I just changed my voter registration and donated $300 to the Kerry campaign.
I am waiting to hear from them on how to donate additional money from my
C-Corp.

I made a promise to myself that I would hold George Bush accountable for
"dropping me into it" when he took the stick and started poking the wasp
nest in the middle of the day rather than wait till evening and use the wasp
spray.

Like Mark with his $20 to the Red Crescent, I am true to my word. I am also
seeking active ways to participate in the campaign locally.

To me, the difference in vision was laid out quite clearly last night. I am
tired of using fear for what may happen in the future as a means for
promoting careers. The world has ALWAYS been a dangerous place. It is no
more nor less dangerous today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Tell me any
other President in American history who responded to physical reminders of
how unpredictable and dangerous the world is by promoting fear of the
future? Lincoln? Washington? Eisenhower? Truman? Nixon? Reagan?
Roosevelt?

My reading of history is that these Presidents responded to events NOT by
focusing on the unknowable future, but by REMINDING us that this country has
faced challenges to its existence throughout our history, and that our love
for personal freedom, appreciation for the Constitution and ability to
accept other points of view have ALWAYS gotten us through.

George Bush's whole theme has been simple. You HAVE to vote for me or else
the whole Country will go to Hell. George sez "I am the only one who can
protect you from the fearful unknown future ("but remember, if they get it
right once, it ain't my fault)". Not only is this a very weak case, but how
does this help to bring Americans together should Kerry win? Doesn't his
theme weaken the Country "post Bush"? It is the very same criticism I have
of those who conveniently attack the third branch of our government, the
Judicial. Whether it is attacking the Court of the 2000 election ruling, or
attacking "Activist" judges, both ONLY serve to weaken public confidence and
trust in the government as a whole. (BTW, will someone kindly define a
NON-activist judge).

Beyond that, this theme of fear is having a dramatic drag on the economy.
For example, look at the stock market. There should be opportunities to buy
given the behavior of the market in the last couple of months. But it is
only going sideways. Why? The Bush theme of fearing the future emphasizes
the unknowns surrounding the Olympics, the Conventions, the elections and
beyond. Rather than reminding investors that the stock market has always
been based on the "yet brighter tomorrow", the Bush theme leads people to
think that tomorrow hold only the promise of another day for a WMD to slip
through. (Remember, "we have to be right every time (which BTW is
impossible) and "they" only have to be right once").

Damn it, my knowledge of history and my personal experience tells me this
Country is simply NOT that weak.

Because the theme of fear is baseless as a means of leading forward, because
it is a drag on the economy and because I simply do not fear tomorrow (or
next year) any more than I feared getting out of bed on Sept 11 (or 10)
2001), I am rejecting George Bush's argument that he is the only one who can
prevent the horror lurking in our future.

Instead, I am embracing John Kerry's premise that we must build, invest and
go on KNOWING that (despite periodic threats like Secession, WWI, WWII,
Atomic War, Sept. 11) the future always holds a brighter promise. This
Country has dealt, and will continue to deal, with threats to our existence
as they arise. And the future has ALWAYS been brighter.

This is why George Bush stand out as the ONLY President who actually
promotes fear of the future as part of his campaign. And I reject it.

If any reading this note also reject the theme of fear, I encourage you to
donate $10 to the Kerry campaign (see link below). If ,despite living in
poverty, Mark (Gunner) can afford to send $20 to the Red Crescent because of
a bet, almost everyone who rejects the politics based on fear can afford to
lend support to those who remind us that the future is always yet brighter.

http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707 (you can make
a credit card contribution here)
--
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

??? wrote:
I just changed my voter registration and donated $300 to the Kerry campaign.
I am waiting to hear from them on how to donate additional money from my
C-Corp.

I made a promise to myself that I would hold George Bush accountable for
"dropping me into it" when he took the stick and started poking the wasp

Pro-Kerry blather deleted.

First of all, if you want to hold someone accountable,
first hold yourself accountable and post under a real name.

Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

I can best sum up my reaction to the convention with
a quote from P.J. O'Rourke - "I was moved by his
speech, and it wasn't just because I was drunk"

Enough said.

