On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:23:47 -0700, CW wrote:
Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read.

So learn to freaking _trim_ unneeded text. You don't talk backwards,
why would you write that way?

Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

So you're not only inconsiderate, but you're insulting. Lovely.
Are you like this in person, or just when hiding behind a fake name
on the Intarweb?

I notice you don't address my actual points. Does that mean you're
done?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:23:47 -0700, CW wrote:
Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
through everything they have already read.

So learn to freaking _trim_ unneeded text. You don't talk backwards,
why would you write that way?

Sorry for those that have 3
minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

So you're not only inconsiderate, but you're insulting. Lovely.
Are you like this in person, or just when hiding behind a fake name
on the Intarweb?

I notice you don't address my actual points. Does that mean you're
done?

Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill,
Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military
stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot
of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to
show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the
press about this, now did ya?

Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both
parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the
majority).

Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:50 -0700, "PJMalone"
wrote:
-snip-

Not that Bush's own "support of the troops" is anything for him to boast
about. What do you think of a president who's 2005 budget actually CUT
combat pay for the men and women in harms way? Congress overrode him on
this but Bush tried to cut it from $250 a month to $100.

-snip-

Pat

Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill,
Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military
stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot
of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to
show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the
press about this, now did ya?

Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both
parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the
majority).

Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:50 -0700, "PJMalone"
wrote:
-snip-

Not that Bush's own "support of the troops" is anything for him to boast
about. What do you think of a president who's 2005 budget actually CUT
combat pay for the men and women in harms way? Congress overrode him on
this but Bush tried to cut it from $250 a month to $100.

-snip-

Pat

"Renata" wrote in message
...
Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill,
Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military
stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot
of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to
show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the
press about this, now did ya?

Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both
parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the
majority).


Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again, I would take this story with a grain of salt.
There's more to it than what you have shown. Just a guess, but the defense
strategists have been overhauling the focus of our military away from the
Cold War outpost mentality and more to quick reaction forces. Technology,
among other things, makes this possible, and probably saves money, too.

dwhite


Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:50 -0700, "PJMalone"
wrote:
-snip-

Not that Bush's own "support of the troops" is anything for him to boast
about. What do you think of a president who's 2005 budget actually CUT
combat pay for the men and women in harms way? Congress overrode him on
this but Bush tried to cut it from $250 a month to $100.

-snip-

Pat

"Renata" wrote in message
...
Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill,
Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military
stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot
of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to
show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the
press about this, now did ya?

Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both
parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the
majority).


Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again, I would take this story with a grain of salt.
There's more to it than what you have shown. Just a guess, but the defense
strategists have been overhauling the focus of our military away from the
Cold War outpost mentality and more to quick reaction forces. Technology,
among other things, makes this possible, and probably saves money, too.

dwhite


Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:50 -0700, "PJMalone"
wrote:
-snip-

Not that Bush's own "support of the troops" is anything for him to boast
about. What do you think of a president who's 2005 budget actually CUT
combat pay for the men and women in harms way? Congress overrode him on
this but Bush tried to cut it from $250 a month to $100.

-snip-

Pat

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 people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.

If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.

98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will just
have to deal with it.

However, when reading a series of archived posts,
I find it hard to read
top-posted replies

This brings up questions as to your reading ability.

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 people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.

If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.

98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will just
have to deal with it.

However, when reading a series of archived posts,
I find it hard to read
top-posted replies

This brings up questions as to your reading ability.

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

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 people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.

If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.

98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will
just
have to deal with it.

However, when reading a series of archived posts,
I find it hard to read
top-posted replies

This brings up questions as to your reading ability.


..pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is This
..mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...

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 people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.

If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.

98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will
just
have to deal with it.

However, when reading a series of archived posts,
I find it hard to read
top-posted replies

This brings up questions as to your reading ability.


..pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is This
..mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this guess
I

You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
It might not be to late.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
It might not be to late.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

In article MPG.1bb4b38ac8495c1c9896f1@mayonews,
Al Spohn wrote:

(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.

