Larry Blanchard wrote:
are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator?

There are worse things a major power could do !

Larry Blanchard wrote:
are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator?

There are worse things a major power could do !

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:53:19 GMT, Dan White wrote:
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

And who would that be?

The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
regime.

Yup, that's the one. If you bluff, be prepared for us to take you
seriously. The end.

By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:53:19 GMT, Dan White wrote:
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

And who would that be?

The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
regime.

Yup, that's the one. If you bluff, be prepared for us to take you
seriously. The end.

By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
Two cents worth from a lurker:

The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago.

Yes, you're right, there are more important things. Like voting record
and attendance at meetings one is supposed to be at, for instance,
which is why I have a huge problem with Kerry.

The
question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?

Indeed.

Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
American citizens, simply on his say-so?

Let's see. If you're fighting against our army, not in uniform, then
you aren't an enemy soldier, you're someone pretending to be a
civilian but you aren't. Hm, what could _possibly_ go wrong with that?

No charges placed, no access to
council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
"when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
Constitution?

Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.

Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
could hardly worse.

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
Two cents worth from a lurker:

The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago.

Yes, you're right, there are more important things. Like voting record
and attendance at meetings one is supposed to be at, for instance,
which is why I have a huge problem with Kerry.

The
question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?

Indeed.

Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
American citizens, simply on his say-so?

Let's see. If you're fighting against our army, not in uniform, then
you aren't an enemy soldier, you're someone pretending to be a
civilian but you aren't. Hm, what could _possibly_ go wrong with that?

No charges placed, no access to
council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
"when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
Constitution?

Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.

Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
could hardly worse.

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:13:05 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator?

There are worse things a major power could do !

Yup. Give notice; "Shape up or we'll take you out". They bluster and
ignore. We go in, take 'em out, and get out, giving notice "Behave or
we'll come back and take out the next one."

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:13:05 GMT, Bob Martin wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator?

There are worse things a major power could do !

Yup. Give notice; "Shape up or we'll take you out". They bluster and
ignore. We go in, take 'em out, and get out, giving notice "Behave or
we'll come back and take out the next one."

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

[Kerry]'s another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth.

There's one respect in which Kerry is a significant improvement over Clinton.
Although he's just as big a liar, he's nowhere *nearly* as skillful at it, nor
as convincing. Which makes his lies much easier to spot, and therefore much
less dangerous.

--
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 , Dave Hinz wrote:

[Kerry]'s another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth.

There's one respect in which Kerry is a significant improvement over Clinton.
Although he's just as big a liar, he's nowhere *nearly* as skillful at it, nor
as convincing. Which makes his lies much easier to spot, and therefore much
less dangerous.

--
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 ,
says...
[...]
Kerry/4months-It bothers me a little that Kerry asked for and was
denied a deferrment, then volunteered for the navy to avoid being
drafted. It bothers me that after 4 months he asks to cut his tour
short by almost a year using a loophole while others spent weeks in
hospitals and still finished their tours. And the fact that he then
went before congress and on TV calling all of us killers... yeah that
stinks too. But it was all in the past and somewhat forgotten... and
if he didn't make his "serving" the focal point of his campaign, it
still would be forgotten. Kerry's bad.
[...]

And it doesn't bother you that Bush was in the national guard for the
same reasons? And that daddy used his influence to allow him to
leapfrog NG waiting lists to pull it off?

It's true that he does deserve some measure of credit for making it
through flight school, but for anyone that's ever been through the
process, there's flight school and there's VIP flight school. The
latter is all about the VIP saving face, keeping him alive, being
available for photo ops, and passing him on to the next level of
training responsibility at the earliest opportunity. I don't know
enough about Bush's record to say whether or not this is true in his
case (although he would be a prototypical candidate for such treatment)
- heck, he might have been a great pilot - but then again, so might have
Kerry had he decided on that particular flavor of evasion.

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
I think it was an unfortunate question of percieved political expediency
in reaction to the public's perception that he wouldn't be "tough on
terror."

But I agree with the majority of your post. It's definitely "pick your
poison" time. I'd have been inclined to go with McCain too had he
decided to run, but more as a reward for what he suffered in Viet Nam
than anything else. That seems as valid a reason as any in today's
political climate.

- Al

In article ,
says...
[...]
Kerry/4months-It bothers me a little that Kerry asked for and was
denied a deferrment, then volunteered for the navy to avoid being
drafted. It bothers me that after 4 months he asks to cut his tour
short by almost a year using a loophole while others spent weeks in
hospitals and still finished their tours. And the fact that he then
went before congress and on TV calling all of us killers... yeah that
stinks too. But it was all in the past and somewhat forgotten... and
if he didn't make his "serving" the focal point of his campaign, it
still would be forgotten. Kerry's bad.
[...]

And it doesn't bother you that Bush was in the national guard for the
same reasons? And that daddy used his influence to allow him to
leapfrog NG waiting lists to pull it off?

