On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:38 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:

Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the AsstSecNav
position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

Ummm... you might be a little confused here. Ronald Reagan was never
Assistant Secretary of anything, but he *did* serve in the Army...

You're the one confused. Your traitor reagan doesn't even make the top
ten in the 20th Century. "Serve?" Making movies? Gee, that's how I
want to serve in the next war; staying at the job I was doing before,
continuing to make tons of money, and getting a spiffy uniform to
boot.

At least when Clark Gable put on a uniform he hoisted it into a B-17
and flew some missions.

several decades prior to leading us to victory over the Sovs in the Cold War.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

"Mr. Gorbachev, take down this wall."

"Uh, yeah, okay, ronnie, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. You sure showed us."

An unworkable economic system (the soviet system, since you're so
easily confused) inexorably collapsing under its own weight had
nothing to do with it, I suppose.

And of course you're going to trot out the lamest neo-con claim of
all; ronnie made it collapse by practically bankrupting our own
economy in order to actually bankrupt theirs.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

2) We The Sheeple (tm) want our votes bought and paid for. Whether it is Bush
paying off the Elder Moochers or Kerry paying off Lazy and Stupid Moochers,
we are largely becoming a nation of, well, ... Moochers.


I'm an "Elder Moocher" who paid 15% of his self-employed income into SS
for many years at or near the maximum rate. Explain to me how I'm
"mooching" if I want to get some of it back? Even without assuming any
interest, just converting what I paid in into todays dollars makes it
clear it'll be a long time before I break even.

And don't forget that SS eligibility age and average lifespan are very
close to each other. A lot of people never collect or collect for very
few years.

BTW, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially on the inability to
get elected by being honest.



1) You _should_ get out of the system what you were forced to pay into
it. OTOH, the system needs to be eliminated entirely over time
because any given individual could easily do far better than the
government has from a return-on-investment POV.

2) You may be the exception, but the majority of SS recipients will take
out far _more_ than they ever paid in. I don't have the cite handy
but iirc the "average" pensioner extracts all "their" money within
the first decade or so. This will further pollute the health of
the retirement system as lifespans continue to increase.

Here's a little "back of the envelope" calculation. The average
per capita income in the US (2000 census), is just a shade under
$22k. Now, lets pretend that someone made that every year for
the last 45 year - a bad assumption because the average income in
1959 was _way_ lower than this. Now, let's calculate their
15% payin:

$22,000 * 45 * .15 = $148,500

Now, assume an average SS payout of $1300/mo. We get a total time
to break even of:

$148,500 / $1300 = ~114 months or about 9 1/2 years

Obviously, this is an overly-simple analysis:

a) No compounding effect on the contribution is considered -
but that's actually reasonable because _the government NEVER
invested that money_, it spent it. The only sense in which it
"grew" in value was due to: i) Inflation and ii) A larger economy
+ high taxation rates increased federal revenues.

b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.

c) This is the _average_ case. People who made less will
begin mooching sooner. People who paid more may never
end up dipping into the public coffers beyond what they
paid. But, the system as a whole is a very bad idea,
a lousy investment for everyone, and just another way
FDR promoted his socialist agenda to the detriment of
the American people.

3) I was not so much focused on Social Security, but rather outright
money grants like the new Drug Benefit. It is ghastly expensive,
is not funded by any prior contributions, and is nothing more than
a wealth redistribution scheme.

IMO, we should phase out ALL social programs - over time, giving back any
contributions people have made in a fair manner - because private sector
retirement investement is a far better deal for everyone. The recipients
benefit far more, and actual money (instead of government promises to pay
in the future) is injected into the financial system.

Some relevant info at:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0306-15.pdf

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

The AP reported this afternoon that President Bush had denounced campaign
commercials aired by outside groups, including an ad that accuses Senator
Kerry of lying about his record in Vietnam.
"That ad and every ad" run by such groups has no place in the campaign, Bush
said. "I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of
his record."

Now can we get to the issues?

Bob



"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
...
Thank you, sir.

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
I've sailed upon its waters long, this stormy sea of Wreck
I know to not talk Politics but still say, what the Heck
If my dear brother WoodDorkers can't hold themselves in check
I'll jump right in and take a swim with those who have no neck

And neckless be they (some of them) who curse the Constitution
And say that this brief document can't rule an Institution
That is so far and wide and deep and thus prone to Confusion
As to confound Interpreters engaged in Prostitution

The "Nine Old Whores" sit on their Bench, beginning each October
To render their opinions for us folks, who hope they're sober
And their opinions rule our lives, delivered from the Bench
And those both necked and neckless hear, and feel their buttcheeks
clench

Now I don't know what you might say but I have found no cause
To cheer all their opinions in a season, without pause
I find a lot that bothers me and much of it that gnaws
I often wish a better way to verify our laws

But I'll admit that's sour grapes
(I've called those old whores "reckless apes")
I've cursed their thoughts and their decisions
I've cursed their words and imprecisions

I've railed and cursed and vilified
(I may have said I hope they died)
They've burned me up until I fried
But then I take a look inside

And there I find a neckless man
Who curses that Amazing Plan
That's ruled this far-wide-depthless Land
For all these generations

And that is when I know I'm wrong
This Document that's kept us strong
Through Troubles and Nights all too long
That buried other Nations

Has earned its place in my Respect
And so I will try to reflect
On History and its neglect


(And try to lengthen out my neck)





(burma shave)




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Tim Daneliuk writes:


Now, assume an average SS payout of $1300/mo. We get a total time
to break even of:

$148,500 / $1300 = ~114 months or about 9 1/2 years

Assume an average of HOW much?

b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.

