McCain?

--
Kevin
-=#=-

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big
guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

"philski" wrote in message
...
Charlie Self wrote:

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:


But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

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


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options.


Yeah, we'll that's been the case for some time now. I'm hard put to
recall the
last time I felt confident in the ability of a presidential candidate to
do the
job properly. It may not be possible anyway, but our political process
has
regressed to it's mid-1800s stages recently so that doesn't help.

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big
guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L.
Mencken
Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on McCain. I wrote him in as a candidate
in the last election. I just couldn't make myself vote for Al or
Shrub. Al is anti gun and Shrub is just a dip**** in dip****'s clothing
(I really didn't like his "Read my Lips" daddy either.

well, you should ask old time az people about mccain.

dags 'keating five':
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...cainbook5.html

dags 'cindy mccain drugs': http://www.peele.net/lib/mccain.html

he's not the purest candidate either.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article , philski
wrote:

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's
skirt in my opinion.

Wow, so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.


But you did a ***really *** good job of introducing errors and
distortions, you must've known where to begin. Where did you get
your copy of the talking points:


How exactly did GWB "hide behind his daddy's skirt"? The war ended
some fifteen years before GHWD became President.

Being admitted to the Texas Nat Guard at all, getting a flyboy job,
skipping flight physical w/no record of hearing, skipping attendance
to go play in Alamaba. He never made up his time - the payroll computer
records show he made up *other* time he missed.

We'll pass over the DWI and drug abuse allegations.


The "Bush machine" has done nothing to "discredit Viet Nam vets". Some
veterans groups *not* affiliated with or funded by the Bush campaign
are attempting to discredit _one particular_ Viet Nam vet, who happens
to be the Democrat nominee.

Hah hah ha, guess you haven't heard about the campaign lawyer / SWBT
laywyer resigning because of the conflict of interest.


That same Democrat nominee has, himself, done his best to discredit,
demean, besmirch, and libel Viet Nam vets, in his 1971 Senate
testimony. So I think you're a little confused about who's
anti-veteran here.

Thank you so much. Everytime one of your ilk say this stuff,
somewhere an undecided voter thinks, "At least he went to Vietnam
instead of hiding behind Daddy's skirts".


Why don't you tell us about YOUR guy's positive accomplishements???

Hmmmmm?????

Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 25 Aug 2004 12:29:52 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
For
similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
increases while not providing spending stimulation.

I don't know about you, Nate, but I cashed that check and spent it.
Sounds pretty much like it provided at least some "spending
stimulation". I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard either.

Yes, I agree that the child tax credit refund checks were stimulative.
No question. But let's put this in context: the child tax credits
benefited about 26 million tax filers with an average check of $615.
Total cost was $16 billion. Taxpayers earning over $1M (0.1percent of
households, or 184,000 beneficiaries) received at total of $17billion
in cuts, an average check of $93,500. This comes from
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-03tax.htm ... which I admit is left-leaning.
However, a similar report by the President's own supposedly neutral
Congressional Budget Office shows that the tax burden is
preferentially benefiting the very wealthy, and the relative tax
burden is shifting to the middle class:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news...on_taxes.reut/

Philosophy aside on whether or not the middle class or the rich
deserve a bigger cut, it's still worth noting that all of these cuts
are coming directly out of the national debt. These are a tax cut
fully borrowed against the debt, and most of it does go to the
wealthy.

Yeah, the economy
may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

I do too, and I don't see what you're seeing.

Glad you are prospering. Many others are not. Neutral statistics
clearly show that this recovery is tepid at best.

Charlie Spitzer notes:

well, you should ask old time az people about mccain.

dags 'keating five':
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...cainbook5.html

dags 'cindy mccain drugs': http://www.peele.net/lib/mccain.html

he's not the purest candidate either.


I said zip about him being the cleanest. He is the only politician currently
active, at least on a national level, who causes me to feel like he has his
head somewhere other than up his ass. Nothing to do with being "clean."

It really amuses me how the "leftist" press ignored Shrub's early coke
abuse...for no real reason except that he refused to talk about it? C'mon.
Clinton takes a couple hits off a joint and every Republican in the world
becomes holier-than-thou (not hard these days as that's where too many of them
seem to stand on a day-to-day basis). Turn the question around and asses pop
into the air as ostriches stick their heads in the sand.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

On 26 Aug 2004 18:25:43 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:

It really amuses me how the "leftist" press ignored Shrub's early coke
abuse...for no real reason except that he refused to talk about it? C'mon.
Clinton takes a couple hits off a joint and every Republican in the world
becomes holier-than-thou

FFS, Charlie, just like everything else, it was about SlickWillie
_lying_ about it, rather than the act itself. "I didn't inhale".
Give me a freaking break. Had he said "Yeah, I did it, I was young
and stupid at the time", it would have been another nothing. It's
his continual, habitual, can't help himself from doing it lying that
grates on people. I don't care that he got a hummer from the intern.
I don't particulary even care that he got it when he was supposed to
be on the clock. What I _do_ care about is him getting on TV, staring us
right in the eye, and doing the "I want you to listen to me. I did not..."
lie. Lying under oath to congress is a pretty big thing as well.

