what exactly did you expect
the folks to do: throw crap at him?
sheesh indeed...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
am
"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...
Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
loved it.

He's just awful to them.

sheesh

On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
wrote:

In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss wrote:
: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:


Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
loved it.


Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?

Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....

Renata


He's just awful to them.

sheesh


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Noons wrote:
: what exactly did you expect
: the folks to do: throw crap at him?
: sheesh indeed...
: --
: Cheers
: Nuno Souto
: am
: "Gregg Germain" wrote in message
: ...
: Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
: cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
: loved it.
:
: He's just awful to them.
:
: sheesh
:

Were you ever in the military? Believe me, there are thousands of ways
the soldiers coudl register dissatisfaction - many without saying a
word.

In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
awful to them.

They'd clap politely.

--


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Renata wrote:
: On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
: wrote:

:In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss wrote:
:: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
:: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:
:
:
: Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
: cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
: loved it.
:

: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
: ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?

I do indeed know about exclusion zones. Yet when the camera includes
groups both behind and in front of hte Presedent, full scanning left
to right, there's little left to the imagination.

: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
: teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
: it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....


Well not we're getting a touch personal are we not? It's funny how
people make assumptions about me based upon my email address. Some
thign it means I'm a rampant liberal (I am registered Indep and voted
for Bush. WIll do so again)- some think I actually Work at Harvard
(I do not). It would do them good to read the sig line. But they
probably cannot be bothered with that as they are too busy insulting.


Some lose temporary use of their minds and simply lash out - like
above.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

[snip]
In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
awful to them.

They'd clap politely.

You need to understand camera angles and "cherry-picking" only the "best
actors" to situate where they will be seen. Witness the "town hall"
stuff where only Bush faithful are invited. Moral: don't believe
everything you see.

Gregg Germain wrote:
(I am registered Indep and voted
: for Bush. WIll do so again)

So ...

You like the:

USA Patriot Act, the most aggressive assault on individual rights since, well, forever?

Loss of *three* *million* jobs since he took office?

The official doctrine that we can attack any country we perceive as a potential threat?

The denial of benefits to veterans who have served this country?

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

presence of a president who can just barely put a sentence together half the time?


A couple of years ago, Gregg, you seemed like a smart guy. What happened?


-- Andy Barss

Oh yeah, and I forgot:

a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.

b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.

c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
overseas countries as a good thing.

-- Andy Barss

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...


Were you ever in the military?

Yes. And in a real war, not a made-for-TV one...
I was also a civilian in that country. During
that war.

Believe me, there are thousands of ways
the soldiers coudl register dissatisfaction - many without saying a
word.

I believe you.


In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
awful to them.

That's what you see on TV. Quite frankly nowadays, ANYTHING
I see on TV about ANY war, I don't believe. And I don't give a rat's
arse who is the broadcaster. From all sides.


--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
am

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Oh yeah, and I forgot:

a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.

b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.

c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
overseas countries as a good thing.

-- Andy Barss


I don't understand c). I am currently unemployed, err employed at
finding employment. That means NO paycheck, NO fica nor federal taxes
taken out, NO new car, no health insurance, no new eye glasses, no new
clothes, no dental work, less food, no shopping, and NO new shop
equipment nor wood. (I keep my ISP to send out hundreds of resumes
every week.) And the administration keeps spending and spending
money that don't have! Looking for jobs that not there is very
depressing. Personally, I need an alternative in the White House this
time around to improve my chances of getting back to work, instead we
got war monger who tries to convince us that terrorism is a big
concern. I say send him back to Texas.

Renata wrote:

: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV?

p.s.. Have YOU been to these rallys and seen that the only cheering
soldiers were the ones on camera?

no?

Then why do you conclude it was an exclusion zone deal?


: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
: teevee.

yes and ONE of those explanations is that you are seeing the real
deal.
I note your assumption that if you can't see it, the reaction MUST be
bad.

This is why you have a brain.

Ditto.

: Perhaps you shouild exercise
: it.

Perhaps I did and you are too overwrought to see it.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

1) Don't believe everything you see on tee vee. (- see the period?)