Jim Stewart wrote:

??? wrote:

snipped



Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

snipped

Finally, 6 words of politics that make sense

Koz

Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

snipped


I agree 100% that both are jerks.

But if Kerry is elected you won't have to contribute. The money will be
taken right out of your paycheck by the IRS. I heard most of Kerry's speech
and what I heard was spend spend spend, and very little about how he was
going to pay for anything. The national health care alone (which the
federal government should NOT even be involved in) will add trillions to the
federal budget, and that alone will mandate stiff tax increases. As if the
tax burden wasn't already way too heavy. The only thing he mentioned about
that was rolling back the tax cuts for the rich. That ain't gonna be NEARLY
enough to pay for even one of his programs, and personally I think it is
discrimination, and yet another way that the Democrats penalize success in
this country. We desperately need a flat tax (15% should be just fine).

As for the fear factor, you should be afraid. What would you be saying
after having Kerry tell you that everything is fine and rosy, and then
Washington, DC gets nuked? Those fanatic extremists out there have been
organizing and planning for many years (yes, even before Clinton) but
somehow I suppose the Democrats are saying that is Bush's fault too! It's
kinda funny just how much the Democrats are blaming on Bush, and just how
much of their own blame is being swept under the carpet. I think letting
people know as much about the reality of what is happening is better than
trying to sugar coat everything. This country WILL have a better future,
but we are in one of the those "periodic threats like Secession, WWI, WWII,
Atomic War, Sept. 11" that you speak of, and unfortunately this battle is
just beginning. Bush will do a better job of getting us through it than
Kerry. Sure it's a drag on our economy, sure it is causing some concerns
for investors, but the economy is still growing. On 9/10, investors still
had a good outlook and were not aware of what was coming (this IS Bush's
fault to some extent). Look what happened to the market after 9/11. You
also say that the world is no more or no less dangerous than on 9/10. Are
you sure? While I agree that the world is still a very dangerous place, I
don't think it is quite as bad as 9/10. Even some of the Arab states are
starting to show signs that terrorism is not in their best interests and are
taking some baby steps to help stop it.

It is the Democrats that have been spreading the fear. I'm sure you
remember the speech that Gore gave where he started ranting about how Bush
played on our fears? You tell me with a straight face that isn't EXACTLY
what GORE was doing. HE was promoting fear. Some other Democrats have been
doing the same thing. They are trying to make everyone afraid to vote for
Bush, and it looks like their dirty tricks have worked on you.

Fear of the future? I'll bet that all of the former presidents you named
warned people of troubled times ahead. But you have started believing all
that Democrat lip service that Bush is promoting fear of the future. If
Bush is the only president that has done this, why were so many bomb
shelters built back in the 50's/60's? I wonder what Eisenhower must have
said to cause that? What was the purpose of Kennedy's address regarding
missiles in Cuba and the soviet threat they posed to Americans? And Reagan
gave many speeches speaking of the Soviet threat. Lincoln, Washington,
Truman, Roosevelt, and even Nixon to some extent didn't have the instant and
enormously powerful access to the media that we have today. But I would bet
that if thay had, you would have removed their names from your list too.

As for you saying "George Bush's whole theme has been simple. You HAVE to
vote for me or else
the whole Country will go to Hell." That he is "the only one". The only
difference between Bush and Kerry in this regard is that Kerry is saying
that the whole country has already gone to hell, and you have to vote for
him because he is the only one that can fix it. Give me a break.

I'm not even going to talk about the Constitution except to say that BOTH
parties have been using it to wipe their asses for far too long.

Your statement "I am rejecting George Bush's argument that he is the only
one who can prevent the horror lurking in our future." is no different from
Kerry. Both of them are saying that they are the only one. It's an
election year and you are listening to campaign speeches. What do you
expect them to say? Look at actions, not words. Bush has a short track
record, but I think it is . . .ok. Kerry has no track record. His military
service is not what he claims it to be, his actions after he returned to the
states and his "medal throwing" incident are abhorent, and his senatorial
career is very lack luster. He is a nothing and then adds a shyster lawyer
to the ticket. You saw what happened to the market just by Kerry announcing
Edwards as his running mate. How much did it drop?