His actions aren't the big problem, his continual lying about them is.

"Alex"
(Doug Miller)


Wow, so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.


But you did a ***really *** good job of introducing errors and
distortions, you must've known where to begin. Where did you get
your copy of the talking points:


But you did a ***really *** good job of introducing errors and
distortions, you must've known where to begin. Where did you get
your copy of the talking points:


How exactly did GWB "hide behind his daddy's skirt"? The war ended
some fifteen years before GHWD became President.


Being admitted to the Texas Nat Guard at all, getting a flyboy job,
skipping flight physical w/no record of hearing, skipping attendance
to go play in Alamaba. He never made up his time - the payroll computer
records show he made up *other* time he missed.


National Guard pilots were flying in Nam, up to 50 percent were from the
Guard at times. The plane Bush was trained on was put out to pasture. But
I wonder how many of you malcontents had a problem with Clinton's
military accomplishments?



We'll pass over the DWI and drug abuse allegations.


Yes, it's good to do both because after scouring the known universe
for dirt they couldn't find evidence of drugs and no liberal seems to have
problems with Kennedy driving his car into the river and killing a gal.


The "Bush machine" has done nothing to "discredit Viet Nam vets". Some
veterans groups *not* affiliated with or funded by the Bush campaign
are attempting to discredit _one particular_ Viet Nam vet, who happens
to be the Democrat nominee.

Hah hah ha, guess you haven't heard about the campaign lawyer / SWBT
laywyer resigning because of the conflict of interest.


Wrong. I listened to him last night and that wasn't the reason. He said there
was nothing illegal about it and his democrat alternatives across the street do
the same thing. He resigned to avoid specualtion and further allegations. Not
that any liberals would stoop to such low tactics.



That same Democrat nominee has, himself, done his best to discredit,
demean, besmirch, and libel Viet Nam vets, in his 1971 Senate
testimony. So I think you're a little confused about who's
anti-veteran here.


Thank you so much. Everytime one of your ilk say this stuff,
somewhere an undecided voter thinks, "At least he went to Vietnam
instead of hiding behind Daddy's skirts".


How so? He served in the military instead of lying about a draft notice
like Bill Clinton. You really are confused.


Why don't you tell us about YOUR guy's positive accomplishements???

Hmmmmm?????

The economy is doing great in a worldwide recession, no terrorists since
911. Taliban brought down. Saddam brought down, Libia feeling the
heat rolls over, etc. Kerry's accomplishments are....? Your turn.

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Alex" wrote in message
. 239...
(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article , philski
wrote:

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's
skirt in my opinion.

Wow, so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.


But you did a ***really *** good job of introducing errors and
distortions, you must've known where to begin. Where did you get
your copy of the talking points:


How exactly did GWB "hide behind his daddy's skirt"? The war ended
some fifteen years before GHWD became President.

Being admitted to the Texas Nat Guard at all, getting a flyboy job,
skipping flight physical w/no record of hearing, skipping attendance
to go play in Alamaba. He never made up his time - the payroll computer
records show he made up *other* time he missed.

I love it, first your vaunted leader calls all Vietnam vets war criminals,
now you are trashing the national guard ,what next.

At least he made a contribution ,did you . In addition where exactly did you
read the "payroll Computer"records.


We'll pass over the DWI and drug abuse allegations.

Are those your allegations ? or the allegations of some of your fellow
democrats


The "Bush machine" has done nothing to "discredit Viet Nam vets". Some
veterans groups *not* affiliated with or funded by the Bush campaign
are attempting to discredit _one particular_ Viet Nam vet, who happens
to be the Democrat nominee.

Hah hah ha, guess you haven't heard about the campaign lawyer / SWBT
laywyer resigning because of the conflict of interest.

It would be really interesting if you could explain exactly where the
conflict existed. Ginsberg destroyed Chris Buren [sp] last night on
nightline who tried to claim the same as you.


That same Democrat nominee has, himself, done his best to discredit,
demean, besmirch, and libel Viet Nam vets, in his 1971 Senate
testimony. So I think you're a little confused about who's
anti-veteran here.

Thank you so much. Everytime one of your ilk say this stuff,
somewhere an undecided voter thinks, "At least he went to Vietnam
instead of hiding behind Daddy's skirts".


Why don't you tell us about YOUR guy's positive accomplishements???

That would take too much bandwidth to do that...mjh

Hmmmmm?????