2) Really not intending a personal attack, just can't understand how
anyone with more than 2 brain cells can't see thru the lies and deceit
this admin continually doles out. (Harvard, whether associated w/the
University or the CFAstrophysics would seem to indicate you might have
a few more than 2, though there are other possibilities)

3) assigning labels like "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever is
not really of interest to me.

Renata

On 19 Feb 2004 08:56:50 -0500, Gregg Germain
wrote:

Renata wrote:
: On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
: wrote:

:In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss wrote:
:: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
:: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:
:
:
: Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
: cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
: loved it.
:

: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
: ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?

I do indeed know about exclusion zones. Yet when the camera includes
groups both behind and in front of hte Presedent, full scanning left
to right, there's little left to the imagination.

: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
: teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
: it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....


Well not we're getting a touch personal are we not? It's funny how
people make assumptions about me based upon my email address. Some
thign it means I'm a rampant liberal (I am registered Indep and voted
for Bush. WIll do so again)- some think I actually Work at Harvard
(I do not). It would do them good to read the sig line. But they
probably cannot be bothered with that as they are too busy insulting.


Some lose temporary use of their minds and simply lash out - like
above.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
good for us?
b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue them,
next time? How is that bad for us?
c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
the responsibility of employers?

It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

Kevin
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Oh yeah, and I forgot:

a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.

b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.

c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
overseas countries as a good thing.

-- Andy Barss

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:20:58 -0500, "Kevin Singleton"
wrote:

snip

c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
the responsibility of employers?


Responsibility? Not really the responsibility of anyone. If I don't
get paid, neither does the government, yet they continue to spend
money they don't have.

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
So ...

You like the:

USA Patriot Act, the most aggressive assault on individual rights since,
well, forever?

No, but that was passed by Congress, first, and then signed by the
president, so it was our representatives who passed that bill, and that
means the responsibility is ours.

Loss of *three* *million* jobs since he took office?

Who has the president laid off? How is the president responsible for
layoffs? Is the president responsible for every lost job? I quit mine,
last month. Is that George's fault, too? Presidents don't create jobs;
employers do. The economy tanked after the terrorist attacks. After that,
job creation wasn't at the top of my list, either. There were more
important things to handle.

The official doctrine that we can attack any country we perceive as a
potential threat?

In Texas, we call that, "headin'em off at the pass"! It's better than
waiting for them to cream us. It's a tough world, and namby-pamby wasn't
working.

The denial of benefits to veterans who have served this country?

My dad had heart surgery, last February, in the VA hospital in Dallas. I
think he paid $75. Which benefit was he denied?

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
Andy?

presence of a president who can just barely put a sentence together half
the time?

I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the most
important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
Democrat, am I?

Kevin

In article ,
says...
Oh yeah, and I forgot:

And you also forgot what he's doing to the environment. Global
warming? What's that? Wildlife preserve? Drill it! Etc..

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article ,
says...
I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the most
important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
Democrat, am I?

As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
see the best candidates, not the best leaders.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Kevin Singleton wrote:
: a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
: good for us?

Okay, say it means that. Then the government can either (a) return it to
the taxpayer, or (b) use it to pay for good things.

Consider the alternative. The government spends *trillions* more than it
takes in in revenue, as it is under Bush's policies and proposals.

In that case, there is no koney to either (a) return to the taxpayer, or
(b) spend on good things.

How can anyone think running huge deficits is a good thing? I'm old
enough to remember when the GOP at least pretended to be the party of
fiscal responsibility.

: b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue them,
: next time? How is that bad for us?

Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.


: c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
: the responsibility of employers?

That's a pathetic dodge.

If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
months.

What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing. And the
mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.


: It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
are anything other than a complete disaster.


-- Andy Barss

Imagine someone wants to set you up with a woman (if you're female, please
reverse genders here) who:

a) charges huge purchases to your credit card with no plan to pay them
off, other than vaguely implying your kids will take care of it;

b) goes over to a neighbor's house and hits him in the head with an axe,
based on an unsubstatiated rumour that the neighbor had been planning to
buy an axe;

c) decides your dad would be better off if we threw away some of his
benefit checks, calling them "wasteful";


d) pretended to have served a full term on the local PTA, when in
fact she spent half her claimd PTA time doing her nails;

e) decides she should have access to the complete records of what you,
your family, and your neighbors have said on the phone, checked out of the
library, and said in private, and that the content of that can and should
be used to deter anyone suspicious in jail, without being charged, and
without having access to an attourney.