To me, this election is not about who to vote for, but who to vote against.
I don't like either one of the candidates, and haven't liked any candidate
for years. I will not vote for Kerry, nor will I vote for Bush. But I am
going to vote against Kerry. Kerry is more Socialist than Democrat, and he
will say anything to get himself elected. At least with Bush, ya know
what ya got.

I'm not a Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination. There are many things
I don't like about him such as his spending like a Democrat, he has his head
up Vincente Fox's ass (meaning the border with Mexico is wide open), and he
isn't doing enough to save manufacturing jobs in this country to name a few.
I'm not sure what can be done to save the manufacturing jobs since it is
wages, medical costs, and taxes (among other things) that are killing us,
but I haven't even heard him talk about it.

Wayne

By the way, if you want to learn more about John Kerry's Vietnam service, go
he http://www.swiftvets.com/. Unfortunately there isn't a corresponding
site for Bush.

"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
m...


Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

snipped



(snip of a fine post.)

Wayne

By the way, if you want to learn more about John Kerry's Vietnam service,
go
he http://www.swiftvets.com/. Unfortunately there isn't a
corresponding
site for Bush.






Wayne,
That was one well thought out, succinct and accurate piece of writing.
Thanks for posting it. You ever think about running for office somewhere?

Garrett Fulton






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:48:24 -0400, "???" wrote:

This is why George Bush stand out as the ONLY President who actually
promotes fear of the future as part of his campaign. And I reject it.

Btw..just how many American citizens of Japanese ancestry did FDR put
into concentration camps to die, again?

As to fear..it seems that the only platform the Dems have is based on
fear. Fear of 4 more years of Bush.

God knows they dont give any details about their plank or platform.
Just more Anti-Bush rhetoric.

Too bad Clinton wasnt a bit more fear oriented. If he had been, those
4 airliners would not have killed 3000 Americans, the Cole wouldnt
have been bombed etc

Then of course..he did manage to cause fear in the Davidians as he
burned them to death. Shrug..but hey..what were a few religious nut
cases who wished only to be left alone. Its not like they were
Islamic fundimentalist extremists whom you wish to kiss the arses of.

Why not take a vow of poverty and donate all of your money to the DNC.
You will simply be getting a head start on the rest of the nation, if
Kerry wins.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:16:07 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:

You tell me with a straight face that isn't EXACTLY
what GORE was doing. HE was promoting fear. Some other Democrats have been
doing the same thing. They are trying to make everyone afraid to vote for
Bush, and it looks like their dirty tricks have worked on you.

Not to mention the fear that "Republicans want to kick Granny out of
the house to die in the snow, poison the air, land and water, starve
children, force you to be come a Christian", etc etc etc

Fear is the Dems stock in trade when trying to get voters.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:16:07 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:

I'm not sure what can be done to save the manufacturing jobs since it is
wages, medical costs, and taxes (among other things) that are killing us,
but I haven't even heard him talk about it.

The Dems often talk about it. They more they can **** the taxpayers
and the "filthy rich" the better. Of course when that happens, no one
can afford to buy American made goods and the entrepreneurs all move
out of the US totally.

But that's what the Libs want. The entire nation as a huge welfare
state they can administer.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

You wrote

" First of all, if you want to hold someone accountable,
first hold yourself accountable and post under a real "

What part of the signature are you unable to comprehend?

Your inattention to detail may help to explain your inability discern the
choice (which is quite distinct in the opinions of both parties and almost
all commentators) to be made this Fall.


--
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
"

Mark,

After the War, the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional to detain
the Japanese who became naturalized, but that it was unConstitutional to
have detained their children. This is an oversimplification of a complex
set of rulings, but it is all laid out in Chief Justice Rhenquist's 1996
book "Civil Liberties and War". However, I suspect it lies at the heart of
why detain Muslims with demonstrable ties to Al queda financial links, but
we do not harass those who go to Mosques. The Internment rulings are an
example of the Living Constitution; that even there, we "live and learn".