Ahhhhhh. The answer nears you, grasshoppa.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article MPG.1bb4b38ac8495c1c9896f1@mayonews,
Al Spohn wrote:

(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.

Ahhhhhh. The answer nears you, grasshoppa.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there, but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.


Glen

Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there, but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.


Glen

In article , "CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote:
You well remember though that Billy The Twit waffled just as badly, and they
elected him, twice.

As I noted in an earlier post, though, Slick Willie is a *much* more skillful
liar than Kerry. His lies are harder to spot, and he tells them with such
sincerity that people *want* to believe him.

--
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 , "CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote:
You well remember though that Billy The Twit waffled just as badly, and they
elected him, twice.

As I noted in an earlier post, though, Slick Willie is a *much* more skillful
liar than Kerry. His lies are harder to spot, and he tells them with such
sincerity that people *want* to believe him.

--
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.

That you have a problem? I couldn't care less.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way
is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess
I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

That you have a problem? I couldn't care less.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way
is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess
I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,

.... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?

but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.


... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?

Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,

.... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?

but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.


... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:18 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."


Having lived through the 90's in the aerospace industry I can tell you
all about the "stats". Development funding and pocurement reduced such
that we lost between 25 and 33% of our workforce. Each new round of
layoffs had a new means of accomplishing them and new criteria -- yeah,
exciting times. The only segment of government that suffered from *real*
cuts (vs. the phony slowing the rate of growth is a cut "cuts") was the
defense department.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:18 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."


Having lived through the 90's in the aerospace industry I can tell you
all about the "stats". Development funding and pocurement reduced such
that we lost between 25 and 33% of our workforce. Each new round of
layoffs had a new means of accomplishing them and new criteria -- yeah,
exciting times. The only segment of government that suffered from *real*
cuts (vs. the phony slowing the rate of growth is a cut "cuts") was the
defense department.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

It's obvious how much you don't care, now that you've posted about it three
times, fool.

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
That you have a problem? I couldn't care less.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier
way
is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some
guess
I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is
this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

It's obvious how much you don't care, now that you've posted about it three
times, fool.

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
That you have a problem? I couldn't care less.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn- .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier
way
is
This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some
guess
I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is
this
guess
I

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional
help.
It might not be to late.

Does that make you feel better, CW?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1095481209.cNQ51aKelm5NYi5T6Qrp4A@teranews...

... and that's only a partial list


Please stop confusing us with the facts!


Does anyone, anywhere, have any idea what, exactly does John F Kerry
stand for?


[Raises hand] I do! I do! He stands for getting John Kerry elected.

dwhite

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1095481209.cNQ51aKelm5NYi5T6Qrp4A@teranews...

... and that's only a partial list


Please stop confusing us with the facts!


Does anyone, anywhere, have any idea what, exactly does John F Kerry
stand for?


[Raises hand] I do! I do! He stands for getting John Kerry elected.

dwhite

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1095526036.pRO/IBQvtCBSgeoKdJyQrg@teranews...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:18 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."


Having lived through the 90's in the aerospace industry I can tell you
all about the "stats". Development funding and pocurement reduced such
that we lost between 25 and 33% of our workforce. Each new round of
layoffs had a new means of accomplishing them and new criteria -- yeah,
exciting times. The only segment of government that suffered from *real*
cuts (vs. the phony slowing the rate of growth is a cut "cuts") was the
defense department.


Anybody who does not understand that the democrats are weak on defense
simply doesn't know American history in the modern era.

dwhite

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1095526036.pRO/IBQvtCBSgeoKdJyQrg@teranews...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:18 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans
building it back up again...

Strong in this one, the force of the Dark Side is. "

Luke, study the stats, Luke, study the stats."


Having lived through the 90's in the aerospace industry I can tell you
all about the "stats". Development funding and pocurement reduced such
that we lost between 25 and 33% of our workforce. Each new round of
layoffs had a new means of accomplishing them and new criteria -- yeah,
exciting times. The only segment of government that suffered from *real*
cuts (vs. the phony slowing the rate of growth is a cut "cuts") was the
defense department.