Would you marry her?


-- Andy Barss

In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
Andy?

Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.

Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.

Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
Forces.

Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
staying drunk for the next twenty years.

His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop, is only compounded by
his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.


"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed...managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard
units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class
discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all
Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their
country."
(Colin Powell's autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)
--
Doors - Locks - Weatherstripping
POB 250121 Atlanta GA 30325
404/626-2840

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
Andy?

Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.

Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

... so since Clinton is "your guy", his moral failings weren't his
fault, it was OK for him to play games with the reserves and write how
many like himself "loathed the military" (parse it as you will, I'm sure
your parsing of the phrase will be most favorable to Bill), and go to
England and participate in anti-US protests on foreign soil. For all
these things you are willing to provide Bill with an excuse and overlook
those failings.


Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.


Let's see, George Bush Sr. served as a congressman from 1966 to 1970,
LBJ was president only during 1966 to 1968, Richard Nixon was president
for the last term Bush Sr served as a congressman. Bush Jr didn't go
into the Guard until after he graduated in 1968, the final year of Bush
Sr's term, during which he was running for a Senate seat in Texas. LBJ
was no longer president, so your statement about not being called up for
duty in SE Asia seems irrelevant relative to who was in charge.

You seem to have negelected the son of another prominent
congresscritter whose daddy made sure he did not see combat, but was
able to serve as a correspondent rather than as a normal soldier. While
he did go to Vietnam, his tour was short and his duty was in as safe a
place as was possible.


Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
Forces.

Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
staying drunk for the next twenty years.


What, no excuses for him here or any other of the "passes" you were
willing to give Billy-boy above?


His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop,

LBJ escalated the war and then instituted such convoluted, self-
defeating rules of engagement that we never stood a chance of emerging
from that conflict victorious; Bush Sr. was only a congressman the last
two years of LBJ's term. How did Bush Sr exactly help "develop" this
lie?

is only compounded by
his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.


While no WMD's have been found in Iraq, there is no (zero, zip, zilch,
nada) dispute that the Taliban in Afghanistan was supporting, protecting
and shielding OBL and his training camps of terror from which OBL
deployed the terrorists who killed over 3000 Americans in acts that by
any rational definition constituted a declaration of war on this
country. How exactly was our response in Afghanistan "unmilitary"?
What would have been "unmilitary" would have been to have continued for
months on end to "negotiate" and beg for the Taliban to "please, please,
please turn over OBL and close down those camps". Support (tacit or
open) for terrorists such as was being practiced by the Taliban
constitutes a de facto inclusion of those peoples' actions as officially
sanctioned by the government of Afghanistan.

Frankly, GW's response to Afghanistan was rapid, swift (within two
months of the attack on us, a full-scale response was in progress) and
decisive. The Iraqi confrontation simply constitutes a completion of
the conflict that had drug on for over 10 years. The administration was
not the only institution that believed WMD's were present in Iraq, other
foreign intelligence services also believed this to be true. A rational
person would be asking the question "Where are those WMD's?" since it
was known at one time that they did exist (without any doubt) and no
credible chain of custody has been established documenting that those
weapons have been destroyed.

Excellent reply!


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't
it,
Andy?

Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.

Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

... so since Clinton is "your guy", his moral failings weren't his
fault, it was OK for him to play games with the reserves and write how
many like himself "loathed the military" (parse it as you will, I'm sure
your parsing of the phrase will be most favorable to Bill), and go to
England and participate in anti-US protests on foreign soil. For all
these things you are willing to provide Bill with an excuse and overlook
those failings.


Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.


