On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:48:24 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

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.

--

Historically, FDR and Kennedy were different sorts of dems. FDR was
basically forced to rebuild in light of the threat across the Atlantic.
Kennedy was dealing with the cold war.

Subsequent dems were quite different -- LBJ had his guns and butter plan
where the military took a back seat to domestic affairs. Carter was one
who significantly neglected the military. Finally, the last dem inhabitant
did make real cuts to the defense department. That shock and awe you are
speaking of was primarily a carryover from the previous administrations'
buildups and the [sometimes] fortunate circumstance that the pentagon is a
very large machine with a huge amount of momentum that takes a long time to
change. That said, very few new weapon systems were conceived during the
prior administration's reign.

Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:48:24 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

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.

--

Historically, FDR and Kennedy were different sorts of dems. FDR was
basically forced to rebuild in light of the threat across the Atlantic.
Kennedy was dealing with the cold war.

Subsequent dems were quite different -- LBJ had his guns and butter plan
where the military took a back seat to domestic affairs. Carter was one
who significantly neglected the military. Finally, the last dem inhabitant
did make real cuts to the defense department. That shock and awe you are
speaking of was primarily a carryover from the previous administrations'
buildups and the [sometimes] fortunate circumstance that the pentagon is a
very large machine with a huge amount of momentum that takes a long time to
change. That said, very few new weapon systems were conceived during the
prior administration's reign.

Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
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.


I'm not calling the dems unpatriotic or anything like that, and democrat
soldiers have nothing to do with the democrat leadership, which is what I am
talking about. Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore. His tax policy was much more conservative. Since then,
don't ask me...ask those in the military who see first hand what happens
with democrat presidents. From what I have seen, it isn't even much of an
argument.

dwhite

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
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.


I'm not calling the dems unpatriotic or anything like that, and democrat
soldiers have nothing to do with the democrat leadership, which is what I am
talking about. Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore. His tax policy was much more conservative. Since then,
don't ask me...ask those in the military who see first hand what happens
with democrat presidents. From what I have seen, it isn't even much of an
argument.

dwhite

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:53:39 -0700, CW wrote:
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
It might not be to late.

Let me put this more simply. People come here to communicate. Your choice
of top-posting impedes that. That's a good way to get put into the
"killfile" and outright ignored. It's one thing to be ignorant, but
you're showing that ignorance isn't the problem here.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:53:39 -0700, CW wrote:
You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
It might not be to late.

Let me put this more simply. People come here to communicate. Your choice
of top-posting impedes that. That's a good way to get put into the
"killfile" and outright ignored. It's one thing to be ignorant, but
you're showing that ignorance isn't the problem here.

I'll quit top posting when Usenet ceases to exist (or I do, whichever comes
first). Pay attention and everything flows smoothly.

"Dan White" wrote in message news:Y973d.28611
I'll give you that one. If you had just listened to the people here who
keep asking you to STOP TOPPOSTING in a public forum

I'll quit top posting when Usenet ceases to exist (or I do, whichever comes
first). Pay attention and everything flows smoothly.

"Dan White" wrote in message news:Y973d.28611
I'll give you that one. If you had just listened to the people here who
keep asking you to STOP TOPPOSTING in a public forum

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:55:32 -0700, CW wrote:
I'll quit top posting when Usenet ceases to exist (or I do, whichever comes
first). Pay attention and everything flows smoothly.

plonk. Bye, CW, you're not worth reading.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:55:32 -0700, CW wrote:
I'll quit top posting when Usenet ceases to exist (or I do, whichever comes
first). Pay attention and everything flows smoothly.

plonk. Bye, CW, you're not worth reading.

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

I think you might have to go back a bit farther than 15 years to get a
really big difference, but don't try telling that to Zell Miller. Beyond
that, I don't do a lot of guessing about what dead presidents would think
about things.

todd

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

I think you might have to go back a bit farther than 15 years to get a
really big difference, but don't try telling that to Zell Miller. Beyond
that, I don't do a lot of guessing about what dead presidents would think
about things.

todd

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

In article , says...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
[...]

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.

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?" How is it that they don't have the right to even contest that?
Because to do so might make then eligible for due process, which would
be *really* inconvenient in terms of getting another notch on Ashcroft's
belt.

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 agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.) And since when have you
ever heard of a presidential candidate that wasn't a "slicky-boy
politician who can't tell the truth about anything." PLEASE don't say
that GW doesn't fit that description to a "T" as well.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year? And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms. The only close runner up to GW in days off is his
father, who took off 543 vacation days (speaking of being "cut from the
same cloth"). Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

- Al

In article , says...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone wrote:
[...]