This same Justice heads the Court which just roundly rejected President
Bush's attempts to detain people (citizens or not, in the US or not) without
due process. But there go those activist judges again. After reading the
book, it will seem that some smarmy operative in the Whitehouse had read
this 1996 book and thought they found a blueprint for getting around due
process by using Gitmo. However, anyone who read and UNDERSTOOD the book
before the actual rulings came, was confident that the Court would not
accept the Executive's behavior. Jim Rozen, remember I had encouraged you
to seek this book out.

As the phrase goes, "The Devil is in the details". Our understanding of
specific events typically changes as we learn the details. In no small
way, this lies at the heart of the discomfort of many who question the
utility of a President who prides himself in not reading newspapers and who
repeatedly states he "goes with his gut".

While I am not sure how the detention of Japans citizens fits into this
discussion of the future, it does provide an opportunity to highlight the
importance of knowing the details of an event, not just the Headline.

To the issue at hand. It is interesting Gov. Weld's most damning criticism
of John Kerry (whom he knows quite well) is that in times when important
decisions need to be made, Kerry may "think too much".

Regardless, I was in Harrisburg last night. This is the Republican
stronghold of Central Pennsylvania. Twenty thousand people waited for 4
hours in 80 degree heat on concrete to hear their candidate.

On exiting the rally, there was a Republican counter rally situated right in
the middle of the exit where 20,000 people HAD to pass. The 20,000 people
quietly smiled as we politely parted to pass them by. All six (6) of them.

Quite a metaphor. Whatever happened to that Republican war room we heard so
much about at the beginning of the week?

I think the Republican party will have to come up with some reason for
Americans to vote Republican other than the obvious fact that Kerry is " Not
Bush".

Regardless,

--
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
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:48:24 -0400, "???" wrote:

This is why George Bush stand out as the ONLY President who actually
promotes fear of the future as part of his campaign. And I reject it.

Btw..just how many American citizens of Japanese ancestry did FDR put
into concentration camps to die, again?

As to fear..it seems that the only platform the Dems have is based on
fear. Fear of 4 more years of Bush.

God knows they dont give any details about their plank or platform.
Just more Anti-Bush rhetoric.

Too bad Clinton wasnt a bit more fear oriented. If he had been, those
4 airliners would not have killed 3000 Americans, the Cole wouldnt
have been bombed etc

Then of course..he did manage to cause fear in the Davidians as he
burned them to death. Shrug..but hey..what were a few religious nut
cases who wished only to be left alone. Its not like they were
Islamic fundimentalist extremists whom you wish to kiss the arses of.

Why not take a vow of poverty and donate all of your money to the DNC.
You will simply be getting a head start on the rest of the nation, if
Kerry wins.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Garrett Fulton" wrote in message
...

"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
m...


Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

snipped



(snip of a fine post.)

Wayne

By the way, if you want to learn more about John Kerry's Vietnam
service,
go
he http://www.swiftvets.com/. Unfortunately there isn't a
corresponding
site for Bush.






Wayne,
That was one well thought out, succinct and accurate piece of writing.
Thanks for posting it. You ever think about running for office somewhere?

Garrett Fulton




Nah. I wanna be a dictator. :-)

Wayne

In article , Gunner says...

Not to mention the fear that "Republicans want to kick Granny out of
the house to die in the snow,

Look. Either you *have* entitlement programs (welfare, SS)
or you don't. But if you have them, you need to PAY for
them.

If you want granny to eat something besides Ken-L-Ration
then you had better be willing to pay for it via taxes.
And the common consensus is, rich folks pay more. That's
the way the game is rigged right now.

You're just going to have to come to grips with that.

Jim

-- Sig --
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , ??? says...


... all laid out in Chief Justice Rhenquist's 1996
book "Civil Liberties and War".

,,, Jim Rozen, remember I had encouraged you
to seek this book out.

And I neglected to do so. Thank you for the reminder,
I will send my associate to the local library shortly...

Jim

-- Sig --
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

??? wrote:
You wrote

" First of all, if you want to hold someone accountable,

first hold yourself accountable and post under a real "


What part of the signature are you unable to comprehend?