Let's see, George Bush Sr. served as a congressman from 1966 to 1970,
LBJ was president only during 1966 to 1968, Richard Nixon was president
for the last term Bush Sr served as a congressman. Bush Jr didn't go
into the Guard until after he graduated in 1968, the final year of Bush
Sr's term, during which he was running for a Senate seat in Texas. LBJ
was no longer president, so your statement about not being called up for
duty in SE Asia seems irrelevant relative to who was in charge.

You seem to have negelected the son of another prominent
congresscritter whose daddy made sure he did not see combat, but was
able to serve as a correspondent rather than as a normal soldier. While
he did go to Vietnam, his tour was short and his duty was in as safe a
place as was possible.


Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
Forces.

Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
staying drunk for the next twenty years.


What, no excuses for him here or any other of the "passes" you were
willing to give Billy-boy above?


His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop,

LBJ escalated the war and then instituted such convoluted, self-
defeating rules of engagement that we never stood a chance of emerging
from that conflict victorious; Bush Sr. was only a congressman the last
two years of LBJ's term. How did Bush Sr exactly help "develop" this
lie?

is only compounded by
his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.


While no WMD's have been found in Iraq, there is no (zero, zip, zilch,
nada) dispute that the Taliban in Afghanistan was supporting, protecting
and shielding OBL and his training camps of terror from which OBL
deployed the terrorists who killed over 3000 Americans in acts that by
any rational definition constituted a declaration of war on this
country. How exactly was our response in Afghanistan "unmilitary"?
What would have been "unmilitary" would have been to have continued for
months on end to "negotiate" and beg for the Taliban to "please, please,
please turn over OBL and close down those camps". Support (tacit or
open) for terrorists such as was being practiced by the Taliban
constitutes a de facto inclusion of those peoples' actions as officially
sanctioned by the government of Afghanistan.

Frankly, GW's response to Afghanistan was rapid, swift (within two
months of the attack on us, a full-scale response was in progress) and
decisive. The Iraqi confrontation simply constitutes a completion of
the conflict that had drug on for over 10 years. The administration was
not the only institution that believed WMD's were present in Iraq, other
foreign intelligence services also believed this to be true. A rational
person would be asking the question "Where are those WMD's?" since it
was known at one time that they did exist (without any doubt) and no
credible chain of custody has been established documenting that those
weapons have been destroyed.

So, no one is responsible for American jobs being moved overseas? That's
good. We can leave that out of the campaign discussion, then. Government
doesn't have money. Government takes money, and redistributes it. That's
our representatives at work. Let's vote them out, and try a new gang, eh?

Kevin
"Phisherman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:20:58 -0500, "Kevin Singleton"
wrote:

snip

c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
the responsibility of employers?


Responsibility? Not really the responsibility of anyone. If I don't
get paid, neither does the government, yet they continue to spend
money they don't have.

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Kevin Singleton wrote:
: a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
: good for us?

Okay, say it means that. Then the government can either (a) return it to
the taxpayer, or (b) use it to pay for good things.

"Say it means that?" What else does it mean, Andy. "Return it to the
taxpayer" is the same as tax cuts, isn't it?

Consider the alternative. The government spends *trillions* more than it
takes in in revenue, as it is under Bush's policies and proposals.

In that case, there is no koney to either (a) return to the taxpayer, or
(b) spend on good things.

As I understand it, Bush signed tax cuts (passed by our representatives in
Congress) into law, thus returning the "surplus" to the taxpayers. The
"war" is what is creating the deficit. How would another administration pay
for the "war" on terrorism?

How can anyone think running huge deficits is a good thing? I'm old
enough to remember when the GOP at least pretended to be the party of
fiscal responsibility.

I'm almost that old, too, Andy. I'm no longer of the opinion, though, that
any politicians have the taxpayer's interests at heart. Bush is no better
or worse than any other president we could have installed. At least,
though, he's got the nuts to fight the "war" on terrorism. I don't believe
Gore could have done it.

: b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue
them,
: next time? How is that bad for us?

Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.

Russia is an ally? Didn't they just test an aircraft that's capable of
averting our missile defense system? I wonder why they did that? I don't
think Russia is an ally, Andy. Who cares about Germany and France? They've
been irrelevant since 1945.