The less you put in, the less you get out, something you refuse to include in
your calculations. I know a couple people on SS who are drawing about $1300 a
month. I know one helluva lot more drawing well under a grand, down as low as
about $650.

3) I was not so much focused on Social Security, but rather outright
money grants like the new Drug Benefit. It is ghastly expensive,
is not funded by any prior contributions, and is nothing more than
a wealth redistribution scheme.

It's mostly bull****, as you well know.

IMO, we should phase out ALL social programs - over time, giving back any
contributions people have made in a fair manner - because private sector
retirement investement is a far better deal for everyone. The recipients
benefit far more, and actual money (instead of government promises to pay
in the future) is injected into the financial system.

Jesus. What a yuppie point of view. Libertarian, right?

Ta.


Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On 23 Aug 2004 21:35:18 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:

b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years.

The less you put in, the less you get out, something you refuse to include in
your calculations. I know a couple people on SS who are drawing about $1300 a
month. I know one helluva lot more drawing well under a grand, down as low as
about $650.

I know a couple people drawing from social security who never paid in
a dime. How does _that_ change the equations?

Charlie Self wrote:

SNIP

IMO, we should phase out ALL social programs - over time, giving back any
contributions people have made in a fair manner - because private sector
retirement investement is a far better deal for everyone. The recipients
benefit far more, and actual money (instead of government promises to pay
in the future) is injected into the financial system.


Jesus. What a yuppie point of view. Libertarian, right?

No - an _HONEST_ point of view. I do not like theft of any kind.
I don't engage in theft personally and I oppose people using government
to do their thieving for them. You want to support good causes
then go right ahead - voluntarily not at the point of someone's gun.
That's how I do it.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:56:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I just did a text search on the homepage for moveon.org for 'hitler'
and found nothing. Could you be more specific/

Moveon.org had a contest for independent film makers. Somebody submitted
a short piece that compared the Bush administration to the Hitler
administration. It was up on the web site for a brief time, then moveon
took it down, saying that it was inappropriate. The funny thing is that
the only folks who actually aired the piece in a political ad were the
Bush campaigners. So they could complain about their injured feelings and
cast the Democrats as extremists. It backfired, apparently, because they
let it go quickly and turned to other tactics.

(Doug Miller) wrote in message om...
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: (incorrectly, though by les than one year)

... Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I'm sorry, which branch did FDR serve in? Assistant Secretary of the
Navy hardly qualifies as "military service;" it's a civilian
appointment.

Excuuuuuuuse me, the last fifty-nine and a half years. Picky, picky, picky.

Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

Ummm... you might be a little confused here. Ronald Reagan was never
Assistant Secretary of anything, but he *did* serve in the Army several
decades prior to leading us to victory over the Sovs in the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan was not FDR.

--

FF

In article , ray
wrote:

It was up on the web site for a brief time, then moveon
took it down, saying that it was inappropriate.

Actually, moveon renamed the file rather than remove it. That was
discovered and publicized by Matt Drudge July 11th or 12th, and at that
point the movie disappeared again. Whether it was removed from the
moveon site or simply renamed again is unknown.

Tim Daneliuk wrote in message ...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

2) We The Sheeple (tm) want our votes bought and paid for. Whether it is Bush
paying off the Elder Moochers or Kerry paying off Lazy and Stupid Moochers,
we are largely becoming a nation of, well, ... Moochers.


I'm an "Elder Moocher" who paid 15% of his self-employed income into SS
for many years at or near the maximum rate. Explain to me how I'm
"mooching" if I want to get some of it back? Even without assuming any
interest, just converting what I paid in into todays dollars makes it
clear it'll be a long time before I break even.

And don't forget that SS eligibility age and average lifespan are very
close to each other. A lot of people never collect or collect for very
few years.

BTW, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially on the inability to
get elected by being honest.



1) You _should_ get out of the system what you were forced to pay into
it. OTOH, the system needs to be eliminated entirely over time
because any given individual could easily do far better than the
government has from a return-on-investment POV.

2) You may be the exception, but the majority of SS recipients will take
out far _more_ than they ever paid in. I don't have the cite handy
but iirc the "average" pensioner extracts all "their" money within
the first decade or so. This will further pollute the health of
the retirement system as lifespans continue to increase.

Here's a little "back of the envelope" calculation. The average
per capita income in the US (2000 census), is just a shade under
$22k. Now, lets pretend that someone made that every year for
the last 45 year - a bad assumption because the average income in
1959 was _way_ lower than this. Now, let's calculate their
15% payin:

$22,000 * 45 * .15 = $148,500

Now, assume an average SS payout of $1300/mo. We get a total time
to break even of:

$148,500 / $1300 = ~114 months or about 9 1/2 years

And what is the average retirement age? (Maybe 65?)

What is the average life expectancey (Maybe 74?)


Obviously, this is an overly-simple analysis:

a) No compounding effect on the contribution is considered -
but that's actually reasonable because _the government NEVER
invested that money_, it spent it. The only sense in which it
"grew" in value was due to: i) Inflation and ii) A larger economy
+ high taxation rates increased federal revenues.

And that is a big part of the problem. Had the Governmnet invested it
prooperly (a PROPERLY managed student loan program is just one
possiblity) we'd not be having this discussion.


b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.

I think that is close to the 'official figure' but the official
figure only credits the typical pensioner with half (the deduction)
of their contribution and does not credit them with the employer's
matching contribution.