Mike Hide responds:

I love it, first your vaunted leader calls all Vietnam vets war criminals,
now you are trashing the national guard ,what next.

Read or listen to Kerry's testimony instead of the overblown BS from Limbaugh
and his ilk. Kerry never branded all Nam vets as war criminals. His testimony
came about a year, IIRC, after Wm. Calley's trial and the massive rehashing of
the My Lai massacre.

And trashing the '60s and '70s ANG was a reasonable activity back then. As I
said before, the story is different today, though problems remain. The ANG of
the '60s and '70s was a farce, or it was about 90% of the time.

We'll pass over the DWI and drug abuse allegations.

Are those your allegations ? or the allegations of some of your fellow
democrats

Nah. Just a record that Bush refuses to discuss.

And, as Alex noted, Bush made damned good and sure he wasn't where he'd get a
scratch. Flying jets is a difficult job, but flying is not as difficult as it
is made out to be, and there are a lot of built-in safety factors, especially
when you're flying outmoded machinery that cannot be brought up to grade on
modern weapons systems. There's not a lot of emphasis on stressing the
machinery, or the personnel, when there is no chance of real-life use. And,
anyway, Bush got off flying status as quickly as he could.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

On 24 Aug 2004 18:14:40 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

.... snip

... said vet was greatly suprised about the content of
the citation. He thought he had received the citation for his jumping in
the water and working to save the boat hit by the mine. He did not see the
citation as it was written and disputes the contents of the citation that
says there was intense enemy fire.

But this makes clear the fact that whether or not there was enemy
fire is not relevant. Thus the criticism that there was no enemy
fire is not relevant and therefor dishonest.


You are confusing awards here. The purple heart requires injuries
inflicted in the presence of enemy fire (the exception you mention noted).
The boat *was* hit by a mine, that counts as enemy fire; the second vet's
actions were a result of that enemy action and were certainly valourous.
What surprised him was that the citation indicated that they were under
"intense enemy fire from both banks", this is what he indicates was untrue.


It is clear that there was much confusion in that incident. Those
who concluded there was no enemy fire and those who concluded there
was, may be equally honest. But those who attribute to Kerry,
statements made in reports by others, are plainly dishonest.


Where is your evidence that others made those statements in the reports?
It is possible that the report for the second vet's citation was taken
verbatim from the report for Kerry's citation -- that doesn't provide any
citation of original authorship.

In particular, the man Kerry pulled from the water says he was thrown
into the water by a second explosion, after the mine explosion, and
shots were fired at him while he was in the water.


The man had been thrown in the water and was potentially disoriented.
The swift boats indicated that they did fire into the banks to suppress any
potential fire that they were afraid might take place. It is highly likely
the guy in the water mistook the fire from the boats for incoming fire
while he was trying to get himself oriented.


I rather hope that was NOT freindly fire.


Those vets have nothing to gain from the stand they are taking, many of
them have served highly distinguished careers and are risking reputations
by coming forward publicly to what is a heavily Kerry favoring media (as
evidence of this, these people approached the media months ago with this
information but couldn't even get an interview.

I think they are retaliating for Kerry's anti-war activity.

And I'll add that the present administration, protestations aside,
undoubtbly appreciates their efforts. Having this on their resume
might prove highly advantageous in the future. Of course that swings
both ways.



Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?

As I said above, I think that is their point of view. I don't know
how many would or have gone as far as lying though.

Again, the accusation that all of those men are lying.

On 24 Aug 2004 21:18:56 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

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


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options.

Yeah, we'll that's been the case for some time now. I'm hard put to recall the
last time I felt confident in the ability of a presidential candidate to do the
job properly. It may not be possible anyway, but our political process has
regressed to it's mid-1800s stages recently so that doesn't help.

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

As a citizen of Arizona, that comment by many in the country amazes me.
McCain doesn't know which political party he belongs to, and it is not just
that he is voting his conscience or a certain ideology vs. party line. He
can express a strong opinion on a certain controversy one day, then express
exactly the opposite for another controversy that is similar to the first.


Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:13:35 -0600, philski wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:


.... snip

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on McCain. I wrote him in as a candidate
in the last election. I just couldn't make myself vote for Al or
Shrub. Al is anti gun and Shrub is just a dip**** in dip****'s clothing
(I really didn't like his "Read my Lips" daddy either.

I guess I might have to write in anudder candidate again this time.

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.


I didn't realize George Bush was accusing 250 Swift Boat veterans of
lying nor trying to discredit them.

Philski

On 27 Aug 2004 00:40:22 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Mike Hide responds:

I love it, first your vaunted leader calls all Vietnam vets war criminals,
now you are trashing the national guard ,what next.

Read or listen to Kerry's testimony instead of the overblown BS from Limbaugh
and his ilk. Kerry never branded all Nam vets as war criminals. His testimony
came about a year, IIRC, after Wm. Calley's trial and the massive rehashing of
the My Lai massacre.