: c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't
that
: the responsibility of employers?

That's a pathetic dodge.

If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
months.

So, it's not about what really happens, or who caused it, it's about who
complains about it? There's your pathetic dodge.

What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing. And the
mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.

It's a global economy. Why does it matter where you do your job?

: It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
are anything other than a complete disaster.

Just another in a long chain of disasters, going back to at least 1933, and
maybe 60-odd years prior. America ain't what it used to be, and it ain't
been what it was intended to be since the War Between the States. Bush is a
politician, and the son of a politician, and very, very rich. Why would we
expect anything but a president who would cater to politicians and the rich?
Gore is exactly the same, with a slightly liberal bent. At the least, Bush
isn't trying to take away our guns. That's worth whatever we have to
tolerate, in my book.

Kevin

You're right, I'm sure. How would you change the system, Larry?

Kevin
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the
most
important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
Democrat, am I?

As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
see the best candidates, not the best leaders.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.
"Kevin Singleton" wrote in message
...
You're right, I'm sure. How would you change the system, Larry?

Kevin
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the
most
important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
Democrat, am I?

As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
see the best candidates, not the best leaders.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article m,
says...
While no WMD's have been found in Iraq, there is no (zero, zip, zilch,
nada) dispute that the Taliban in Afghanistan was supporting, protecting
and shielding OBL and his training camps of terror from which OBL
deployed the terrorists who killed over 3000 Americans in acts that by
any rational definition constituted a declaration of war on this
country.

Agreed. I have no quibble with us invading Afghanistan, just
how badly we seem to be screwing up the "peace". The warlords
are bringing back Taliban-like restrictions, the farmers are
making it be growing opium poppies, and we give Pakistan a free
ride because their leader "supports" us while their citizens
support Bin Laden.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sat 21 Feb 2004 02:59:25p, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote in . com:

Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

Y'know, the scary thing is that there are probably a lot of people out
there who actually believe that.

Dan

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:13:41 -0000, Dan wrote:

On Sat 21 Feb 2004 02:59:25p, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote in . com:

Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

Y'know, the scary thing is that there are probably a lot of people out
there who actually believe that.

Dan

The scariest thing to me is that while it is indisputable that the
former Iraqi government posessed and used chemical weapons on both
their enemies and their own people, there are people who allow their
hatred of the current US president to fog their minds to such an
extent that they will ignore eveidence and claim otherwise out of
sheer spite in order to try to bring him down.

I believe this would leave us with nothing but enemies and their
appeasers.


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat 21 Feb 2004 02:59:25p, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote in . com:

Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

Y'know, the scary thing is that there are probably a lot of people out
there who actually believe that.

Dan

Ok, Dan, maybe you'd like to explain why the Clinton administration approved
the transfer of technology from Loral. I'm sure that it's just a
coincidence that the chairman and CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwarz, was the
largest personal donor to the DNC the year this transfer was made and to the
1996 Clinton campaign. And Charie Trie was just a nice Chinaman who just
liked to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton out of his love
for the US.

As long as we're off-topic, I was listening to my financial guy, Bob
Brinker, on the radio today. For those that don't know Bob, he is willing
to fire on Republicans or Democrats as he sees fit. Somehow, the topic of
the 2000 election came up and the caller ended up asking Bob if he would
rather have the Presidential election decided by the popular vote. Bob said
he would support that because people don't understand the Electoral College,
but they can understand one guy getting 500,000 more votes than someone
else. That got me thinking of something that I hadn't thought of before and
that I can't remember really being discussed. IMHO, the idea of even
talking about the popular vote is improper. Both sides are aware of the
rules, and the rule is the guy who gets the most electoral votes wins. It's
possible that both Bush and Gore might have run entirely different campaigns
if the goal was to garner the most popular votes. It's like two basketball
teams playing where one team makes 40 2-point shots and the other makes 30
3-point shots (amazingly, no fouls were called during the game). By the
rules, the second team won the game. The first team doesn't get to say "but
we made more baskets, therefore we should have won". If the goal was to
make the most baskets, the second team might have changed their strategy.

todd

In article m,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
Andy?

Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.

Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

... so since Clinton is "your guy", his moral failings weren't his
fault, it was OK for him to play games with the reserves and write how
many like himself "loathed the military" (parse it as you will, I'm sure
your parsing of the phrase will be most favorable to Bill), and go to
England and participate in anti-US protests on foreign soil. For all
these things you are willing to provide Bill with an excuse and overlook
those failings.


Clinton ain't "my guy." Your factionalistic "divide and conquer" false
dichotomy only serves to cloud the discussion of proper values in
leadership. Each of the two major parties is rife with corruption. Face
up to it.

Whether rationalization or inspiration Clinton was against Vietnam.

He was not a hypocrite, therefore, when he dodged.

And he was correct in opposition to an egregious, irrefutably proven
crime against the American People and humanity.

Those who sent us to Vietnam after Lyndon Johnson "took" office lied to
us, got us killed, and are to blame for the deaths of millions of
innocent lives. This is not an abstract notion to be passed over in idle
chitchat. The "knitting" must be unravelled and the errors "corrected"
for American justice to be restored. Those unconcerned or opposed to a
reckoning on Vietnam within the Nation are in error.

Say whatever ill you wish of Bill Clinton - he certainly deserves to be
scorned - but the fact of the matter is he was smart enough to know at
the time we should not have been there.


Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.


Let's see, George Bush Sr. served as a congressman from 1966 to 1970,
LBJ was president only during 1966 to 1968, Richard Nixon was president
for the last term Bush Sr served as a congressman. Bush Jr didn't go
into the Guard until after he graduated in 1968, the final year of Bush
Sr's term, during which he was running for a Senate seat in Texas. LBJ
was no longer president, so your statement about not being called up for
duty in SE Asia seems irrelevant relative to who was in charge.

You seem to have negelected the son of another prominent
congresscritter whose daddy made sure he did not see combat, but was
able to serve as a correspondent rather than as a normal soldier. While
he did go to Vietnam, his tour was short and his duty was in as safe a
place as was possible.

Your quibbles and errors are manifest. Bush cut in line through "elite"
cheating. This is un-American. There is no equivalent to honorablly
serving the country under arms. Righteous leadership makes the
difference between cannon fodder and "Dulce et Decorum."

Bush has gotten away, so far, with the basest conduct any American man
during Vietnam could have chosen. If it were even a close call I'd look
in the library and refer you to a book or play to help you understand
"patriotism," " loyalty," "pride," "honor," "duty," "betrayal,"
"hypocrisy."

Gore, like Bush and Clinton, is also imperfect. He was, however, a
legitimate Vietnam Vet. He, unlike Bush, made the show. Other thousands
also served in his MOS. Do you wish to denigrate them as well?


Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
Forces.

Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
staying drunk for the next twenty years.


What, no excuses for him here or any other of the "passes" you were
willing to give Billy-boy above?

His father was "elect" at the time sending others to risk their lives in
Vietnam. Only the morally blind fail to see the "disconnect" when he
cheated his own son into a Vietnam-free pseudo-military charade.

His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop,

LBJ escalated the war and then instituted such convoluted, self-
defeating rules of engagement that we never stood a chance of emerging
from that conflict victorious; Bush Sr. was only a congressman the last
two years of LBJ's term. How did Bush Sr exactly help "develop" this
lie?

LBJ was a "kept man." Do a little more study as to the power hierarchy
to which he was obedient. The Bushes are plugged-in a number of levels
above.

is only compounded by
his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.


[...]misdirection snipped as unresponsive.

You are grossly "off-the-mark." Is it intentional? Why not honestly
respond to my last paragraph and ditch the casuistry?

No amount of Limbaughesque blather is going to change Bush's sow's ear
into a silk purse. Lies and delusions aren't "fun" when they get
innocent people killed and America in trouble. Those who got us into the
mistake and crime of Vietnam with lies and "tricks" are the same ones
running the present administration fronted by the worst of the Vietnam
dodgers...a coward so stupid he actually may think the vast majority
don't fully recognize him for what he is: a complete fraud.

You know what kind of people have no problem with crimes and lies?