IMO, we should phase out ALL social programs - over time, giving back any
contributions people have made in a fair manner - because private sector
retirement investement is a far better deal for everyone.
The recipients
benefit far more, and actual money (instead of government promises to pay
in the future) is injected into the financial system.


Except for:

1) Those who don't invest in it

and

2) Those whose pension plans have been looted, often with approval
by the government regulators (e.g. Jones & Laughlin)

Without forced (e.g. socialist) participation in a retirement program
we will have large numbers of people with no post-retirement income?

What do you propose be done about them? Soylent Green?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in message om...

In article , wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: (incorrectly, though by les than one year)



... Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I'm sorry, which branch did FDR serve in? Assistant Secretary of the
Navy hardly qualifies as "military service;" it's a civilian
appointment.

Excuuuuuuuse me, the last fifty-nine and a half years. Picky, picky, picky.


Moreover, the fact that the greatest president in the
20th Century didn't have any military service (just the position), yet successfully led us to victory in the mother of all
wars proves the point that it isn't a qualifying distinction.

Ummm... you might be a little confused here. Ronald Reagan was never
Assistant Secretary of anything, but he *did* serve in the Army several
decades prior to leading us to victory over the Sovs in the Cold War.


Ronald Reagan was not FDR.


Right - RR fought, and ultimately was the precipitating cause of the demise
of, Communism, while FDR openly harbored Communists within his
government ...

(Citatation: "The Mitrokhin Archive" -
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...19823?v=glance)


Also, RR was a Free Market Capitalist while FDR was essentially a Socialist.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

Without forced (e.g. socialist) participation in a retirement program
we will have large numbers of people with no post-retirement income?

What do you propose be done about them? Soylent Green?


I propose nothing for them. They are responsible for themselves.
I strenuously object to being forced to participate in a system
wherein I have to support people like this who cannot be bothered
to plan for their future. To add insult to injury, that system
doesn't even work well or efficiently...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

SNIP


And that is a big part of the problem. Had the Governmnet invested it
prooperly (a PROPERLY managed student loan program is just one
possiblity) we'd not be having this discussion.


Had the government invested it *AT ALL* we'd be better off. SS
money more or less goes into the general fund. It is not "invested"
in any real sense. SS resembles a Ponzi Scheme in this regard -
today's "investors" are paying off yesterday's



b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.


I think that is close to the 'official figure' but the official
figure only credits the typical pensioner with half (the deduction)
of their contribution and does not credit them with the employer's
matching contribution.


Look again - my calculation was done at the maximum level of contribution -
7.5% each for the employee and employer regardless of income level.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for
the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is)
it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same
calculations as above, we get a break even at just over
4 years.


Would you like to know what $22K 45 years ago is worth in todays money?
Or even $10K? You're right - you did an overly simplistic analysis

And if you get rid of forced savings, what are you going to do about all
the people who will choose to feed their kids instead of saving? Let
them starve when they retire?


1) In a sane, non-coercive economy there is still plenty of room for
voluntary charity. Even with the villanous system in place today,
Americans are remarkable charitable in the private sector as well.

2) Why should I have to involuntarily underwrite people who have more
children than they can reasonably afford? It is their choice to do
so and thus _their_ responsibility. In the case of my immigrant
grandparents (who had more children than "they could afford") the
assumption (a good one as it turns out) was that _their children_
were their retirement safety net. This may be a novel idea for
you, but there was a time when it was presumed that people were
responsible for the consequences of their choices and it was not
government's job to bail out the bad choices all the time.

3) "What About Those Poor Children (tm)" is the argument of last
resort for pretty much all lost arguments and irrational positions.
It plays well because almost no one wants to see children suffer.
It is right up there with "If It Saves Just One Life (tm)" and
"It Is The Right/Compassionate/Moral Thing To Do (tm)" arguments
in proceeding from a false premise to a horrible invasion of Liberty.

One More Time: Good intentions cannot morally justify theft or force no matter
how decent the person holding them may be or how good
the intended results.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Greetings and Salutations...

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:17:33 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:



Well, perhaps if you had spent time as a POW being tortured to sign a
confession admitting to war crimes and then had John Kerry do that for
free
in front of the Senate, maybe you'd have a bit of an axe to grind too.
Seems like these guys aren't so much for Bush, but wanting people to know
what they are getting if they pick Kerry.


I like the part where a picture of John Kerry appears in the Vietnamese
museum honoring him for his assistance in helping them win the war against
America. mjh

Wow! amazing how political discussions in the USA can
deteriorate to name-calling and innuendo faster than a politician
sneaking a new tax or pay raise through!
Just a couple of thoughts here...First off...as for this
reference, a quick google search brings us this snopes reference:
http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000672;p=1
It appears that while there IS a picture, it has nothing
to do with Kerry's protests helping North Vietnam win.