Are you listening to the same recordings as the rest of us? "I, like
others participated in ... " He did brand all American soldiers as war
criminals, acting in violation of the Geneva convention.

But then, last week, in an interview when challenged by a fellow swift
boat veteran he made the statement, "I didn't say that Swift boat vets
committed atrocities, it was all the other soldiers".

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:13:35 -0600, philski wrote:


Charlie Self wrote:


Patriarch writes:



Swingman notes:



... snip

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on McCain. I wrote him in as a candidate
in the last election. I just couldn't make myself vote for Al or
Shrub. Al is anti gun and Shrub is just a dip**** in dip****'s clothing
(I really didn't like his "Read my Lips" daddy either.

I guess I might have to write in anudder candidate again this time.

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.



I didn't realize George Bush was accusing 250 Swift Boat veterans of
lying nor trying to discredit them.


Philski


What about the way they went after McCain in New Hampshire and Max
Cleland? They were more than mere soldiers/airmen. They both paid a big
price and the treatment they got from the Bush/RNC was very undeserved.
Bush is quite the hypocrite huh? Claims to be a Christian but acts like
anything but.....

Philski

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:39:02 -0400, "Kevin Singleton"
wrote:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. com...
On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
.... snip


What do you define as lefty hate books and films? I watch CNN and Fox
News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
Washington Post online.

How do you think that somehow reading the Denver Post and the Washington
post make you well-read? You are really reading the Associated Press and
Reuters and the Associated Press and Reuters. ... and those two outlets
are hardly unbiased.

So why should george the elder been spared if george the younger were to
be captured? Bargaining chip? I don;t recall any chip with all our
pow's. Did not have any problems when mc Cain was captured. What was so
different about the georgie boys?
Guess that old saying just might be true,
Diapers and politicians have to be changed for the same reason.

As for The ventriloquist ( Dick Cheney) a deferment for him? Who was the
lucky person who had to go in place of cheney? Was he your son, husband
, father, was he one of the 57,000 brave that did not make it? And this
makes two because dick;s other half of his act, never went.
And if you were told by the goverment that your son, father ,husband was
the one who went as a standin for america's two dumbest office holders,
how would you feel now?

Cleland dropped his own genade in front of him. Sorry for the incident, but
he has been working it for twenty years. He came to my high school in the
70's and preached the validity of the VM war. Now, we know. Not exactly
the war hero. FH. I'm from GA and had enough of Max.

"philski" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:13:35 -0600, philski
wrote:


Charlie Self wrote:


Patriarch writes:



Swingman notes:



... snip

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big
guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L.
Mencken

Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on McCain. I wrote him in as a candidate
in the last election. I just couldn't make myself vote for Al or
Shrub. Al is anti gun and Shrub is just a dip**** in dip****'s clothing
(I really didn't like his "Read my Lips" daddy either.

I guess I might have to write in anudder candidate again this time.

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.



I didn't realize George Bush was accusing 250 Swift Boat veterans of
lying nor trying to discredit them.


Philski


What about the way they went after McCain in New Hampshire and Max
Cleland? They were more than mere soldiers/airmen. They both paid a big
price and the treatment they got from the Bush/RNC was very undeserved.
Bush is quite the hypocrite huh? Claims to be a Christian but acts like
anything but.....

Philski

"philski writes:

Bush is quite the hypocrite huh? Claims to be a Christian but acts like
anything but.....

After all, politics is a contact sport.

IMHO, the whole right wing that has grabbed control of the Republican party
the last 10-15 years are a bunch of hypocrites.

Basically, it is their way or the highway.

Just my thoughts.

Lew

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

On 27 Aug 2004 00:40:22 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Mike Hide responds:

I love it, first your vaunted leader calls all Vietnam vets war
criminals, now you are trashing the national guard ,what next.

Read or listen to Kerry's testimony instead of the overblown BS from
Limbaugh and his ilk. Kerry never branded all Nam vets as war
criminals. His testimony came about a year, IIRC, after Wm. Calley's
trial and the massive rehashing of the My Lai massacre.


Are you listening to the same recordings as the rest of us? "I,
like
others participated in ... " He did brand all American soldiers as
war criminals, acting in violation of the Geneva convention.


You've made an elementary mistake: the phrase "I, like others" is
not the same thing as "all American soldiers".

See the difference, "others" vs. "all"??? "Others" is more than
one but not necessarily "all".

HTH

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 03:12:47 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"philski writes:

Bush is quite the hypocrite huh? Claims to be a Christian but acts like
anything but.....

After all, politics is a contact sport.

IMHO, the whole right wing that has grabbed control of the Republican party
the last 10-15 years are a bunch of hypocrites.

Basically, it is their way or the highway.


