"???" wrote in message ...
Wayne,

You lost me when you interpreted photo op setups as statements on morals.
What do you infer by Mr. Bush's use of "ticket only " admission to his
rallies as a way of concealing dissenters? To me these things are just
photo op management; they say nothing of "morality".

My point wasn't so much about photo-op setups but about how people are
treated. Both parties have their ways of dealing with dissenters. Dealing
with dissenters is one thing, but the way people are treated is another.
Kerry took that servicemans moment in the spotlight away from him, used him,
and then shoved him out of the way. I have not heard of any occasions where
Bush has used a person the way Kerry did, and there are more stories about
Kerry than just this one. I won't deny that Bush has done it too, but I
have not heard of it. The way people treat other people reflects on their
character, and their character is derived from their morals. Kerry was
trying to make himself look popular. I don't have a problem with that. All
candidates to that. But the way he did it just wasn't right. That is one
reason why I give the nod to Bush on this one.

But then, since you make the effort to read to learn of the candidates
morals, you appear to be more of an expert on morality than I. Just as I
find it useless to judge a man for killing in combat, I find it useless to
judge another person's "morals" or "morality". I have a hard enough time
evaluating my own efforts at being a useful human. And, after the fiascos
of Newt Gingrich, Ed Bennet, Rush Limbaugh and Tammy Baker, I am leery of
those who claim to know how to judge the morality of others.

Tammy Baker was a Republican??? ew! :-)
Come on now. You know that I am no more an expert on morality that you.
However, you say that you find it useless to judge another persons morality.
To be honest, I have to say that I am having a great deal of difficulty
believing you. I think everyone evalutates a persons morals (be it
character or behavior) in some way at some time. I mean no disrespect and I
think you are sincere, and since I don't know you I am trying to accept your
statement. But let me ask you this. Let's assume that you have a 16 year
old daughter. You answer the doorbell one evening and there is a MAN
standing there who has come to take your daughter on a date. Can you
honestly tell me that you won't make some kind of judgements, good or bad,
about this man (and probably your own daughter) before he even says another
word? Suppose later on you find that he is deep into pornography. Are you
not going to make a judgement about his behavior (which has been guided by
his morals)?

But apparently you have no objection to your presidential candidate doing
so. Kerry is calling Bush a liar at every opportunity. Is that not a
morality issue? Kerry is calling Bush's policies immoral (paraphrasing).
Is that not a morality issue? At almost every turn, Kerry and the Democrats
are calling Bush's character, and so his morals, into question. Actually I
think that is almost immoral itself. Talk about issues.

You also mention the fiasco's of some notable Republicans and seem to give
the Democrats a free ride. The many scandals of Clinton (and I am not
speaking of Monica although that was certainly a morality issue wasn't it?).
China-gate. Whitewater-gate. Foster-gate. There was scandal after scandal
and he got a free ride. Many of them much more serious (to me at least)
than any of the people in your list. Why? Several resons. Strong media
bias for one. Janet Reno protecting him for another. Witnesses
mysteriously dying for another. And at the last count I heard, over 100
witness fled the country to avoid testifying against him. Who can forget
good 'ol Teddy and Chappaquiddick? And the most recent, Sandy Berger. How
do you "misplace" classified documents in your socks? Five times? Many
others that have been given a free ride.

While the judgment of morals provides a broad range of discussion, I
freely
admit I forsake claims to knowing how to judge another person's morals.

Rather than judging someone's morals, I evaluate their behavior; in
particular their performance against what they say they are going to do.

I am much more interested in a Priest's (coach, teacher,whoever) behavior
toward my child than I am about his "morals".

The Priest's (or whoever's) morals will determine his behavior toward your
child. I agree with you 100% that a persons behavior is very important,
but behavior is be driven by morals. If you are evaluating a persons
behavior (like Kerry and the basball game), then you are also evaluating his
morals.

Be that as it may, your efforts to "get inside my head" and redefine my
thoughts founder on one hard rock. And that is that until last week, I
was
a registered Republican who made hundreds of campaign phone calls in a
predominantly Democratic state (Maryland). Was I "duped" then as well? I
am sure you have a wisecrack response; but the fact remains that I arrive
at
my position based on an analysis of observable evidence; individual
performance and behavior.

Sorry about the RINO remark but our entire communication has been to try and
get inside each other's heads. I am trying to understand you but just
cannot. But now I am just totally confused as to how someone could be so
intimate with the Republican party, and be so easily swayed by campaign
rhetoric. Is Bush the ideal candidate? Hell no! Is Kerry? Hell no! We
have a crappy choice either way. I have found out more about Kerry than I
have Bush and I don't like what I see. His Vietnam service is a lie as far
as I'm concerned. His post Vietnam protesting, while well within his
rights, goes way beyond the line (his being honored by the communist
Vietnamese was confirmed. That should say something about his behavior.).
His Senate voting record is horrible. And I wonder why he has all of a
sudden changed his position on nearly everything. Sounds way to suspicious
to me, and it doesn't sound like he is being honest with us.