I lived through that era, and, I have to say that the
ever increasing betrayal of the public trust by the Federal
Government, the nightly body counts, the film of the atrocities
of war, and the insane limits placed on our troops by those same
politicians had more to do with the loss of support for the war
than any testemony before a Congressional Committee.
If Kerry supported the enemy by publickly expressing his
concerns over the way the war was being waged, and the ramifications
of it, then, I, my older sister, and tens of thousand of OTHER
AMericans were also guilty of the same crimes because WE participated
in public protests against the war, those protests were televised,
and, were probably used for propoganda purposes.
Once again, America's strength and what has made it great is
the freedom to hold and express contradictory views about *anything*.
It is through public discourse that we can, with luck, find the
"best" course of action.
I agree with Mr. Self in his concerns over giving up freedom
for security. I will not quote B. Franklin again...but will mention
it to remind us that this was one old white guy that had a VERY clear
picture of reality.
Fear will cause people to do terribly irrational things. No
matter what one feels about M. Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11, it
raised a very good point about the current actions of the Feds. One
of the Congressmen interviewed was discussing how many of the actions
taken by the government appear to be designed more to keep a continual
undercurrent of fear in the citizens, than to reassure us. As was
pointed out, the color code will likely never go to blue...and
definately will never go to green, but, will continue to fluctuate
from yellow through orange and red. I also find some of the timing
of some of the escalations a tad suspicious. Some of them have come
JUST at a time when Dubya's popularity has dropped, or, some
potentially embarressing questions were raised. Amazingly enough,
those situations seemed to change when the fear rose!
The fact that more and more bits of information are coming
out that show that the Federal Government, as a whole, knew enough
about the events of 9/11 well before hand that it likely could have
been avoided does not do much for my confidence that giving the Feds
MORE power and limiting the rights of the citizenry more will improve
the situation.
Now...The Feds are talking about reworking the intelligence
agencies in the government into a single body, to do the job better.
What...are we going to call it the "MORE Central Intelligence Agency"?
And...what was the NSA (The NATIONAL Security Agency) doing to earn
their salt?
The Soviets believed in a huge, bureaucratic government, with
everything subservient to that central authority. Look how well that
worked, both for the citizens and the government.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with the so-called
intelligence community before 9/11 was that they were more interested
in building their own power base than they were in protecting the
USA. Combining that with an overwhelming enthusiasm for gadgets over
good, old-fashioned Man In The Street work, meant that not only was
it far too easy for vital information to get lost in the shuffle, but
that it was far too easy for vital information to never get picked
up at all.
I have been wrestling with this problem of the events of 9/11
and the subsequent reactions of AMerica and the world, and, I have
come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is "Ignore it". By
this, I mean that while we should never forget 9/11, instead of
allowing it to flake us out and push us, though fear, into doing
exactly what the terrorists want - Destroy America - we should
rather turn our attentions towards rebuilding our reputation in
the world. THe fact that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, have
decades of two-faced dealing with the world has left some serious
problems, and have made many folks distrustful of us. We need
to pick a side and stick to it, and not be QUITE so enthusiastic
to pump in support to petty dictators who claim they will be
our good buddies - yet - oppress and mistreat their citizens.
If we really wanted to make America a stronger place
that would be harder for terrorists to attack, perhaps we
should require that all high-school graduates go into the military
for two years. I suspect that the training and discipline would
be good for them, and, having a country full of folks that
have at least a rudimentary knowledge of defense and the skills
necessary to use a firearm would improve life a lot, and likely
would help clarify some of the 2d Amendment discussions that go on.
There are no easy answers, though...I do know that the
more freedoms we give up, the more freedoms we will be asked
to give up. Given enough steps, the worlds of Orwell or "Brazil"
will no longer be worrisome fantasy, but, reality.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Seems like there are 50+ alt.politics.* groups that seem perfect for a
discussion like this? Can we relocate this thread or let it die!

--
Thanks,
David
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
I've sailed upon its waters long, this stormy sea of Wreck
I know to not talk Politics but still say, what the Heck
If my dear brother WoodDorkers can't hold themselves in check
I'll jump right in and take a swim with those who have no neck

And neckless be they (some of them) who curse the Constitution
And say that this brief document can't rule an Institution
That is so far and wide and deep and thus prone to Confusion
As to confound Interpreters engaged in Prostitution

The "Nine Old Whores" sit on their Bench, beginning each October
To render their opinions for us folks, who hope they're sober
And their opinions rule our lives, delivered from the Bench
And those both necked and neckless hear, and feel their buttcheeks
clench

Now I don't know what you might say but I have found no cause
To cheer all their opinions in a season, without pause
I find a lot that bothers me and much of it that gnaws
I often wish a better way to verify our laws

But I'll admit that's sour grapes
(I've called those old whores "reckless apes")
I've cursed their thoughts and their decisions
I've cursed their words and imprecisions

I've railed and cursed and vilified
(I may have said I hope they died)
They've burned me up until I fried
But then I take a look inside

And there I find a neckless man
Who curses that Amazing Plan
That's ruled this far-wide-depthless Land
For all these generations

And that is when I know I'm wrong
This Document that's kept us strong
Through Troubles and Nights all too long
That buried other Nations

Has earned its place in my Respect
And so I will try to reflect
On History and its neglect


(And try to lengthen out my neck)





(burma shave)




Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Be that as it may be ,but does it qualify Kerry for a purple heart. If
so if
I were working in an armed forces wood shop and I could get a purple
heart
every time I got a splinter in my finger . Hell I wold be weighed down
with
them by now ....mjh

Yes, even friendly fire injuries so long as the fire is intended to harm
the enemy or enemy equipment or material and not a result of gross
negligence or criminal acts. E.g. getting fragged and shooting yourself
in the foot to get evacuated don't count, getting hit by your own
shrapnel counts. Befor being severly wounded, Senator Dole received
shrapnel wounds from his own grenade which he described as the sort of
wound the Army treated with 'mercurichrome and purple hearts'. I
don't know if he got a purple heart for that or not.

But the fact remains, a PH is one medal no one wants to qualify for,
and especially no one wants one to be received by one's family.

--

FF

Kind of like Max Cleland, got injured playing with ammo, and then got beaten
fare and square in the last election for following the party line rather
than the needs of his constituents....mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"LRod" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:37 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:

at times it is necessary to relinquish some civil
rights to ensure the security of the country.