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.

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?" How is it that they don't have the right to even contest that?
Because to do so might make then eligible for due process, which would
be *really* inconvenient in terms of getting another notch on Ashcroft's
belt.

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 agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.) And since when have you
ever heard of a presidential candidate that wasn't a "slicky-boy
politician who can't tell the truth about anything." PLEASE don't say
that GW doesn't fit that description to a "T" as well.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year? And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms. The only close runner up to GW in days off is his
father, who took off 543 vacation days (speaking of being "cut from the
same cloth"). Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

- Al

In article , says...

"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.

I agree, only I was only afforded a semi-swagger since I was a navigator
:-)

- Al

In article , says...

"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.

I agree, only I was only afforded a semi-swagger since I was a navigator
:-)

- Al

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article , says...

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

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?"

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

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) (SNIP)

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie? OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year?

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms.

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.
But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article , says...

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

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?"

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

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) (SNIP)

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie? OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year?

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms.

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.
But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article , says...

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

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?"

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

This might hold water if everyone having their civil rights suspended
was found to be training with the Taliban, but that's far from the case.

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) (SNIP)

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year?

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time. In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working. Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms.

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

:-)

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

- Al

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article , says...

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

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?"

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

This might hold water if everyone having their civil rights suspended
was found to be training with the Taliban, but that's far from the case.

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) (SNIP)

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

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.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year?

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time. In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working. Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms.

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

:-)

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

- Al

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
(massive snip)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything? "I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

Dave Hinz

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
(massive snip)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything? "I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

Dave Hinz

In article , says...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
(massive snip)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

Has it ever been any other way? We're talking politics here.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

Yeah, the moveon rhetoric that he seems to perpetuate with regard to the
ban is pretty pathetic. But I think where we differ is that you believe
it is particularly low even for a politician, and I would maintain that
such a misrepresentation is "business as usual" for every political
figure on the national scene. You're just sensitized to it because
you're knowledgeable about the issue, and as such, aren't gullible
enough to blur the distinction between bayonet mounts and hip mounted
miniguns like so much of the public evidently is. But it's par for the
course. For example, your reaction to Kerry's take on this issue is
really not much different than what somebody in the know on weapons
technology (e.g., scientists and analysts Los Alamos, Albequerque,
Omaha...) thinks when they hear Rumsfeld and other senior staff members
talk about capabilities of future/proposed weapon systems.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

Interesting site. Looks like it's associated with the Annenberg School
of Public Policy at Penn, so I'm assuming they're at least attempting to
be unbiased. Again, I'm not arguing that he wasn't absent.

In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Is there anyone in the race who hasn't acquired a sudden interest in a
topic that also happens to be germane to their electability?

Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Not terribly shrewd, politically, I'll admit. I think it's a clumsy
reaction on his part to the prevailing, current administration
manufactured opinion that the future of western civilization depends on
fixing the intelligence community. This might not earn him any merit
badges, but it's small fry in the grand scheme of political
indiscretions.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything?

I don't know... is Kerry to blame for that?

"I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.

- Al

In article , says...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
(massive snip)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

Has it ever been any other way? We're talking politics here.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

Yeah, the moveon rhetoric that he seems to perpetuate with regard to the
ban is pretty pathetic. But I think where we differ is that you believe
it is particularly low even for a politician, and I would maintain that
such a misrepresentation is "business as usual" for every political
figure on the national scene. You're just sensitized to it because
you're knowledgeable about the issue, and as such, aren't gullible
enough to blur the distinction between bayonet mounts and hip mounted
miniguns like so much of the public evidently is. But it's par for the
course. For example, your reaction to Kerry's take on this issue is
really not much different than what somebody in the know on weapons
technology (e.g., scientists and analysts Los Alamos, Albequerque,
Omaha...) thinks when they hear Rumsfeld and other senior staff members
talk about capabilities of future/proposed weapon systems.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

Interesting site. Looks like it's associated with the Annenberg School
of Public Policy at Penn, so I'm assuming they're at least attempting to
be unbiased. Again, I'm not arguing that he wasn't absent.

In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Is there anyone in the race who hasn't acquired a sudden interest in a
topic that also happens to be germane to their electability?

Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Not terribly shrewd, politically, I'll admit. I think it's a clumsy
reaction on his part to the prevailing, current administration
manufactured opinion that the future of western civilization depends on
fixing the intelligence community. This might not earn him any merit
badges, but it's small fry in the grand scheme of political
indiscretions.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything?

