| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2004 06:11:52 PM |
| Object: |
A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned. This is the
reason why.
Subject: Hanoi John's Military Service
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the
Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for
6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of
Inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also
subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a
commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against
his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during
time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an
honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation
should have ended July 1, 1972.
Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release
from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of
obligated service would be completed in December of this year."
On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve
Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.
Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready
Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per
year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records
been released?
Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve
Center where Kerry drilled?
On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -
Inactive.
On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.
Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready
Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the
War:
1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was
displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating
members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US
Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television,
and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in
direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.
Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S.
Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of
Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting
with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article
104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's
subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our
military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of
our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving
aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person
shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President
and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support the
Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication
Team -Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all
investigators are US Navy SEALs"
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 09:02:32 PM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote:
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.
I call horseshit.
You do have some proof of this wild claim, right? Otherwise, people
might think you and the master chief were just making ***** up.
I got out of my contract early. I wasn't required to attend drills.
'Nuff said.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 09:33:47 PM |
|
|
"Greg Bernath" <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:80nul0p3q0gq73rjb388ahph0vt21vccns@4ax.com...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.
I call horseshit.
You do have some proof of this wild claim, right? Otherwise, people
might think you and the master chief were just making ***** up.
Jeebus, they are *really* getting desperate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJYahtzee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 08:14:35 AM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<fyJ7d.58172$He1.10995@attbi_s01>...
"Greg Bernath" <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:80nul0p3q0gq73rjb388ahph0vt21vccns@4ax.com...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.
I call horseshit.
You do have some proof of this wild claim, right? Otherwise, people
might think you and the master chief were just making ***** up.
Jeebus, they are *really* getting desperate.
The Master Chief has a valid point (even if he was a Navy squid, said
the Army grunt). Every enlistment contract has an 8 year commitment
written into it, a certain amount of which to be spent active and the
rest in Inactive Ready Reserve. Either way, the enlistee is bound by
that contract and by a vow of allegiance and loyalty to the U.S.
As an Officer and, supposedly, a Gentleman, Kerry's vows were more
stringent and global than the common soldier's. For these reasons, his
words and actions after his release from active service constitute
nothing less than treason.
Kerry's actions in protesting the war and his dalliances with the Viet
Cong are well documented. He gave numerous interviews and was involved
in many media-covered protests. We would see more proof from the
main-stream media if most of the main-stream media were not so
left-leaning and anti-Bush.
Check out; http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ for more
info.
For those of you who will equate these people with the Swifties (whom
I DO believe are politically motivated and funded), be advised that
this group, Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry, has been around a few
years.
Since this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, let me add
that Kerry's and the Left's pro-abortion stance amounts to baby
killing. It puts them on the same moral level as the terrorists at the
Beslan school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 08:59:33 AM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2004 06:14:35 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
[snip]
Since this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, let me add
that Kerry's and the Left's pro-abortion stance amounts to baby
killing. It puts them on the same moral level as the terrorists at the
Beslan school.
Let me add that those who claim that "God hates abortion" are just like
those who say that killing people in this world will result in having some
40 virgins in the afterlife. Both the anti-abortionists and the terrorists
that flew into the WTC want to establish a society in which people conform
to what they want, rather than having individuals think for themselves.
It's no sillier than the other claim.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJYahtzee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
04 Oct 2004 03:38:44 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <> wrote in message news:<b6vvl0hkq2qpc08h2v2453bp1g0rnlja5b@4ax.com>...
On 3 Oct 2004 06:14:35 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
[snip]
Since this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, let me add
that Kerry's and the Left's pro-abortion stance amounts to baby
killing. It puts them on the same moral level as the terrorists at the
Beslan school.
Let me add that those who claim that "God hates abortion" are just like
those who say that killing people in this world will result in having some
40 virgins in the afterlife. Both the anti-abortionists and the terrorists
that flew into the WTC want to establish a society in which people conform
to what they want, rather than having individuals think for themselves.
It's no sillier than the other claim.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
When my wife was pregnant with our youngest daughter, because of our
ages and my wife's health, it was thought that there would be problems
with the pregnancy, that the baby would maybe abort spontaneously, be
born damaged or be still-born.
The word 'abortion' came up. We talked about it together and we prayed
for guidance. In the end, we decided to continue the pregnancy and
now, 9 years later, we have a smart, pretty daughter. An abortion then
would have been the same as murdering my daughter. It's a repugnant
thought.
Of course, the pregnancy was monitored closely, with several
amniocentesis and ultrasound's. We pretty much knew the pregnancy was
proceeding normally, but unless the baby died or was going to die, we
were going through with it no matter what.
In a case of rape, yes, abort (I say with misgivings for the aborted
future person). To save the mother from death, yes, abort. If it's
just a case of 'Oops, I'm a little preggers. Lets go to the doctor and
have an abortion', no. That's not freedom of choice, that's
irresponsibility covered by murder.