Your sentiment is truly frightening. It's no wonder that the
conservatives have so many sheeple in lock step with the radio and
internet loudmouths.

Fortunately, some very bright people who founded this country 200+
years ago have it right:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Sounds great sitting in an armchair by the fire, but when your family gets
wiped out because you did not take sensible precautions ,then it sounds a
little hollow, to me at least .



Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives some
protection.Without it the next hit might well be 30,000 and not 3000
plus

Do you hear yourself? Why not just give up everything and not worry
about anything? I don't want to live in the world you seem to want.

No I will not give up everything, but I am willing to make allowances to
protect my family.....mjh

"WD" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:37 GMT, "Mike Hide"
wrote:

Mike, please reply with short answers (I falls asleep if long
winded...Blah,
blah, blah...)

No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives some
protection .Without it the next hit might well be 30,000 and not 3000
plus
. I suppose some people just don't get it do they .....mjh

Thank goodness we do think alike, you too dislike the Patriot Act? Do you
think
anything could be done beside the Patriot Act to preserve our freedom and
security?

Do you think we should reexamine our self, to find out why there are so
many
people outside the US dislike us so much that some are willing to
sacrificing
their lives to destroy us?

If we could find that billion dollars answer we not only improve ours, but
also
others freedom and security at minimum cost, right?


Simple answer, stop supporting Israel, Isn't that what its all about.

A half page article in the Atlanta Journal by Kenneth Quinn yesterday 9-11
was supposed to occur on 9/18 , Rosh Hashannah [jewish new year] but had to
be rescheduled....

Tim Daneliuk wrote in message ...
Ronald Reagan was not FDR.


Right - RR fought, and ultimately was the precipitating cause of the demise
of, Communism, while FDR openly harbored Communists within his
government ...

The people most respnsible for the fall of communism in Europe
are the communists themselves, though Lech Walesa sped the
process along. Calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin
wall is not what made it happen.

I dunno if FDR harbored communists in his administration or not. I
do know that in WWII the communists were our allies and there is
no law against being a communist, nor against having communists in
one's administration, nor should one believe that communists are
inherently less loyal to their nations than people of any other
political persuation. ISTR that it was Republicans under RR who
sold weapons (e.g. gave aid and comfort) to an enemy nation against
whom we were fighting a war in the Persian Gulf. Mind you, I think
were on the wrong side in that war, but it is still treason to sell
arms to the enemy.

I also know that under FDR's leadership the United States and our
allies did nothing less important than save Western Europe and
most of the Pacific from despotism.

--

FF

Mike Hide wrote:

snip

at times it is necessary to relinquish some civil rights to
ensure the security of the country.

A sometimes seductive notion; but not true.

No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives
some protection. Without it the next hit might well be
30,000 and not 3000 plus.

The Patriot Act provides no such protection. It allows the
investigators/enforcers to stumble about at a higher speed and
without regard for constitutional safeguards.

It does *not* ensure that the next hit isn't 300,000 or even
3,000,000.

Our security grows out of and depends on our freedom and on our
cherishing that freedom more than life itself. I would like to
point out that a group of "ordinary" Americans on an airliner
over Pennsylvania did more to ensure the security of our country
than thousands of governmental security types.

Passage of the Patriot Act was a victory for the terrorists - not
for the Americans who cherish freedom and recognize that there's
a little less to cherish while that act stands.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

Mike Hide wrote:


"WD" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:37 GMT, "Mike Hide"

wrote:

Mike, please reply with short answers (I falls asleep if long

winded...Blah,

blah, blah...)


No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives some
protection .Without it the next hit might well be 30,000 and not 3000

plus

. I suppose some people just don't get it do they .....mjh

Thank goodness we do think alike, you too dislike the Patriot Act? Do you

think

anything could be done beside the Patriot Act to preserve our freedom and
security?

Do you think we should reexamine our self, to find out why there are so

many

people outside the US dislike us so much that some are willing to

sacrificing

their lives to destroy us?


If we could find that billion dollars answer we not only improve ours, but

also

others freedom and security at minimum cost, right?



Simple answer, stop supporting Israel, Isn't that what its all about.

You seriously need to read a bit deeper than USA Today summaries.
I am not Jewish and have no stake in this game, but here's just a few
facts that may help clue you up a bit:

1) In the entire history of modern Israel, less than 100,000 people
have been killed in total on both sides of the war. During the same
period over 3 *million* Muslims have killed each other in the same region.
Israel isn't the problem - Islamic fundamentalist nonsense and perhaps
equally significantly, Arab Tribalism, is the problem.

2) The Muslim nations of North Africa and the Arab Penninsula have *500* times
the land Israel does and _all_ the oil, but somehow the little 20-odd
mile strip of land the Jews occupy is the Big Problem. Right.

3) Israel is far from a perfect democracy, but compared to every single
one of their immediate neighbors and larger sphere of enemies, they
are the Thomas Jefferson of the region. The surrounding states
are run by thugs, strongmen, and religious nuts. Israel is a secular
state with an elected (and contentious/vocal) ruling body. Even
Palestinian Arabs who are not full participants in that process
have _more civil liberties_ under the Israelis than they did when
the Arabs (Jordan) last had the disputed lands under their control.

4) The US does indeed send a boatload of money to Israel. 'Last I looked
it was around $3.6B in about 1996 iirc. BUT, in that same year, over
$3B was given to ... (gasp!) the ARABs in the region. Not exactly
the identical amount but a lot closer than most folks seem to think.