... and that's why Ted Kennedy got to write the education bill to his
liking, why school vouchers were defeated and no strong push back was made.
That's why campaign finance reform was signed into law despite the fact
that the constitution specifically says, "Congress shall make NO law
abridging the freedom of speech..." which is exactly what CFR does (hence
the recent flap about 527C organizations). That's why the largest
entitlement increase in 40 years (prescription drugs) was passed and signed
into law. That's why steel tariffs were instituted a couple of years ago.
Yep, the far right really grabbed the reigns and had their way.

Let's see, to be fair, there were a few points the right did get:
It got a tax break for all taxpayers. It did manage to pass a law
prohibiting what is essentially infanticide (my son was born at the same
gestation period as these procedures permit the unanesthetized incision
into the head and suctioning of the brain, thus there is no argument about
these being "nonviable" tissue masses) illegal. Of course, some activist
judges have overturned that law, ruling that it must include provisions to
permit said procedures for "the mother's health", despite the fact there is
no medical evidence that this procedure could in any circumstance save a
mother's life since it is essentially indistinguishable from live birth or
a cesarian section. And there was a decisive response to the attack on the
US. I suspect we would still be wrangling with the UN and the Taliban,
with perhaps a few cruise missile launches had the other side won in 2000.

Yep, definitely my way or the highway, uh-huh.

Just my thoughts.

Lew

On 27 Aug 2004 03:38:18 GMT, Alex wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

On 27 Aug 2004 00:40:22 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Mike Hide responds:

I love it, first your vaunted leader calls all Vietnam vets war
criminals, now you are trashing the national guard ,what next.

Read or listen to Kerry's testimony instead of the overblown BS from
Limbaugh and his ilk. Kerry never branded all Nam vets as war
criminals. His testimony came about a year, IIRC, after Wm. Calley's
trial and the massive rehashing of the My Lai massacre.


Are you listening to the same recordings as the rest of us? "I,
like
others participated in ... " He did brand all American soldiers as
war criminals, acting in violation of the Geneva convention.


You've made an elementary mistake: the phrase "I, like others" is
not the same thing as "all American soldiers".

See the difference, "others" vs. "all"??? "Others" is more than
one but not necessarily "all".

HTH


You are correct, I made an elementary mistake. I assumed that those
reading the quote above would have listened to, or read the transcripts of
Kerry's full testimony before congress and television interviews. For
those who apparently have not, let me help.

From Kerry's congressional testimony on June 6, 1971, Kerry's words:
"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and
firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our
instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go
ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed
to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent
people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats'
that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen.
Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would
help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never
remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam." Note here, he is
implicating *all* of his Swift boat comrades, i.e. he is using WE.

Before the committee on foreign relations on April 22, 1971 he said that
American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed
villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for
fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South
Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a
day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command." Now, you can parse this however you want to, but his comments
had the implication (and were taken as such) that this was not just a "few"
or "several" bad soldiers who had done this, he left the implication that
this was a persistent, general, accepted practice up and down the chain of
command. Note that these comments were based upon the "Winter Soldier
Investigation", which Kerry helped moderate, that was later shown to be
pure fabrication and lies. In more full text:

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several
months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war
crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but
crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers
at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what
did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the
men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the
absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears,
cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and
turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at
civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot
cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and
the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied
bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
April 22, 1971



In answer to a question from Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star on Meet
the Press

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes,
I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All
of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the
Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written
established policy by the government of the United States from the top
down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed
the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air
raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Again, not a few, not several, but "thousands" with approval up and down
the chain of command.

Again from his testimony before Congress:
"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not
just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything
that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this
country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so
many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking
umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a
continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of
violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones,
harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings,
the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many
units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and
parcel of everything."

Seems pretty all-encompassing there.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:37:43 -0700, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Where have 10 of Kerry's contemporaries come out against Kerry's version of
events versus one for Kerry?


Well, there's 250 on the anti-side compared to his handful of supporters.

Actually, among the men who actually served on Kerry's boat, as opposed to
in the same general area, or in the same war, the ratio is reversed. Only
one of the men who actually served under Kerry's command does not support
his candidacy.

But what I really think is hilarious about all this is that the
Republicans can find a couple hundred men to criticize the way Kerry
fought in the war, but they can't find a single person who can prove that
Bush didn't desert from the ANG. Politics. Too weird. Oh well. As my
father used to say, "In a hundred years, who'll care?"

Nate Perkins wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

"Nate Perkins"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

...

Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
help it.

That alot of speculation on your part. It assumes that the money belongs
to the government in the first place.


The concept that long term deficits and sustained increasing debt is
harmful to the health of the economy is well established. What

'Ol Fletis is right about one thing here. It *ain't* the government's
money. The deficits are not primarily caused by tax reduction, they
are primarily caused by the government spending money on the
mooching-cause-of-the-moment with absolutely no self control, especially
in an election cycle.

conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are

Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)

fairly conservative and are vocal on this issue.