It's true that he does deserve some measure of credit for making it
through flight school, but for anyone that's ever been through the
process, there's flight school and there's VIP flight school. The
latter is all about the VIP saving face, keeping him alive, being
available for photo ops, and passing him on to the next level of
training responsibility at the earliest opportunity. I don't know
enough about Bush's record to say whether or not this is true in his
case (although he would be a prototypical candidate for such treatment)
- heck, he might have been a great pilot - but then again, so might have
Kerry had he decided on that particular flavor of evasion.

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
I think it was an unfortunate question of percieved political expediency
in reaction to the public's perception that he wouldn't be "tough on
terror."

But I agree with the majority of your post. It's definitely "pick your
poison" time. I'd have been inclined to go with McCain too had he
decided to run, but more as a reward for what he suffered in Viet Nam
than anything else. That seems as valid a reason as any in today's
political climate.

- Al

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

In article , says...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

Yeah, I guess that's probably still the case now that you mention it. I
think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

- Al

In article , says...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

Yeah, I guess that's probably still the case now that you mention it. I
think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

- Al

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.

todd

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.

todd

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into
the flight suit.

AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of
the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful
heel rope.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into
the flight suit.

AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of
the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful
heel rope.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
means of transportation in this sort of case.

Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:41:57 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.

todd

I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
means of transportation in this sort of case.

Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:41:57 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.

Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
required
by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
it
was the only time I had the pleasure.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.

todd

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
Two cents worth from a lurker:
Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the
worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812.
Kerry
could hardly worse.

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him.

Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

dwhite

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
Two cents worth from a lurker:
Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the
worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812.
Kerry
could hardly worse.

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him.

Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

dwhite

And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:

"Health Care Humbug

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post

AMERICANS HAVE come to expect political ads to stretch the truth, but
a recent duo from the Bush campaign cross the line. One, titled
"Medicare Hypocrisy," tries to blame Democratic nominee John F. Kerry
for the recent hike in Medicare premiums. The second, called
"Healthca Practical vs. Big Government," says the Kerry health care
plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" costing a
whopping $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

On the matter of Medicare premiums, Mr. Kerry landed the first
below-the-belt punch. Seizing on the news of a 17.5 percent increase
in Medicare premiums, the Kerry spot said President Bush "imposes the
biggest Medicare premium increase in history" -- as if the decision
about how much seniors would pay were up to Mr. Bush, rather than
determined by a preset formula. Still, if Mr. Bush didn't "impose" the
premium hike, he's not blameless, either: The biggest part of the
increase is attributable to higher payments to physicians provided by
the new Medicare bill that he backed; another chunk is the result of
the bill's extra payments to insurers to induce them to offer coverage
to seniors.

The Bush campaign responded with an ad that made the Kerry campaign
look like a model of honest rhetoric. "John Kerry: He actually voted
for higher Medicare premiums -- before he came out against them," the
Bush ad said, managing to simultaneously blame Mr. Kerry and summon
the Kerry-as-flip-flopper image. The ad seeks to score points off Mr.
Kerry's statement that a 1997 law instituting the premium formula was
a "day of vindication for Americans" -- as if Mr. Kerry had been
celebrating socking it to seniors. In fact, the law, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, included a well-intentioned effort to rein in
Medicare costs, but what Mr. Kerry was praising was its child tax
credits for working-class families and expanded coverage for uninsured
children. Does Mr. Bush disagree with that assessment?

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of
advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington
bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan
-- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the
Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not
surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think
tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's
description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our
nation's health care system."

In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to
which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer
mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks
to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary
program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of
catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for
individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of
the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage
for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government
program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance
speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor
children who are eligible but not signed up."

There's a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of the two
campaigns' health plans. But so far no one's having it.
"

On 16 Sep 2004 15:17:41 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

-snip-
I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.

And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:

"Health Care Humbug

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post

AMERICANS HAVE come to expect political ads to stretch the truth, but
a recent duo from the Bush campaign cross the line. One, titled
"Medicare Hypocrisy," tries to blame Democratic nominee John F. Kerry
for the recent hike in Medicare premiums. The second, called
"Healthca Practical vs. Big Government," says the Kerry health care
plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" costing a
whopping $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

On the matter of Medicare premiums, Mr. Kerry landed the first
below-the-belt punch. Seizing on the news of a 17.5 percent increase
in Medicare premiums, the Kerry spot said President Bush "imposes the
biggest Medicare premium increase in history" -- as if the decision
about how much seniors would pay were up to Mr. Bush, rather than
determined by a preset formula. Still, if Mr. Bush didn't "impose" the
premium hike, he's not blameless, either: The biggest part of the
increase is attributable to higher payments to physicians provided by
the new Medicare bill that he backed; another chunk is the result of
the bill's extra payments to insurers to induce them to offer coverage
to seniors.