5) I'm all for us withdrawing from the region and letting the locals
duke it out for themselves, but, uh, the _Arabs_ cannot afford for us
to do so. The US is the only moderating hand that keeps the Israelis
from once-and-for-all cleaning up the mess the Arab thug goverments
have created and making Hebrew the language of choice from Tehran down
to Yemen.

You seem not to grasp just how entirely screwed up the Arab/Muslim world
is. It is living in the 8th Century and led by disreputable criminals
almost without exception. Israel's modern existence is nothing more than
an excuse to divert "The Faithful's" attention from the misery inflicted
by their own leaders. I'm no fan of some of the Israeli missteps and
silliness, but you never see Jewish mom's strapping C4 to their children
to make a political point. You see active and vocal political debate
in Israel, from Religious Right to Moonbat Left. You see wealth being
created literally out of sand. You see women and people of other
religious faiths (including Islam) accorded civil liberties and the
protections of rule-of-law. You see modern universities, commerce,
trade, and tourism. You see virtually NONE of these things on any scale
of the surrounding Arab states with the emerging exceptions of perhaps
Jordan, Quatar, and Kuwait.

Golda Mier said it better than anyone else I've ever read on either side
of the discussion: "There will never be peace until the Arabs learn to
love their own children more than they hate the Jews."



A half page article in the Atlanta Journal by Kenneth Quinn yesterday 9-11
was supposed to occur on 9/18 , Rosh Hashannah [jewish new year] but had to
be rescheduled....



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

WD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:49:37 GMT, "Mike Hide" wrote:

Mike, please reply with short answers (I falls asleep if long winded...Blah,
blah, blah...)


No one likes the patriot act per se on the other hand it gives some
protection .Without it the next hit might well be 30,000 and not 3000 plus
. I suppose some people just don't get it do they .....mjh


Thank goodness we do think alike, you too dislike the Patriot Act? Do you think
anything could be done beside the Patriot Act to preserve our freedom and
security?

Do you think we should reexamine our self, to find out why there are so many
people outside the US dislike us so much that some are willing to sacrificing
their lives to destroy us?

Not really. Freedom has always had enemies. The US has made all manner
of silly misteps starting with TR's idiotic moves to make us a global
player. But our mistakes pale by comparison to our virtues. As an
immigrant to this country, I am constantly astounded by: a) How very
little of our own history my fellow-citizens actually know and
b) What a ridiculous amount of self-incrimnation and self-loathing
Americans indulge in.

There is no "understanding" why people like Bin Laden don't like us.
He is a psychopath and murdering monster in the same league as Hitler,
Stalin, Pol Pot, Carlos The Jackal, Pablo Escobar, and all the rest of
the murderers of history.

Furthermore, you need to grasp that "so many" do not hate the US.
It's just that the ones that do hate us end up on TV every night -
in fact, a few of them work for the networks. In actual fact, the
US was and remains a beacon of hope for most of the world. That's
why everyone wants to come here. Yes, we've made mistakes and annoyed
people in other countries. Yes, we should learn from them. But
we're not going to learn anything useful if we don't contextualize
those mistakes in light of the many, many really good things we've
done over the years as well. Bear in mind ... we're among the very
few nations that sacrifies the lives of our military so that _others_
can know freedom, that drop bombs and humanitarian aid on the same day
over the same targets, that take extra military casualties in the name
of minimizing civilian deaths in wartime, that send money to virtually
every troublespot in the world, that fund the lion's share of international
courts of debate like the UN .... The list is endless.

I'm an immigrant. When I say "America is the greatest country in all of
human history" it's based at least somewhat in having lived elswhere and
seen some of the alternatives. They don't like us? Screw 'em. IMNSHO
the US should materially withdraw from the rest of the world for 10 years
or so and just concentrate on our own interests and self-defense while
maintaining commercial relationships with everyone else. Then the world
would see just how much they lost in the deal ...


If we could find that billion dollars answer we not only improve ours, but also
others freedom and security at minimum cost, right?



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

good points snipped

I'm an immigrant. When I say "America is the greatest country
in all of human history" it's based at least somewhat in
having lived elswhere and seen some of the alternatives. They
don't like us? Screw 'em. IMNSHO the US should materially
withdraw from the rest of the world for 10 years or so and
just concentrate on our own interests and self-defense while
maintaining commercial relationships with everyone else. Then
the world would see just how much they lost in the deal ...

Tim...

I think most of us have had thoughts like this - but think about
it a bit more...

This option has always been available; and whenever we've tried
isolationism we've not been pleased with the result. More
importantly, two of our cultural underpinnings are that we value
generosity (in all forms, not just with capital) and that we
believe in helping others - all others - who we perceive as being
in need of help.

And experience has shown that it's in our best interests (on any
scale you care to consider) for all people everywhere to thrive.
It really /is/ a small planet.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in message
...
Ronald Reagan was not FDR.


Right - RR fought, and ultimately was the precipitating cause of the demise
of, Communism, while FDR openly harbored Communists within his
government ...

The people most respnsible for the fall of communism in Europe
are the communists themselves, though Lech Walesa sped the
process along. Calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin
wall is not what made it happen.

No, but forcing them into an arms race that their economy could not sustain
DID. Even the Russians admit this. Too bad you're so blinded by your ideology
that you can't.

I dunno if FDR harbored communists in his administration or not.

You just might be the only person in the US who's unaware of that.

I do know that in WWII the communists were our allies

Utter nonsense. We were fighting a common enemy. In no way were we "allies".

and there is
no law against being a communist, nor against having communists in
one's administration,

Common sense would suggest that known enemy agents should be discharged from
the administration, rather than promoted.

nor should one believe that communists are
inherently less loyal to their nations than people of any other
political persuation.