I just looked at the email address. I shouldn't have to
look for an (optional) sig to see who's posting something.

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
??? wrote:
I just changed my voter registration and donated $300 to the Kerry
campaign.
I am waiting to hear from them on how to donate additional money from my
C-Corp.

I made a promise to myself that I would hold George Bush accountable for
"dropping me into it" when he took the stick and started poking the wasp

Pro-Kerry blather deleted.

First of all, if you want to hold someone accountable,
first hold yourself accountable and post under a real name.

Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

I can best sum up my reaction to the convention with
a quote from P.J. O'Rourke - "I was moved by his
speech, and it wasn't just because I was drunk"

Enough said.


Rather interesting how our political system weeds out the honest, qualified,
well-intentioned people from getting the party nominations for public
office.

Steve.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:56:40 -0400, "???" wrote:

I think the Republican party will have to come up with some reason for
Americans to vote Republican other than the obvious fact that Kerry is " Not
Bush".

Regardless,

Oddly enough..the Dems so far have failed to come up with a reason for
anyone to vote their particular drones, other than Anyone but Bush.

It cant be the fact Both Johns want to raise your taxes and want to
provide even more entitltments (and this will Fix the deficit exactly
how?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

In article , Gunner says...

It cant be the fact Both Johns want to raise your taxes and want to
provide even more entitltments (and this will Fix the deficit exactly
how?

By eliminating corporate welfare to start. Like for example,
weaning haliburton off the no-bid gummint contracts. Then
they could scale back the war overseas.

So I take it you are indeed in favor of granny feasting on
tender vittles?

Jim

-- Sig --
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

SteveF wrote:

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...

??? wrote:

I just changed my voter registration and donated $300 to the Kerry

campaign.

I am waiting to hear from them on how to donate additional money from my
C-Corp.

I made a promise to myself that I would hold George Bush accountable for
"dropping me into it" when he took the stick and started poking the wasp

Pro-Kerry blather deleted.

First of all, if you want to hold someone accountable,
first hold yourself accountable and post under a real name.

Bush and Kerry are both jerks.

I can best sum up my reaction to the convention with
a quote from P.J. O'Rourke - "I was moved by his
speech, and it wasn't just because I was drunk"

Enough said.



Rather interesting how our political system weeds out the honest, qualified,
well-intentioned people from getting the party nominations for public
office.

Yeah, that's why we have an action-hero for a governer
in California. A republican jerk to big to get elected
and a Democratic jerk to big to stay elected. Damn fine
system.

In article m, SteveF says...

That's right! The government should have spent 6 to 12 months on a open
competitive bid process before letting one of the most experienced
international construction firms get to work.

Competitive bid. Let me see. What does that mean.

It means that the company that proves they're the best
for the job, with the least expensive rates, is awarded
the taxpayer dollars.

Alternative world view, you give the money to your
brother-in-law. Because he's *family*.

Jim

-- Sig --
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:16:07 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:



I'm not sure what can be done to save the manufacturing jobs since it is
wages, medical costs, and taxes (among other things) that are killing us,
but I haven't even heard him talk about it.



The Dems often talk about it. They more they can **** the taxpayers
and the "filthy rich" the better. Of course when that happens, no one
can afford to buy American made goods and the entrepreneurs all move
out of the US totally.

But that's what the Libs want. The entire nation as a huge welfare
state they can administer.

Gunner



Can I have my tax money back that paid for your operation?

ff

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:20:06 GMT, ff wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:16:07 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:



I'm not sure what can be done to save the manufacturing jobs since it is
wages, medical costs, and taxes (among other things) that are killing us,
but I haven't even heard him talk about it.



The Dems often talk about it. They more they can **** the taxpayers
and the "filthy rich" the better. Of course when that happens, no one
can afford to buy American made goods and the entrepreneurs all move
out of the US totally.

But that's what the Libs want. The entire nation as a huge welfare
state they can administer.

Gunner



Can I have my tax money back that paid for your operation?

ff

What tax money? Im paying for my operation. Monthy and for a very long
time.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On 31 Jul 2004 16:25:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

It cant be the fact Both Johns want to raise your taxes and want to
provide even more entitltments (and this will Fix the deficit exactly
how?