Criminals and liars.

Birds of feather...

America must do better for our childrens' (particularly our sons's)
sake.
--
Doors - Locks - Weatherstripping
POB 250121 Atlanta GA 30325
404/626-2840

In article m,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote:

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
Andy?

Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.

Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

... so since Clinton is "your guy", his moral failings weren't his
fault, it was OK for him to play games with the reserves and write how
many like himself "loathed the military" (parse it as you will, I'm sure
your parsing of the phrase will be most favorable to Bill), and go to
England and participate in anti-US protests on foreign soil. For all
these things you are willing to provide Bill with an excuse and overlook
those failings.


Clinton ain't "my guy." Your factionalistic "divide and conquer" false
dichotomy only serves to cloud the discussion of proper values in
leadership. Each of the two major parties is rife with corruption. Face
up to it.

Whether rationalization or inspiration Clinton was against Vietnam.

He was not a hypocrite, therefore, when he dodged.

And he was correct in opposition to an egregious, irrefutably proven
crime against the American People and humanity.

Those who sent us to Vietnam after Lyndon Johnson "took" office lied to
us, got us killed, and are to blame for the deaths of millions of
innocent lives. This is not an abstract notion to be passed over in idle
chitchat. The "knitting" must be unravelled and the errors "corrected"
for American justice to be restored. Those unconcerned or opposed to a
reckoning on Vietnam within the Nation are in error.

Say whatever ill you wish of Bill Clinton - he certainly deserves to be
scorned - but the fact of the matter is he was smart enough to know at
the time we should not have been there.


Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.


Let's see, George Bush Sr. served as a congressman from 1966 to 1970,
LBJ was president only during 1966 to 1968, Richard Nixon was president
for the last term Bush Sr served as a congressman. Bush Jr didn't go
into the Guard until after he graduated in 1968, the final year of Bush
Sr's term, during which he was running for a Senate seat in Texas. LBJ
was no longer president, so your statement about not being called up for
duty in SE Asia seems irrelevant relative to who was in charge.

You seem to have negelected the son of another prominent
congresscritter whose daddy made sure he did not see combat, but was
able to serve as a correspondent rather than as a normal soldier. While
he did go to Vietnam, his tour was short and his duty was in as safe a
place as was possible.

Your quibbles and errors are manifest. Bush cut in line through "elite"
cheating. This is un-American. There is no equivalent to honorablly
serving the country under arms. Righteous leadership makes the
difference between cannon fodder and "Dulce et Decorum."

Bush has gotten away, so far, with the basest conduct any American man
during Vietnam could have chosen. If it were even a close call I'd look
in the library and refer you to a book or play to help you understand
"patriotism," " loyalty," "pride," "honor," "duty," "betrayal,"
"hypocrisy."

Gore, like Bush and Clinton, is also imperfect. He was, however, a
legitimate Vietnam Vet. He, unlike Bush, made the show. Other thousands
also served in his MOS. Do you wish to denigrate them as well?


Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
Forces.

Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
staying drunk for the next twenty years.


What, no excuses for him here or any other of the "passes" you were
willing to give Billy-boy above?

His father was "elect" at the time sending others to risk their lives in
Vietnam. Only the morally blind fail to see the "disconnect" when he
cheated his own son into a Vietnam-free pseudo-military charade.

His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop,

LBJ escalated the war and then instituted such convoluted, self-
defeating rules of engagement that we never stood a chance of emerging
from that conflict victorious; Bush Sr. was only a congressman the last
two years of LBJ's term. How did Bush Sr exactly help "develop" this
lie?

LBJ was a "kept man." Do a little more study as to the power hierarchy
to which he was obedient. The Bushes are plugged-in a number of levels
above.

is only compounded by
his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.


[...]misdirection snipped as unresponsive.

You are grossly "off-the-mark." Is it intentional? Why not honestly
respond to my last paragraph and ditch the casuistry?

No amount of Limbaughesque blather is going to change Bush's sow's ear
into a silk purse. Lies and delusions aren't "fun" when they get
innocent people killed and America in trouble. Those who got us into the
mistake and crime of Vietnam with lies and "tricks" are the same ones
running the present administration fronted by the worst of the Vietnam
dodgers...a coward so stupid he actually may think the vast majority
don't fully recognize him for what he is: a complete fraud.