You're *clearly* totally ignorant of what communism is all about.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

I'm an "Elder Moocher" who paid 15% of his self-employed income into SS
for many years at or near the maximum rate.

Ever stop to think about how much better of you'd be, if the government had
permitted you to keep and *invest* that 15%, instead of taking it from you?

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. I wasn't given that
choice.

Neither were any of the rest of us allowed to opt out of this unConstitutional
Ponzi scheme. Unfortunately.

And don't forget that SS eligibility age and average lifespan are very
close to each other. A lot of people never collect or collect for very
few years.

True when Social Security first started.
False now, and has been for a very long time.

Eligibility age is all the way up to, what, 68 now? Average lifespan is quite
a lot greater than that.

And average lifespan is all the way up to 70-something. That's a "lot"
greater?

When "70-something" means 77, yes, it is. And it's actually even higher than
that for those who survive childhood illness and accident into middle age.
Let's look at some facts:

In 1940, life expectancy at birth was 62.9 years, i.e. two years *short* of
the Social Security eligibility age. Now it's 76.9 years.

US Life Expectancy at Selected Ages, 2000
0 76.9
[...]
35 43.6 [additional years expected]
40 38.9
45 34.4
50 30.0
55 25.7
60 21.6
65 17.9
70 14.4

Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2003, page 75.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
And what is the average retirement age? (Maybe 65?)

Approximately. We can agree to so stipulate.

What is the average life expectancey (Maybe 74?)

As I cited in another post, the average life expectancy of a U.S. 65-year-old
in 2000 is an additional 17.9 years.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Dave Mundt responds:

Fear will cause people to do terribly irrational things. No
matter what one feels about M. Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11, it
raised a very good point about the current actions of the Feds. One
of the Congressmen interviewed was discussing how many of the actions
taken by the government appear to be designed more to keep a continual
undercurrent of fear in the citizens, than to reassure us.

Check out http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm and its
associated links for a good scare about government.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

David asks:

Seems like there are 50+ alt.politics.* groups that seem perfect for a
discussion like this? Can we relocate this thread or let it die!

We? Where did you come from? Didja miss the OT leading the thread?

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Morris Dovey responds:


Passage of the Patriot Act was a victory for the terrorists - not
for the Americans who cherish freedom and recognize that there's
a little less to cherish while that act stands.

Yes. And the open-jawed acceptance of it by too many people who have not even
read it--for which I can't much blame them--is another victory for the
terrorists. We're turning the world over to creeps and thugs at an unimaginable
pace.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

I bought the new book, "Presidential Greatness" for a seminar I'm leading on
the topic. This is the latest of a number of books on the subject written in
the past 20 years. While many historians (you know, the people who actually
study this stuff and become experts) feel that this rating stuff trivializes
the subject, many others participated. For example, "Greatness in the White
House" (survey in 1982, my edition 1988) gathered survey data from several
hundred historians, the first truly broad survey conducted using scientific
methods.

Many others have been conducted over the years, some merely anecdotal,
others a bit deeper. "Rating the Presidents" (2000) fell into the anecdotal
side, as does "Presidential Greatness." Some of the surveys have been
accused of selection bias in choosing historians whom have liberal
viewpoints, but the three mentioned here are are more balanced, with "Rating
the Presidents" perhaps tending to the left more than the other two.

"Presidential Leadership" is definitely not liberal. Its editors are a
writer for the Wall Street Journal and the Exec. VP of the Federalist
Society, which is "committed to limited, constitutional government as
envisioned by the framers of the Constitution." (from the jacket) Its
writers include a few professional historians and the rest range from former
Attorney Genral to interns.

"Greatness in the White House" (1982) necessarily excludes Reagan, Clinton
and the Bushes. Rating the Presidents" (2000) includes Clinton.
"Presidential Leadership" (2004) discusses but does not rate George W. Bush
because his term is not complete.

In EVERY survey I have ever seen, scientific or anecdotal, right or left,
popular or professional, three presidents are rated at the top: Washington,
Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Despite its political orientation,
"Presidential Leadership" puts Roosevelt at #3. Others rated highly are
Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Jackson, Polk and Wilson. Newcomers to the
higher rankings are Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

"Rating the Presidents" puts Mr. Reagan at #26 of 41, while "Presidential
Leadership" puts him at #8 of 39. The latter did not rate several presidents
for various reasons.

Personally I think that rating any president within 25 years of the end of
his term in office is presumtuous, since the historical perspectives ar
lacking. The entire Fall of Communism issue is an example; we simply don't
have enough information to make a judgment.

Bob

P.S. "Rating the Presidents" puts Clinton at #23 of 41 and "Presidential
Greatness" puts him at #24 of 39.


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in message
...
Ronald Reagan was not FDR.


Right - RR fought, and ultimately was the precipitating cause of the
demise
of, Communism, while FDR openly harbored Communists within his
government ...

The people most respnsible for the fall of communism in Europe
are the communists themselves, though Lech Walesa sped the
process along. Calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin
wall is not what made it happen.

No, but forcing them into an arms race that their economy could not
sustain
DID. Even the Russians admit this. Too bad you're so blinded by your
ideology
that you can't.

I dunno if FDR harbored communists in his administration or not.

You just might be the only person in the US who's unaware of that.

I do know that in WWII the communists were our allies

Utter nonsense. We were fighting a common enemy. In no way were we
"allies".

and there is
no law against being a communist, nor against having communists in
one's administration,

Common sense would suggest that known enemy agents should be discharged
from
the administration, rather than promoted.

nor should one believe that communists are
inherently less loyal to their nations than people of any other
political persuation.