I don't know... is Kerry to blame for that?

"I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.

- Al

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message ...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message ...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF

"Dan White" wrote in message .net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

--

FF

"Dan White" wrote in message .net...


You were actually right to say that Clinton and Kerry were both transparent
and lie.

Something Bush and Clinton have in common is the way they smirk when
they tell certain lies. When they know that they aren't fooling anyone
but their supporters don't care, that is when they both have this
evil smirk on their face.

When they think they hav eto fool people to get away with lying that
is when they seem absolutely sincere.

Both are a marked contrast to Reagan who apperas absolutely sincere all
the time. Probably Reagan was sincere inasmuch as he always believed
what he was saying, even if he knew it was untrue. That's called
'The Method'.

However, you missed the point by calling people "unobservant
idiots." People don't necessarily miss these transparencies because they
are idiots -- many people don't miss them. They just aren't bothered by
them. They want a democrat in office no matter what, and a little waffling
is accepted as "All politicians do that. What's the big deal?" This
practice is not reserved to the dems, but it seems that way in recent years.


More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

--

FF

Fly-by-Night CC wrote in message ...


Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations.

In those days the Republicans were moderates and the Democrats were
liberals (sort of). Well, if you go back to the Eisenhower era the
Democrats were either liberals or Dixiecrats, who were only Democrats
because they were still ****ed at the Repubicans from back in the
Civil War days and because the KKK never made it as a political party.

Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today?

After the downfall of Nixon the Republicans party became conservative
(sort of) and the Democrats became moderates.

(I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I think that GWB is a lot more like Reagan than either to GHB. Consider
how the Reagan administration botched up the deployment to Lebanon.


I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.


I think the big change to the Republican Party came between Nixon and
Reagan. John Anderson (remember him?) tried to keep the Republicans
in the middle but lost out. The Democrats have changed more slowly
in response to the Republican change.

--

FF

Fly-by-Night CC wrote in message ...


Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations.

In those days the Republicans were moderates and the Democrats were
liberals (sort of). Well, if you go back to the Eisenhower era the
Democrats were either liberals or Dixiecrats, who were only Democrats
because they were still ****ed at the Repubicans from back in the
Civil War days and because the KKK never made it as a political party.

Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today?

After the downfall of Nixon the Republicans party became conservative
(sort of) and the Democrats became moderates.

(I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I think that GWB is a lot more like Reagan than either to GHB. Consider
how the Reagan administration botched up the deployment to Lebanon.


I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.


I think the big change to the Republican Party came between Nixon and
Reagan. John Anderson (remember him?) tried to keep the Republicans
in the middle but lost out. The Democrats have changed more slowly
in response to the Republican change.

--

FF

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

We had that choice in 1996. Too bad the honest one was such a boob.




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

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

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate
based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may
never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and
a dishonest candidate.

We had that choice in 1996. Too bad the honest one was such a boob.




--
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.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

I'll agree with that. I have never voted for a Democrat. Not that I
wouldn't, just never saw one that was worth voting for. The republicans are
starting to get unrecognizable though. This president is a serious
disappointment.

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan White" wrote:

Do you really think Kennedy would be a democrat today? I'm
not so sure he would be sitting up there with Al Gore, Tom Daschle and
Michael Moore.

That is really an interesting observation... I believe in some aspects
he would surely be in the Democrat camp - others, not. Honestly, I am
not that familiar with Kennedy's policies and beliefs.

Have you examined how many recent past Republican prez's would approve
of today's admin and party? Eisenhower with his parting words warning of
the military industrial compex? Nixon had is foibles, but he certainly
believed in strengthening foreign relations. Do you think Reagan would
be cheering the decisions of today? (I believe we can surmise that
George H. is not in full agreement on many of the aspects of the way the
Middle East has been handled from his book on his own experiences there.)

I believe the Democrat Party has not changed as much as the Republican
Party has in the last 15 years. I'd hazzard a guess that the Repubs are
far less recognizeable to their predecessors than the Dems are to theirs.

I'll agree with that. I have never voted for a Democrat. Not that I
wouldn't, just never saw one that was worth voting for. The republicans are
starting to get unrecognizable though. This president is a serious
disappointment.

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

"Osama WHO?" asked *.

Simple fact.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF

Simple fact.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

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

war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.

Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?

todd

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Not a war. Try again.


To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.

--

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

war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.

Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?

todd