You know what kind of people have no problem with crimes and lies?

Criminals and liars.

Birds of feather...

America must do better for our childrens' (particularly our sons')
sake.
--
Doors - Locks - Weatherstripping
POB 250121 Atlanta GA 30325
404/626-2840

todd wrote:

As long as we're off-topic, I was listening to my financial guy, Bob
Brinker, on the radio today. .... the caller ended up asking Bob if he would
rather have the Presidential election decided by the popular vote. Bob said
he would support that because people don't understand the Electoral College,


Let's not forget why the Electoral College was created.

They don't trust the people. The 'winner' has to be validated through them.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

"Mark" wrote in message
...


todd wrote:

As long as we're off-topic, I was listening to my financial guy, Bob
Brinker, on the radio today. .... the caller ended up asking Bob if he
would
rather have the Presidential election decided by the popular vote. Bob
said
he would support that because people don't understand the Electoral
College,


Let's not forget why the Electoral College was created.

They don't trust the people. The 'winner' has to be validated through
them.


Hey, I have no particular attachment to the Electoral College. Honestly, I
never gave it much thought until the last election. For a fairly thorough
discussion of the Electoral College, see
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf. Other than that, you seem to have
avoided my main point quite well.

todd

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:58:26 +0000, Mark wrote:


Let's not forget why the Electoral College was created.

Same reason the Senate has two representatives from each state, regardless
of population - to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The electoral
college has basically the same representation for each state as the
number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives plus two Senators.
TWhomever gets the plurality of votes in any State gets all the
electoral votes from that State. This distribution was one compromise
needed to form the union of widely different sized (population) states in
the first place. The Senate representation gives each State equality,
regardless of population, and the House gives representative equality by
population.

BTW, I wonder why Hillary didn't make good on her Senate campaign promise
to try to eliminate the electoral college in favor of popular vote? Could
it be that she recognizes she is part of a system with the same
foundations as the electoral college?

-Doug

On Sun 22 Feb 2004 01:41:12a, "todd" wrote in
:

Ok, Dan, maybe you'd like to explain why the Clinton administration
approved the transfer of technology from Loral. I'm sure that it's
just a coincidence that the chairman and CEO of Loral, Bernard
Schwarz, was the largest personal donor to the DNC the year this
transfer was made and to the 1996 Clinton campaign. And Charie Trie
was just a nice Chinaman who just liked to donate hundreds of
thousands of dollars to Clinton out of his love for the US.


Can't. But I believe the conclsion reached was a little more than that. Let
me see if I follow the reasoning. The original poster said:
From: "Courtney Mainord"
Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

So, the reasoning is
1. Clinton transferred tech to china.
2. Tech is needed to shoot missiles.
3. The WMD's can't be found.
4. Other countries don't like us.
5. Therefore the WMD's are in Chinese missiles located in other countries,
pointed at us.

Let hope Bush in his 2nd term will invade North Korea and Iran the other two
Aisles of Evils. With obedient Tony as a loyal ally I do not believe the US and
UK could do what we pleases.

We will rule the world as real super Power!

Did I forget anything?

Heute Amerika, Morgens der Weld.
j4

George wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita wrote:

: My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
:nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
:targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
:has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
:major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
:commander in chief.

According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately clueless:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...153530,00.html

-- Andy Barss

Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

: My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
:nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
:targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
:has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
:major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
:commander in chief.

According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately clueless:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...153530,00.html

-- Andy Barss

And to think, not too long ago we were all going to freeze!

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm



"Bill" wrote in message
...
Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita

wrote:

: My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of
our
:nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
:targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person
who
:has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
:major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
:commander in chief.

According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately
clueless:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...153530,00.html

-- Andy Barss

And again....

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?


"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita

wrote:

: My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of
our
:nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
:targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person
who
:has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
:major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
:commander in chief.

According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately
clueless:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...153530,00.html

-- Andy Barss