And the *Republicans* have sadly become the party of big spenders:

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_...factsfigs.html

By any measure (absolute, incremental, per capita, inflation adjusted)
the Bush administration has overseen more spending than any
government in our history ... AND ... the military portion of it
is rather minor. These so-called "right wing conservatives" has
spend bagsfull of money on entitlement programs (drugs, farmers, etc.).

The moochers have spoken...





They are a loan that you are taking out to
help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.

Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?



Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
We can't afford it, though.

Says who?


You think we can afford another tax cut with the deficit currently
running at over 20% of all expenditures? With the debt going up the
way it is? I dunno, maybe all that balanced budget stuff is just
fuzzy math.

You must have gone to a school with a lot of Outcome-Based Learning
goals because the math isn't that hard here. We should all get a HUGE
tax reduction by cutting the Federal Government back to it
Constitutionally mandated tasks. That's right - you CAN reduce taxation
and eliminate deficit simultaneously. The problem is not what the
government takes in, it is what it SPENDS...



Shifting the
tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,


That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
history proves. That's bad economics!

Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.

They said Bush had a bad economic policy and shifted the tax burden?


They said that Bush's policies have shifted more of the tax burden to
the middle class, and away from the upper class:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/ Whether or not you think this
is bad economic policy probably depends on whether or not you are
rich.


This is a crock because the definition of "rich" is so fluid in these
discussions. More to the point, why should a fractional proportion
of the federal taxpayers (the so-called "rich") pick up a disproportionate
amount of the taxes that everone ELSE get the benefit from. You want
a "fair" system? Then support a flat VAT tax. Everyone pays the
same _percentage_, but bigger spenders pay more in absolute terms.
'Course, if we had a flat federal sales tax and nothing else, the
Congress Critters couldn't tinker with the Order Of Things to encourage
young poor girls to have more out of wedlock children (future Idiot
Liberals) or conversely to jam the morality-of-the-moment down
the throats of the school children (future Self-Important Conservatives).


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

In article , Alex wrote:

Geez, now I know you've lost the argument; smearing Kerry by
a side-reference to Clinton.

Well, there's a sign of progress, anyway -- a lefty who understands that
association with Clinton besmirches one's reputation. :-)

--
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.

Doug Miller responds:


Geez, now I know you've lost the argument; smearing Kerry by
a side-reference to Clinton.

Well, there's a sign of progress, anyway -- a lefty who understands that
association with Clinton besmirches one's reputation. :-)


Do we want to discuss Nixon, who is also out of office..and dead...and who has
no bearing on the current election?

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

In article , otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
Doug Miller responds:


Geez, now I know you've lost the argument; smearing Kerry by
a side-reference to Clinton.

Well, there's a sign of progress, anyway -- a lefty who understands that
association with Clinton besmirches one's reputation. :-)


Do we want to discuss Nixon, who is also out of office..and dead...and who has
no bearing on the current election?

Dunno... did you have a point there somewhere?

--
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.

Doug Miller writes:

Geez, now I know you've lost the argument; smearing Kerry by
a side-reference to Clinton.

Well, there's a sign of progress, anyway -- a lefty who understands that
association with Clinton besmirches one's reputation. :-)


Do we want to discuss Nixon, who is also out of office..and dead...and who
has
no bearing on the current election?

Dunno... did you have a point there somewhere?


Let's just say it isn't at all hard to pick up Republican figures that weren't
shining idols of saintliness, too. And when they're out of office, they're out
of office, so it isn't sensible to class them as contestants in the current
battle, which seems to be what Republicans want to do with Clinton.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

Tim Daneliuk wrote in message ...
Nate Perkins wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

"Nate Perkins"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

...

Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
help it.

That alot of speculation on your part. It assumes that the money belongs
to the government in the first place.


The concept that long term deficits and sustained increasing debt is
harmful to the health of the economy is well established. What

'Ol Fletis is right about one thing here. It *ain't* the government's
money. The deficits are not primarily caused by tax reduction, they
are primarily caused by the government spending money on the
mooching-cause-of-the-moment with absolutely no self control, especially
in an election cycle.

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are

Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)

Wow, you don't think Cato is a conservative thinktank? I wonder what
you think is conservative then?

fairly conservative and are vocal on this issue.

And the *Republicans* have sadly become the party of big spenders:

http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_...factsfigs.html

By any measure (absolute, incremental, per capita, inflation adjusted)
the Bush administration has overseen more spending than any
government in our history ... AND ... the military portion of it
is rather minor. These so-called "right wing conservatives" has
spend bagsfull of money on entitlement programs (drugs, farmers, etc.).

The moochers have spoken...