OK, "analysis of observable evidence; individual performance and behavior".
So what observable evidence do you have to support Kerry? Let's see...In
the Senate he voted against every single weapons system that came up for
years, but all of a sudden he is bullish on defense. Quite a turnaround in
just a few short months. He voted to cut intelligence spending, and now he
is telling us that he wants to increase spending. Another serious
turnaround. A good one, but still a chanage of heart. He voted to fund
the troops before he voted against funding the troops. (Sorry, that was
just to choice to pass up). He has not been attending the Intelligence
briefings offered by the Whitehouse (Bush is there daily, Kerry has missed
over 35 out of 45 meetings). If I remember correctly (I sure seem to be
saying that a lot, don't I?), He says life begins at conception, but yet he
voted in favor of partial birth abortion (I think he has miraculously
changed his position on that one). I don't know how he justifies that. I
also find it disturbing that the Communist Party of America and the
Democratic Socialist of America have backed Kerry. He proposed tax
legislation that was intended to crack down on US companies sending jobs
overseas, but included a gigantic loophole for companies like HJ Heinz. I
wonder why? That fundraiser with Whoopee Goldberg was disgusting and he
calls people like that the heart and soul of America (by the way, The Kerry
people are still refusing to release the film about that). I am also
concerned that Hizbullah is supporting Kerry. Kerry's said that the key to
US security is to is to unilaterally stop producing nuclear weapons.
That'll work. He speaks of how horrible it is to be sending jobs overseas
while his wife is making tons of money doing just that. Why hasn't he
release his complete military record? He must be hiding something. and on
and on

So Bush has missed a few benchmarks. Big deal.

Oh yes, it is a matter of record. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan NEVER let fear of Atomic War become the
theme of the Government. They dealt with situations as they arose and
tried
to ensure people knew how to respond should the unthinkable occur. But
they
NEVER dwelt on it. And those who did (like those protestors who organized
"Ban the Bomb" protests) were decried as doom Sayers. We had our " under
your desk and kiss your ass goodbye" drills and people were encouraged to
build bomb shelters. But, in all cases, these Presidents kept Americans
eyes
on the promise of tomorrow. And I might add, the stock markets rose
steadily through the worst of it (before SALT I) and even in spite of
Vietnam. THOSE were uncertain times.

I would have to take issue with that statement until you tell me what record
you are talking about. You have your record and I have my memories. From
what I have lived through, read about, and seen on TV, they have put the
fear into us about Nuclear annihilation. And I just think you have turned a
deaf ear on Bush. I think he has a much higher opinion of the American
poeple than Kerry does. I have heard him talk about his "vision" of the
future. He doesn't do it nearly enough and should talk about that more
often like Kerry.
One other thing. All of those former presidents never faced an enemy like
we have today. The enemies of old were primarily governments with armies
that could be confronted and defeated. Today's enemy is a religious
ideology and the soldiers are religious fanatics. The soldiers do not have
uniforms, or high tech equipment or even a structured chain of command, and
there is no government. They do not negotiate. We can't see the enemy
because they are among us. If you are walking down the street, a man could
come up next to you and blow you up. They probably have the means and
ability to blow up buildings, bridges, dams, disrupt power, etc. Their
tactics are mearly to kill and disrupt as many of us as possible. This is
unprecidented barbarism in modern times. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Even with his tax cuts, Mr. Bush can not get things started. And many
economists have said this is the result of Americans uncertainty of what
tomorrow holds. And THAT is a direct result of how we are being led.

I don't see how Kerry can do any better. I think the corporate world is
waiting too and if Kerry is elected I would expect the markets to tank for a
while. Would they rebound? Sure. They always do. Just look what happened
when Kerry announced his running mate. I don't remember the numbers but the
markets took a hit. From the news reports, it sounds like Kerry's "vision"
has business worried.

Still, I would be interested to know just what you think is expected of
you
should the unthinkable occur in your area. What do you think would be
your
responsibility if you wound up in a quarantined area? How would medical
treatment be rationed? What could you have done to have decreased your
reliance on what would then be tightly controlled (read under CDC/military
control) resources? And how did Mr. Bush aid you in your knowledge?

This I find curious. I read this as you saying that on one hand Bush
shouldn't be telling us to be afraid, but on the other he should be telling
us to be afraid? That is what would happen if Bush started a campaign to
"educate" everyone about what do do in the event of an emergency. People
would become very afraid because they would think an attack is imminent. It
would probably dominate the news for weeks. Not to mention the fact that
the Democrats would be telling everyone that would listen how Bush was
making a political issue out of it. By the way, which unthinkable events
should we be planning for? Nuclear attack which would call for one plan?
Biological attack which would call for a different plan? Or Chemical which
would call for yet another plan? All of the above? Lots of money, and lots
of fear.

I will give you this, though. Our local relief and disaster agencies should
be helping out with that one and they don't seem to be. Could use a little
better leadership there, but there is no evidence that Kerry will do any
better.

You claim to be concerned about government intrusion. While I mostly
agree with
the rationale, plans and laws enacted regarding how to handle a post
bioattack Community, it WILL be a major governmental intrusion. And if
you
think you are going to yell your way past a Sergeant or Major authorized
to
use lethal force to maintain order, you are delusional. Sadly, most of
those confrontations could be avoided if we were educated in advance on
what
to expect.

This would certainly be a HUGE intrusion. But it is one time that the
government SHOULD intrude. The main purpose of the Federal government (to
me at least) is to protect the people. That may mean quarantining an area
that has been the victim of a biological attack. I would expect nothing
less. It wouldn't necessarily be for the protection of those of us inside
the zone, although I am naive enough to assume that the government would
give us their best effort to help us, but it would mostly be for the
protection of the rest of the country and possibly the world. And I don't
think I necessarily agree with you that the types of confrontations you
mention could be avoided if we were educated in advance. People will be
people and when they are cornered they will either fight or flee. That is
not a negative comment about people, they would just be driven by human
instinct and fear.

Like the story about the bird who was freed from frozen **** by the fox
(one
of those long modern parables); not all who antagonize you are unhelpful,
and not all you call friend will be there to pull you out of the ****.

haven't heard that one.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
.com...


Well I think that we have certainly learned one thing out of all this. We
are not about to change each others minds on this subject. Both of us will
just have to live with the fact that I'm right and you are not. :-)

Take care,

Wayne