The person you made has a right to live, let him or her live. Maybe he
or she will grow up to be more responsible than the parents who didn't
take precautions.
Don't get me started on partial-birth abortions. Terrorists do the
same thing with hostages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
04 Oct 2004 03:59:01 PM |
|
|
"DJYahtzee" <GGroups.20.djyatman@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:59e50d2.0410041238.183b7c28@posting.google.com...
The word 'abortion' came up. We talked about it together and we prayed
for guidance. In the end, we decided to continue the pregnancy and
now, 9 years later, we have a smart, pretty daughter. An abortion then
would have been the same as murdering my daughter. It's a repugnant
thought.
I know you aren't glad YOU had a choice. God bless you.
I assume your wife HAS had several other children since then? Otherwise,
it's the same as murdering whatever other children she might have had in the
past nine years. The ones who aren't here aren't here, and the ones who are
are just as precious and irreplaceable as your 9-year-old. God bless you
for not standing in the way of His will. Old? Phooey.
Every woman should bear as many children as God wants her to. No
abstinence, no contraception, no abortion, no surgeries like hysterectomy.
Every woman can have anywhere from eight or nine to twenty babies and
should. Otherwise its the same as murdering them. The world is missing
millions of babies due to misguided couples worried about things like "age"
and "health".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
05 Oct 2004 09:48:57 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2004 13:38:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Don't get me started on partial-birth abortions. Terrorists do the
same thing with hostages.
Really? Inside women? I've not heard of this.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJYahtzee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
06 Oct 2004 07:46:44 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <> wrote in message news:<7h95m0p7i427m0rag0vh7lk9tsfess57uj@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2004 13:38:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Don't get me started on partial-birth abortions. Terrorists do the
same thing with hostages.
Really? Inside women? I've not heard of this.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
Now you're just being silly!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
06 Oct 2004 08:07:54 PM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2004 17:46:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message news:<7h95m0p7i427m0rag0vh7lk9tsfess57uj@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2004 13:38:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Don't get me started on partial-birth abortions. Terrorists do the
same thing with hostages.
Really? Inside women? I've not heard of this.
Now you're just being silly!
It is in keeping with your assertion.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJYahtzee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
07 Oct 2004 02:17:15 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <> wrote in message news:<1g59m051hjadpptd3uoqodhs28t6rrgqvd@4ax.com>...
On 6 Oct 2004 17:46:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Galen Hekhuis < > wrote in message news:<7h95m0p7i427m0rag0vh7lk9tsfess57uj@4ax.com>...
On 4 Oct 2004 13:38:44 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
Don't get me started on partial-birth abortions. Terrorists do the
same thing with hostages.
Really? Inside women? I've not heard of this.
Now you're just being silly!
It is in keeping with your assertion.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is; "The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain, but some
times by *cutting off the parts as they appear until the baby is
nothing more than a pile of gore*.
The first thing to appear for amputation is usually the *HEAD* (if the
baby is lucky, that is), hence the comparison with the hostage-takers.
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
Now, if you have an opposing opinion, great! I look forward to a civil
debate. If, as is too often the case in these forums, you merely want
to pick at single points of MY opinion without having the courage to
air you own for other people to pick at, don't bother, I won't reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
07 Oct 2004 10:24:12 PM |
|
|
DJYahtzee <GGroups.20.djyatman@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
All you have is anti-abortion lies and propaganda.
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is; "The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
No such thing.
There is no such procedure.
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain,
That doesn't happen. It's lies. Propaganda. Fiction.
[...]
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
Yes. Why do you hate so badly that you're so eager to believe such
evil lies?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJYahtzee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
08 Oct 2004 03:18:24 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<ck518s$13k$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
DJYahtzee <GGroups.20.djyatman@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
All you have is anti-abortion lies and propaganda.
That argument can be aired from both sides of the subject. I would
call the liberal's advocacy of infanticide as an extreme form of
propaganda, comparable to the Nazi party's advocacy of 'putting out of
misery' of the physically and developmentally disabled. Before you
call me a liar about that, Google it, it happened.
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is; "The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
No such thing.
There is no such procedure.
Again, Google it, Ray, it's real. It happens. Here's a link or two
from the top of a Google search;
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm
Both of them are anti-partial-birth-abortion (and so, probably fit
into your definition of 'propaganda'), but pro sites seem to be in the
vast minority. I couldn't find even one pro-partial-birth-abortion
site, as a matter of fact. These site's description of the operation
don't tally with mine, are a bit gorier, in fact, but the existence of
the procedure seems not to be in question.
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain,
That doesn't happen. It's lies. Propaganda. Fiction.