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

They are a loan that you are taking out to
help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.

Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?



Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
We can't afford it, though.

Says who?


You think we can afford another tax cut with the deficit currently
running at over 20% of all expenditures? With the debt going up the
way it is? I dunno, maybe all that balanced budget stuff is just
fuzzy math.

You must have gone to a school with a lot of Outcome-Based Learning
goals because the math isn't that hard here. We should all get a HUGE
tax reduction by cutting the Federal Government back to it
Constitutionally mandated tasks. That's right - you CAN reduce taxation
and eliminate deficit simultaneously. The problem is not what the
government takes in, it is what it SPENDS...

I'm not sure what Outcome-Based Learning is. You don't know me, so I
doubt you have any idea what my math background is. But like the
average person, I know red ink when I see it.

If you want to cut government first to pay for a tax cut, you'll get
no argument from me on that score. I just think that borrowed tax
cuts against the debt are dishonest.

Shifting the
tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,


That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
history proves. That's bad economics!

Not liberal hysteria. Reports of the President's own economists.

They said Bush had a bad economic policy and shifted the tax burden?


They said that Bush's policies have shifted more of the tax burden to
the middle class, and away from the upper class:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/ Whether or not you think this
is bad economic policy probably depends on whether or not you are
rich.

This is a crock because the definition of "rich" is so fluid in these
discussions. More to the point, why should a fractional proportion
of the federal taxpayers (the so-called "rich") pick up a disproportionate
amount of the taxes that everone ELSE get the benefit from. You want
a "fair" system? Then support a flat VAT tax. Everyone pays the
same _percentage_, but bigger spenders pay more in absolute terms.
'Course, if we had a flat federal sales tax and nothing else, the
Congress Critters couldn't tinker with the Order Of Things to encourage
young poor girls to have more out of wedlock children (future Idiot
Liberals) or conversely to jam the morality-of-the-moment down
the throats of the school children (future Self-Important Conservatives).

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or
if you are very rich and want to see the middle class carrying more of
your tax load.

I know you will argue it will be less if you cut the size of
government (an idea I support entirely). But I don't think you should
confuse the separate issue of smaller government with other notions of
radical tax reform.

"O D"

As for The ventriloquist ( Dick Cheney) a deferment for him? Who was the
lucky person who had to go in place of cheney?



Dunno. Ask Liberman or Clinton. Did it bother you then?

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2004 10:22:39 -0700, (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
debt are not a tax cut.


That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
reduced as well.

Do the tax cuts help the economy? They are all borrowed money against
the deficit, which effectively increases long term interest rates. A
short term tax cut done in a broad-based stimulative way does help the
economy during recession. A long-range deficit tax cut that is
unsustainable has as much chance of hurting the economy as it does to
help it.

You assume this is a zero-sum game. i.e. if less money is taken from the
taxpayers, then less is available in the future for the government. The
tax cuts enacted in the early '80s show the fallacy of this argument. The
top tax rate was cut from 50% to 28% which should have resulted in a
devastating loss of revenue for the tax coffers. What happened in reality
was that the money not taken from taxpayers was either spent or re-invested
in the economy in revenue producing ventures. Those revenue producing
ventures produced increased tax revenue that far exceeded the amount "lost"
by the tax cuts.

I agree that to the extent a tax cut is stimulative and results in
future economic growth then it is a good idea. You will have to show
me evidence that Bush's tax cuts are stimulative enough to even come
close to paying for themselves. The rising deficits are evidence to
the contrary.

Even Reagan understood this concept, which is why (in addition to
cutting taxes) he also had to raise taxes three times to slow the rate
of deficit growth. Even then, deficits skyrocketed under him. Even
GHWB understood that you had to slow the debt, which is why he broke
his "read my lips" pledge and lost the reelection.

Only Dubya seems to fail to understand the need to bring down the
debt.

They are a loan that you are taking out to
help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts.

Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?

Sure they should. When we can afford it, everyone ought to get one.
We can't afford it, though.


When WE can afford it? i.e. you believe that somehow you have a claim
upon the fruits of the labors of someone else who happens to make more
money than yourself?

You believe that somehow you have a claim upon only a *portion* of
government services? Which aircraft carrier is the one you bought?
Which section of road is the one that's yours? "We" is our nation.
"We" are all using these things, and "we" are all obligated to pay for
them.

Shifting the
tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy,

That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
history proves. That's bad economics!


As a percentage, the tax cuts benefited all taxpayers equally. The fact
of the matter is that in 2001 (the latest data for which IRS figures are
available):
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 86% of all income
The top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 43% of all income
the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of all federal income taxes yet
only earns 32% of all income

Now, regarding the argument that an increasing burden is being placed on
middle class taxpayers from 2000:
The top 50% of wage earners paid 96% of all federal income taxes
yet only earned 87% of all income
The top 10% of wage earners paid 67% of all federal income taxes
yet earned 46% of all income
the top 5% of wage earners paid 56% of all federal income taxes yet
earned 35% of all income

So, although the total burden to the top wage earners did go down, so did
overall share of income. How can this be? I thought the rich kept getting
richer under the Bush regime?