By eliminating corporate welfare to start. Like for example,
weaning haliburton off the no-bid gummint contracts. Then
they could scale back the war overseas.

So who is gonna do the job Halliburton is doing? And how will it be
bid?

So I take it you are indeed in favor of granny feasting on
tender vittles?

Alpo. Its cheaper.


Jim

-- Sig --
================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On 31 Jul 2004 18:29:24 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article m, SteveF says...

That's right! The government should have spent 6 to 12 months on a open
competitive bid process before letting one of the most experienced
international construction firms get to work.

Competitive bid. Let me see. What does that mean.

It means that the company that proves they're the best
for the job, with the least expensive rates, is awarded
the taxpayer dollars.

And it will take 6 to 12 months.

Alternative world view, you give the money to your
brother-in-law. Because he's *family*.

Jim

If my Brother in law was equipped for the job and it absolutely needed
to be done NOW, he damned sure would get it.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:20:06 GMT, ff wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:16:07 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:



I'm not sure what can be done to save the manufacturing jobs since it is
wages, medical costs, and taxes (among other things) that are killing us,
but I haven't even heard him talk about it.



The Dems often talk about it. They more they can **** the taxpayers
and the "filthy rich" the better. Of course when that happens, no one
can afford to buy American made goods and the entrepreneurs all move
out of the US totally.

But that's what the Libs want. The entire nation as a huge welfare
state they can administer.

Gunner



Can I have my tax money back that paid for your operation?

Or the $400K he filched for his "wife's" self-inflicted problems.

ff

Jim,

You Wrote:

I just looked at the email address. I shouldn't have to
look for an (optional) sig to see who's posting

Huh? Are you so naive as to think you know who someone is by the screen name
or email account they use?

In the America I grew up in, people were pragmatic enough to respect those
who signed their messages. It is shame that you do you do not bother to
check such details.

But then, it really is apparent why you are unable to discern the
differences between the two visions we are being offered.
--
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

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:29:21 -0400, "???" wrote:

Mark,

Obviously I can afford to have made a personal donation of $300 to the
campaign. And unlike the large players, it is not enough to get me "invited
to the table". This will be true even after my Corporate donation. My
total will be under $1000.
opensecrets.org - Political Cash Flowmeter

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp

:/
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

In article , ??? says...

... Bush is the same kind of leader of
FDR and Truman. Talk about a makeover!

....

Mr. Bush has many reasons for why benchmarks have not been achieved. Like
any business owner or stock holder, I listen to them with a fair, but
critical ear. Sadly, he is one of those people who blames the situation on
others; France, Germany, UN, George Tenant, Democrats, Activist Judges. And
the list goes on. He doesn't even say (which is a perfectly good response
to why benchmarks are sometimes not met) "I guess I set too high a
benchmark".

Now just what *did* that sign say on Truman's desk?

:^)

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

If my Brother in law was equipped for the job and it absolutely needed
to be done NOW, he damned sure would get it.

Yep. At at twice the going rate, just like the haliburton
teat-suckers. Spending other folks' money sure is easy.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

The 3 engineering/construction companies which have done over 90% of the
engineering/construction work in the Middle East are Haliburton, Bechtel,
and the Bin Laden Group. No one else has any major experience in the
region. So if the contracts were put out for bid to qualified companies,
one of those 3 would be given the work. Likely it would be the Bin Laden
Group who would be the low bidder.

Talk about irony.

My understanding was that many of the contracts for supplies,
food, fuel, etc in the area were being padded, and the
payments were too high. I specifically recall items in the
news about fuel costs being inflated. Also the stories I've
heard coming back are that the US soldiers are not getting
their taxpayer dollar's worth for food and supplies.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

I want my daughter to live in society where people know that WORK is
rewarded; that if they start as a janitor or matron, they can better their
economic situation to the point that they can own a home and be sending
their kids to college, knowing that those children will surpass the
aspirations of the parents. I grew up in a housing project in NY and my
mother worked as a matron in the public schools for $3000 per year, $10,000
when we pulled her out in 1985.