The Bush campaign responded with an ad that made the Kerry campaign
look like a model of honest rhetoric. "John Kerry: He actually voted
for higher Medicare premiums -- before he came out against them," the
Bush ad said, managing to simultaneously blame Mr. Kerry and summon
the Kerry-as-flip-flopper image. The ad seeks to score points off Mr.
Kerry's statement that a 1997 law instituting the premium formula was
a "day of vindication for Americans" -- as if Mr. Kerry had been
celebrating socking it to seniors. In fact, the law, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, included a well-intentioned effort to rein in
Medicare costs, but what Mr. Kerry was praising was its child tax
credits for working-class families and expanded coverage for uninsured
children. Does Mr. Bush disagree with that assessment?

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of
advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington
bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan
-- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the
Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not
surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think
tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's
description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our
nation's health care system."

In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to
which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer
mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks
to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary
program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of
catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for
individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of
the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage
for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government
program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance
speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor
children who are eligible but not signed up."

There's a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of the two
campaigns' health plans. But so far no one's having it.
"

On 16 Sep 2004 15:17:41 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

-snip-
I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:25:16 GMT, Dan White wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him.

Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against.

They don't _forget_, they make the mistake of thinking we should
_negotiate_ with 'em. Of course, the people who are intent on killing
us see that as a sign of weakness, as evidenced by the Clinton non-actions
in this regard. But, they'll not notice that it didn't work and caused
more problems, will they.

1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

It's not like anyone was drafted into today's army, and it's not like
one volunteers to join the army without knowing what they may be getting
into, considering the options, and deciding to do the noble thing and join.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:25:16 GMT, Dan White wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him.

Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against.

They don't _forget_, they make the mistake of thinking we should
_negotiate_ with 'em. Of course, the people who are intent on killing
us see that as a sign of weakness, as evidenced by the Clinton non-actions
in this regard. But, they'll not notice that it didn't work and caused
more problems, will they.

1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

It's not like anyone was drafted into today's army, and it's not like
one volunteers to join the army without knowing what they may be getting
into, considering the options, and deciding to do the noble thing and join.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:27:46 -0400, Renata wrote:
And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:
"Health Care Humbug

Snip of article from
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post
....which is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting

My point is that on an issue I understand intimately, Kerry's lies are
blatant and obvious. There are more subtle issues that I do not have
as complete of knowledge on, but it's reasonable to expect that since
he lies so completely on this one topic, it's likely that he's lying on
other topics to an equivalent degree.

My point also included the thought that, since neither one of 'em are
someone I'd care to take to dinner, I'm picking the one whose record is
closest to my personal point of view.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:27:46 -0400, Renata wrote:
And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:
"Health Care Humbug

Snip of article from
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post
....which is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting

My point is that on an issue I understand intimately, Kerry's lies are
blatant and obvious. There are more subtle issues that I do not have
as complete of knowledge on, but it's reasonable to expect that since
he lies so completely on this one topic, it's likely that he's lying on
other topics to an equivalent degree.

My point also included the thought that, since neither one of 'em are
someone I'd care to take to dinner, I'm picking the one whose record is
closest to my personal point of view.

Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

todd

"Renata" wrote in message
...
I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
means of transportation in this sort of case.

Renata

Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

todd

"Renata" wrote in message
...
I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
means of transportation in this sort of case.

Renata

Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read. Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz

Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read. Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz


"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read. Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

I have this magical development on my keyboard called the "Page Down" key.
It allows me to almost instantly get to the bottom of a post to see the
follow-up. If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.
However, when reading a series of archived posts, I find it hard to read
top-posted replies because I was taught in school to read from top to
bottom.

todd

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz


"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read. Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

I have this magical development on my keyboard called the "Page Down" key.
It allows me to almost instantly get to the bottom of a post to see the
follow-up. If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.
However, when reading a series of archived posts, I find it hard to read
top-posted replies because I was taught in school to read from top to
bottom.

todd

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:25:16 GMT, Dan White
wrote:


Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

dwhite



One wag pointed out that if you took an Afro-American male from Compton
and sent him to a combat infantry unit in Mosul, his safety would
INCREASE compared to his risk of death in South LA.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:25:16 GMT, Dan White
wrote:


Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
far more than that in one battle.

dwhite



One wag pointed out that if you took an Afro-American male from Compton
and sent him to a combat infantry unit in Mosul, his safety would
INCREASE compared to his risk of death in South LA.

In article ,
says...
Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

Considering the tax payer dollars that go into keeping a president alive
(this was reinforced for me after witnessing Bush's urban assault
caravan scream through Rochester, MN yesterday,) it's ludicrous that any
standing president would travel to an aircraft carrier during time of
war regardless of the means of transport. I don't hold this against
Bush, though - political creatures that they are, I think any president
would have taken advantage of the opportunity. However, I would
stipulate that it was blatantly political - again, a motivation easily
within the comfort zone of any politician.

- Al

In article ,
says...
Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

Considering the tax payer dollars that go into keeping a president alive
(this was reinforced for me after witnessing Bush's urban assault
caravan scream through Rochester, MN yesterday,) it's ludicrous that any
standing president would travel to an aircraft carrier during time of
war regardless of the means of transport. I don't hold this against
Bush, though - political creatures that they are, I think any president
would have taken advantage of the opportunity. However, I would
stipulate that it was blatantly political - again, a motivation easily
within the comfort zone of any politician.

- Al