Data is available from 2003 that shows a different result. Otherwise
wouldn't you blame the 2000/2001 data on Clinton? I mean don't most
of your numbers precede most of Bush's tax "cuts"? Several links have
already been cited in other messages on this thread, but here it is
again: http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news...on_taxes.reut/

.... (remainder mercifully snipped) ...

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

[snip]

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.

--
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.

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 24 Aug 2004 10:46:56 -0700, (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
fairly comical point.

To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
record to run on, the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
believe it.


What? I agree that this has come to a pretty comical point, but your
post falls into the comedy of the absurd. Kerry is the guy who brought up
his war record as a primary qualification for his ascension to the
presidency. Kerry, since the beginning of the year was touting the fact
that "he volunteerd for Vietnam", was "highly decorated", then returned
home to "fight against the war he thought was unjust.
(snipped all the rest)

I don't have the time to answer all of the same essays from half a
dozen Bush supporters who still want to cling to the idea that the
stories of the Swift Boat guys hold water. I don't have time to
answer all of the same essays from guys who still believe in trickle
down economics and who think the size of government or the deficit has
shrunk under the Republicans. II don't have time to answer all the
same essays from guys who think we are better off having alienated all
of our allies with unilateral actions and who still believe WMDs might
really be out there.

You guys are part of the 30% core that will vote for Bush no matter
what he does, and no matter how things go. It might be a consolation
to know that even Herbert Hoover received 38.6% of the vote in 1932.

Nate Perkins wrote:

SNIP

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.



conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are

Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)


Wow, you don't think Cato is a conservative thinktank? I wonder what
you think is conservative then?


The are a _Libertarian_ think tank - considerably different than
Conservatives on many, many issues. So, no, I don't "think" they
are Conservative.

SNIP

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or

I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
likely well north of 40%.


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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.


I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

[snip]

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.


Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.


It makes no difference. Bush signed those bills. Unless Congress
used its veto override in these matters Bush is just as culpable for the
irresponsible spending as the Congress Critters.

He's the latests of the Big Time Spenders and has Socialist spending
instincts that mirror FDRs...

--
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.




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

"Charlie Self"
Doug Miller writes:

Geez, now I know you've lost the argument; smearing Kerry by
a side-reference to Clinton.

Well, there's a sign of progress, anyway -- a lefty who understands that
association with Clinton besmirches one's reputation. :-)


Do we want to discuss Nixon, who is also out of office..and dead...and who
has
no bearing on the current election?

Dunno... did you have a point there somewhere?


Let's just say it isn't at all hard to pick up Republican figures that weren't
shining idols of saintliness, too. And when they're out of office, they're out
of office, so it isn't sensible to class them as contestants in the current
battle, which seems to be what Republicans want to do with Clinton.


Not really. It's appropriate to bring up Clinton when Bush is attacked
for his service record. There wasn't a peep out of the left on Bill's
avoiding the draft. It's hard to find a better example of hypocrisy, the
point had nothing to do with perfection.

"Tim Daneliuk"

Then again, I more likely will stick to the principle of defending
the Constitution and Freedom and vote for the Libertarian candidate ...

I can respect voting on principle but politics is often an imperfect
solution to an imperfect world. The outcome for voting Libertarian
is essentially a vote for Kerry. Of course a vote for Nader is a
vote for Bush so we'll see what happens.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Make that any *Constitutional* mandate...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Yes it bothered me then and now. We are all painted with the same brush,
but some people that think they are better or more important than others
think their star shines brighter than all the good people who stepped to
the line and took an oath.
It doesn't matter republican /democrat/ independent. When someone finds
a way out, someone else must now come forward. How would you like to be
the last person to go in country? Bet you would have wished just one of
them suckers could have gone.
As someone else said politicians and diapers must be changed for the
same reason.

"O D"
Yes it bothered me then and now. We are all painted with the same brush,
but some people that think they are better or more important than others
think their star shines brighter than all the good people who stepped to
the line and took an oath.
It doesn't matter republican /democrat/ independent. When someone finds
a way out, someone else must now come forward. How would you like to be
the last person to go in country? Bet you would have wished just one of
them suckers could have gone.
As someone else said politicians and diapers must be changed for the
same reason.



I guess somebody had to finish Kerry's tour. Change for change's sake
doesn't seem too wise though.

Yea I guess someone hasd to finish Kerrys tour. And someone had to
finish the tour of 57,000 other good people.
Thank god your asshole george and dick
found a way out. Otherwise they might not be here to screw up the
country.