A nation that respects those that work hard and suceeds, and helps
those that honestly cannot help themselves. A nation where rising
above ones lot in life is encouraged, not one where living in squallor
or mediocraty is glorified and encouraged. A nation where one may get
a hand up, not a hand out in times of great need, and one where one
is held responsible for ones actions, both good or bad.

Well. I'm glad you two guys have finally agreed
on *something* for once.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

And your question is? Certainly you are not surprised to learn that
campaign contributions are part of the public record (unlike donations to
the Red Crescent)?

--
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

In article , NoOne N
Particular says...

Today, one of the political dog bones is gay marriage and the discussion of
a constitutional amendment to ban it. I'm not going to say whether I am
for, or against gay marriage. But I am saying that I don't want the current
crop of politicians (Democrats or Republicans) to mess with the
Constitution. That could only be bad for us.


I think you miss the point on this one. Politicians love this
issue, because there is not much substance to it at all, but
rather a great subject to ignite meaningless controversy in the
news and popular literature.

They love this because it distracts from the real issues at hand,
such as 'why is the economy in the ****ter,' or 'why have all
your jobs gone overseas,' or the never-popular 'how come we can't
stop folks from blowing up our buildings?'

I think the politicos have made the smart realization that as
long as their 'issue of the day' plays on Fox News and CNN then
they can run the whole show whatever way they want.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gary,

I can understand your concern. I have based my decision on several things.

First and foremost: the vision thing. The Kerry campaign has its moorings
in the strong history of America meeting the threats to its existence
through focusing on the fact that future ALWAYS has the promise of a
brighter tomorrow. WE have NEVER faced down threats to our existence by
focusing on fear of what someone else wants to do to us.

Second, I look at that benchmarks Mr. Bush chose and I look at his record in
achieving them. Nothing but failure.

Third, I look at which vision is better aligned with my thinking. Mr. Bush
has consistently chosen to emphasize those things that benefit business
rather than families. Give business breaks on pollution rather than worry
about the effects on real and future human beings. Reduce the deficit on
the backs of active military by reducing "impact aid" which is the money
provided to school districts that serve military bases. Not only does this
money offset the load incurred by adding students from homes that pay no
property taxes (base housing) to those schools, he only announced it after
the deployments last year. Instead of giving families a real break on
prescription drug costs, he developed a plan that simply makes it easier for
drug companies and pharmacies to charge more. The list goes on, but you get
the idea of MY thinking.

Why Mr. Kerry? Because his vision, as very clearly laid in his speeches,
emphasizes families over business enrichment. Also, he puts his money where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes.

I understand that these may not be reason enough for some. But I happen to
think the choice is very clear. Mr. Kerry has shown he is willing to make
his own personal sacrifices. And Mr. Bush has failed by the very standards
he set for himself.

--
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

On 1 Aug 2004 09:01:10 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

If my Brother in law was equipped for the job and it absolutely needed
to be done NOW, he damned sure would get it.

Yep. At at twice the going rate, just like the haliburton
teat-suckers. Spending other folks' money sure is easy.

Jim

So are you sure its at twice the going rate? Please provide cites and
links to their charge structure. Your opinion of course doesnt count
as its hopelessly biased.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 13:17:10 -0400, "???" wrote:

And your question is? Certainly you are not surprised to learn that
campaign contributions are part of the public record (unlike donations to
the Red Crescent)?

Question? I thought folks might like to see how much money is being
given to both political parties. And by who.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I understand that these may not be reason enough for some. But I happen to
think the choice is very clear. Mr. Kerry has shown he is willing to make
his own personal sacrifices. And Mr. Bush has failed by the very standards
he set for himself.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

"???" wrote in message ...
Gary,

I can understand your concern. I have based my decision on several
things.

First and foremost: the vision thing. The Kerry campaign has its
moorings
in the strong history of America meeting the threats to its existence
through focusing on the fact that future ALWAYS has the promise of a
brighter tomorrow. WE have NEVER faced down threats to our existence by
focusing on fear of what someone else wants to do to us.