Anybody who does not understand that the democrats are weak on defense
simply doesn't know American history in the modern era.

dwhite

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Anybody who does not understand that the democrats are weak on defense
simply doesn't know American history in the modern era.

Silly me... I wasn't aware FDR or Kennedy was weak on defense. Too bad
Clinton gutted the military - otherwise we'd have really trounced them
in Afghanistan and Bagdad. Good thing w rebuilt the shock and awe back
so quickly - or else who knows what might have happened over the last
couple years. Don't forget all those Democrats who fought and died right
alongside your boys.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Anybody who does not understand that the democrats are weak on defense
simply doesn't know American history in the modern era.

Silly me... I wasn't aware FDR or Kennedy was weak on defense. Too bad
Clinton gutted the military - otherwise we'd have really trounced them
in Afghanistan and Bagdad. Good thing w rebuilt the shock and awe back
so quickly - or else who knows what might have happened over the last
couple years. Don't forget all those Democrats who fought and died right
alongside your boys.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

(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.

Remember the Thanksgiving (or was it Christmas?) fly in to Bagdad with
the plastic turkey? Remember the mountain bike "incident" of this past
summer?

What you folks fail to see is that there's one person who'll gain by
these acts of wanton disregard for presidential safety. Who do you think
put w. up to such stunts? Fer God sake... flying onto an aircraft
carrier in a fighter... or dropping into a hostile country during a
war... or skiddering over jagged rocks and cliffs on a bicycle...

It's CHENEY I tell ya. It's Cheney. He's trying to bump w. off so's he
can swivel in the oval office for a change without worrying that dweeb
for a boss'll catch 'im. Dick knows that he should rightly be president,
not that apron-string mammas boy who likes to play cowboy. And,
afterall, the ticker's not what it used to be - God only knows how much
time dick has left. He's gotta take matters into his own hands.

(Speaking of taking matters into his own hands, do you think w., dick,
condi, donny, et.al. take a look under the desk in there and get all
"stimulated" by the goings on that took place right under there? It's
enough to scare you into wanting to make a law against such acts of
depravity. Amend the Constitution! Enact the Defense of Missionary
Position Amendment.)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

(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.

Remember the Thanksgiving (or was it Christmas?) fly in to Bagdad with
the plastic turkey? Remember the mountain bike "incident" of this past
summer?

What you folks fail to see is that there's one person who'll gain by
these acts of wanton disregard for presidential safety. Who do you think
put w. up to such stunts? Fer God sake... flying onto an aircraft
carrier in a fighter... or dropping into a hostile country during a
war... or skiddering over jagged rocks and cliffs on a bicycle...

It's CHENEY I tell ya. It's Cheney. He's trying to bump w. off so's he
can swivel in the oval office for a change without worrying that dweeb
for a boss'll catch 'im. Dick knows that he should rightly be president,
not that apron-string mammas boy who likes to play cowboy. And,
afterall, the ticker's not what it used to be - God only knows how much
time dick has left. He's gotta take matters into his own hands.

(Speaking of taking matters into his own hands, do you think w., dick,
condi, donny, et.al. take a look under the desk in there and get all
"stimulated" by the goings on that took place right under there? It's
enough to scare you into wanting to make a law against such acts of
depravity. Amend the Constitution! Enact the Defense of Missionary
Position Amendment.)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
--

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:


Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?


Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,


... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?


but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.



... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen


My above cited comments were ment to be sarcastic. I agree with you
that Mr. Kerry is the waffle king. I hope nobody interpreted my
comments as being in support of flip-flop John.

Glen

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:27:24 GMT, Glen wrote:


Dave Hinz wrote:
SNIP


And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember?
He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now,
he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that
with yourself, I wonder?


Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there,


... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?


but I can agree
with what this John Kerry says.



... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is
actually elected?



Glen


My above cited comments were ment to be sarcastic. I agree with you
that Mr. Kerry is the waffle king. I hope nobody interpreted my
comments as being in support of flip-flop John.

Glen