indian); the Negroes were more useful
and so slavery seemed like a good idea at the time. The Indians did not know
how to be slaves, and the Negroes did. Old Pete needs to ask himself a
question: would he rather be a slave or be dead? The Indians answered with
latter, the Negroes answered with the former.

Of course if Old Pete had been living back then, he would have known better
about all of this and not have been ignorant and immoral like the pioneers
were. He would rather have been dead himself or be enslaved then do it to
others. Jeez! Why were people so dumb back then? Why couldn't they have all
been moral and enlightened like Old Pete here.

Of course, Old Pete can't see his way clear out of the present crisis the
world is in because of the Muslim terrorists and rogue states, but if he had
lived back then he would have known exactly what to do about everything.
Yeah ... sure he would!

I do not understand how the English ever got to be so stupid. No wonder they
lost their empire!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

As for the Indians, our pioneer forefathers mostly just wanted to
kill them all (the only good Indian was a dead Indian); the Negroes
were more useful and so slavery seemed like a good idea at the time.
The Indians did not know how to be slaves, and the Negroes did. Old
Pete needs to ask himself a question: would he rather be a slave or
be dead? The Indians answered with latter, the Negroes answered with
the former.

I'd have thought they'd both have preferred to be left alone to get on with
the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing, but it seems that only
applied to the people with guns.

No change there then.

--

McTavish the Unmentionable