The vison thing. Great! But the devil is in the details and Kerry has not
given any details about HOW he intends to achieve any of this.


Second, I look at that benchmarks Mr. Bush chose and I look at his record
in
achieving them. Nothing but failure.

I disagree

Third, I look at which vision is better aligned with my thinking. Mr.
Bush
has consistently chosen to emphasize those things that benefit business
rather than families. Give business breaks on pollution rather than worry
about the effects on real and future human beings. Reduce the deficit on
the backs of active military by reducing "impact aid" which is the money
provided to school districts that serve military bases. Not only does
this
money offset the load incurred by adding students from homes that pay no
property taxes (base housing) to those schools, he only announced it
after
the deployments last year. Instead of giving families a real break on
prescription drug costs, he developed a plan that simply makes it easier
for
drug companies and pharmacies to charge more. The list goes on, but you
get
the idea of MY thinking.

Without business, what would family be? It's business that feeds, clothes,
houses, educates. . . Business in this country must compete in global
markets and sometimes needs help. I do think that Bush's prescription drug
program is a mess, but just wait until Kerry gets going with his national
health care. What kind of break will the families get, and what impact will
that have on drug companies, pharmacies, and other medical related
businesses?

The one thing I think we might agree on is the treatment of our service
personnel and their families. There hasn't been a president in a long time
that has taken proper care of our service men and their families.

Why Mr. Kerry? Because his vision, as very clearly laid in his speeches,
emphasizes families over business enrichment. Also, he puts his money
where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the
Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes.

His "vision" is all talk. Take a good look at his voting record, and wait
until he starts telling us the details.


I understand that these may not be reason enough for some. But I happen
to
think the choice is very clear. Mr. Kerry has shown he is willing to make
his own personal sacrifices. And Mr. Bush has failed by the very
standards
he set for himself.

Your reasons are good. Just wrong.

Wayne

--
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

I forgot that one. While it is true that he hocked his own house to obtain
campaign funds, what would have happened if he lost it. His ol' lady is
worth a billion. Trivial loss and more of a gesture than anything else.

Wayne

P.S. Kerry should lock his wife in the attic and throw away the key until
after the election. Can you imagine that woman as first lady?? ew!


"JMartin957" wrote in message
...

I understand that these may not be reason enough for some. But I happen
to
think the choice is very clear. Mr. Kerry has shown he is willing to
make
his own personal sacrifices. And Mr. Bush has failed by the very
standards
he set for himself.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

John,

You wrote:
Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

Here are the two instances of John Kerry's personal sacrifice I had included
in the original post If you read the original post again, you will find
them.

"Also, he puts his money where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes"

--
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
"JMartin957" wrote in message
...

I understand that these may not be reason enough for some. But I happen
to
think the choice is very clear. Mr. Kerry has shown he is willing to
make
his own personal sacrifices. And Mr. Bush has failed by the very
standards
he set for himself.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..

I can't disagree with much of what you say, Dewey. But what evidence
do we have that Kerry would do any better?

It's not possible for him to do any worse. What proof have you that
he would not do better? Not your ****ing propaganda and republicker
"It's bad for business." That's bull**** in huge amounts.

When you seek to replace
a manager, don't you look at the candidate's resume to see if he has a
better record than the one you are replacing? Or do you just go ahead
and make a change for the sake of change?

The republicans have put the bloodiest grovelmore that was sitting in
any state office, and made a phoney leader out of a coward that had
his daddy keep him from ANY risk. Are you suggesting we, as we "don't
know the record", continue to run with another failed president? Do
we continue down "hoover happy street" or do we get rid of the useless
son of a bitch and replace him with a functioning human? Do we take a
chance with a relatively unknown, or stick blindly like trapped rats
with a proven failure in all areas? The stupidest, most worthless son
of a bitch now sits in the white house, we should continue to follow
his lack of vision and lust for revenge? "He tried to have my daddy
killed." Well, too damn bad he didn't succeed before his daddy could
breed another of his failures.

If a working man constantly screws up, and lies to get his way, HE'S
FIRED! Let's do the same with the GWeeB.