You're *clearly* totally ignorant of what communism is all about.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:31:46 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

In EVERY survey I have ever seen, scientific or anecdotal, right or left,
popular or professional, three presidents are rated at the top: Washington,
Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

As I said, FDR; greatest president of the 20th Century.

In fact, interestingly enough, each of the three listed wind up being
the greatest presidents of their respective centuries.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:59:41 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says...

I know a couple people drawing from social security who never paid in
a dime. How does _that_ change the equations?

Bull****! You have to have so many quarters of covered earnings to
qualify for SS. There are some exceptions for certain disabilities, but
they're pretty limited.

So the kid I went to high school with, whose mother had died, was
lying when he said he was getting social security payments? Wasn't
disabled in any way that was evident in years of knowing him.

If that's the case, you object to that?

Doesn't apply.

If so,
I'm glad our only acquaintance is on this group.

That, however, does apply mutually. But please answer my question.

Dave Hinz

(Doug Miller) wrote in message ...
In article , "Bob Schmall" wrote:


What does military service have to do with being a good president? Mr. Bush
is president yet spent his time serving (?) in the Guards, and IIRC since
1960 only Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 served in the regular
military. Several presidents served in the Civil War, but that was no
indicator of their abilities--in fact Grant, the most famous of them, was a
notoriously poor president.

Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all served in the Navy during WWII. IIRC, Johnson as
an observer, Nixon in logistics, and Ford on combat ships. Clinton is the only
President in the last sixty years with no military service of any sort.

I don't know, the last biography of Johnson I read didn't mention him
being in the service. I did mention him flying as a passenger in a
military plane while he was a congressman (i.e. exempt from service),
the plane being shot at and him using that henceforth as him "being in
combat during World War II".

Dave Hall

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:09:35 -0500, WD wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:54:41 +0100, LRod wrote:

As I said, FDR; greatest president of the 20th Century.

If you watch CSPAN, you will heare many callers says Bush is the BEST and the
GREATEST president of the United States.

Yes, I'm sure many of those callers are in this thread, too.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:14:40 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

If the Arabs want to kill each other, that's their business. But their
antipathy to us IS based on our support of Israel.

Mostly true, but even if it were the *only* reason, does that
mean we should stop supporting Israel? Ethics and morality are not
popularity contests.
BTW, if we stopped supporting Israel, we would still be
richer, we would still be consuming more than our share of world
resources, we would still be supporting corrupt governments at the
expense of "the people", our foreign military bases worldwide would
still have soldiers going out and raping the locals (don't splutter
back at me, check it out first), etc etc. In short, if you want to
hate the USA there are several buckets of reasons you can use - and
that's just for the reasonable people who are a majority. The fringies
hate everybody; we're just the best target.
Supporting Israel is probably the most noble thing we do.


=====
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
=====
{remove curly brackets for email}

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:46:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
What you have to ask yourself, pilgrim, is if they were lying back in
the war, when they wrote all those glowing accounts of Kerry's bravery and
competence, or if they are lying now, when they say he isn't fit to lead
this country. It has to be one or the other.


Well, if you read their accounts, they *didn't* write those glowing
accounts. It seems that Kerry, being PAO (Public affairs officer) wrote a
number of those reports himself.

No, that's what the douche bag veterans for truth say. The
disputed Bronze Star report was not signed by Kerry. There is no
evidence that he wrote it, other than this 35-years-too-late claim.
BTW, is this clown Thurlow going to give back *his* star now? No fire,
no star, dude.
Right-wing assholes and left-wing weenies believe what they
want to. Reasonable people look at the evidence. Judge Judy would
laugh these fools right out of court.


=====
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
=====
{remove curly brackets for email}

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:02:55 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says...
So the kid I went to high school with, whose mother had died, was
lying when he said he was getting social security payments? Wasn't
disabled in any way that was evident in years of knowing him.

OK, I forgot that case. But he was getting it only because his mother
(or father) had sufficient quarters to qualify. And he stopped getting
it at 18 or 21 or whenever he finished school, I forget which.

And yet, he is a case of someone who didn't pay a dime into the system,
who was by all appearances rather well off, who was getting the
money that is _supposed to_ be going for people who have contributed.
Hence my use as an example. How many other "oh by the way, I forgot"
situations are there, I wonder?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:14:40 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:

If the Arabs want to kill each other, that's their business. But their
antipathy to us IS based on our support of Israel.

Their grudge against Christians goes back further than the existance,
let alone the US support of, Israel. By centuries.

"Chuck"
Mark & Juanita

What you have to ask yourself, pilgrim, is if they were lying back in
the war, when they wrote all those glowing accounts of Kerry's bravery and
competence, or if they are lying now, when they say he isn't fit to lead
this country. It has to be one or the other.


Well, if you read their accounts, they *didn't* write those glowing
accounts. It seems that Kerry, being PAO (Public affairs officer) wrote a
number of those reports himself.


No, that's what the douche bag veterans for truth say. The
disputed Bronze Star report was not signed by Kerry.


Who said it was signed by Kerry?



There is no
evidence that he wrote it, other than this 35-years-too-late claim.


It isn't too late to cast doubt on it.


BTW, is this clown Thurlow going to give back *his* star now? No fire,
no star, dude.


He said he would turn his in if Kerry did.


Right-wing assholes and left-wing weenies believe what they
want to.


So do usenet jerks.


Reasonable people look at the evidence. Judge Judy would
laugh these fools right out of court.


You just said there wasn't any evidence. Judge Judy would have
laughed at that.