Please don't call me a liar, Ray. I do not to lie, but I can be wrong.
If I am convinced I'm wrong by someone's opposing opinion, or by some
non-partisan expert's findings, it might change my world view on ANY
subject.
[...]
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
Yes. Why do you hate so badly that you're so eager to believe such
evil lies?
I don't hate people I don't know, Ray. I just offer my opinions on
subjects I feel strongly about and people either support them, offer
opposing opinions or, like you, pick at single words and sentences to
start an argument. Most of the last group use profanity, as if that
lends some sort of righteous truth to their argument. At least you
haven't done that yet. I respect you for that (I swear too, but feel
it has no place in intelligent debate). Your forbearance is probably
the only reason I am still trying to draw you out.
You DO call me a liar, though, but don't seem willing to share any
knowledge with me as proof! You don't seem to have an opposing opinion
to refute mine. You just keep repeating 'liar, liar'. If an argument
is all you want, you picked the wrong opponent if all you have as
ammunition is mere denial.
That's all beside the point, anyway. My opinion is that abortion that
is not related to mother- or fetal-survival (or a pregnancy by rape),
by any procedure, is an abomination. If the fetus is viable and the
mother healthy, abortion is murder. If you advocate abortion, you are
an accomplice. I doubt ANY opposing opinion will change my world-view
about that.
When protection is so cheap and easy to obtain by either participant,
this should not even be a topic of discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krusty" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
12 Oct 2004 03:54:34 PM |
|
|
(DJYahtzee) wrote in message news:<59e50d2.0410081218.221e3622@posting.google.com>...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<ck518s$13k$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
DJYahtzee < > wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
All you have is anti-abortion lies and propaganda.
That argument can be aired from both sides of the subject. I would
call the liberal's advocacy of infanticide as an extreme form of
propaganda,
except that it doesn't exist. Get your mom to help you understand
some of this, OK?
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is;
One definition? Yeah, the nrlc and religiouswackos.org.
Let's stick with medical definitions, since we're dealing with a
medical procedure. You wouldn't go see a surgeon for communion,
would you?
"The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
No such thing.
There is no such procedure.
Again, Google it, Ray, it's real. It happens. Here's a link or two
from the top of a Google search;
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!
Propaganda.
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain,
That doesn't happen. It's lies. Propaganda. Fiction.
Please don't call me a liar, Ray. I do not to lie, but I can be wrong.
And you are.
If I am convinced I'm wrong by someone's opposing opinion, or by some
non-partisan expert's findings, it might change my world view on ANY
subject.
Right.....
[...]
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
Yes. Why do you hate so badly that you're so eager to believe such
evil lies?
I don't hate people I don't know, Ray. I just offer my opinions on
subjects I feel strongly about
You should understand your subject better next time and perhaps
you won't be ridiculed.
That's all beside the point, anyway. My opinion is that abortion that
is not related to mother- or fetal-survival (or a pregnancy by rape),
by any procedure, is an abomination. If the fetus is viable and the
mother healthy, abortion
does not occur, numbnuts. Birth occurs.
is murder. If you advocate abortion, you are
an accomplice. I doubt ANY opposing opinion will change my world-view
about that.
Yeah, don't let facts get in your way...
When protection is so cheap and easy to obtain by either participant,
this should not even be a topic of discussion.
Contraception fails.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
12 Oct 2004 11:03:59 PM |
|
|
DJYahtzee <GGroups.20.djyatman@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<ck518s$13k$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
DJYahtzee <GGroups.20.djyatman@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
All you have is anti-abortion lies and propaganda.
That argument can be aired from both sides of the subject. I would
call the liberal's advocacy of infanticide as an extreme form of
More of the usual hatred and lies. The fanatics cannot justify their
hate other than by such evil lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
07 Oct 2004 02:26:37 PM |
|
|
On 7 Oct 2004 12:17:15 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is; "The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain, but some
times by *cutting off the parts as they appear until the baby is
nothing more than a pile of gore*.
The first thing to appear for amputation is usually the *HEAD* (if the
baby is lucky, that is), hence the comparison with the hostage-takers.
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
No. It is not clear at all. My father was a physician. My mother was a
nurse. At the time of my retirement, I worked for a teaching hospital at
the University of Virginia. There is no medical term called "partial birth
abortion." I never heard of it until "pro-life" extremists started
mentioning it as a political device.
Now, if you have an opposing opinion, great! I look forward to a civil
debate. If, as is too often the case in these forums, you merely want
to pick at single points of MY opinion without having the courage to
air you own for other people to pick at, don't bother, I won't reply.
Your opinion? Or is it someone else's opinion that you are repeating? I
don't necessarily have an opinion about something that has never existed
and does not now exist. I don't care whether you reply or not. If you
wish to discuss something about medical terminology rather than some
political catch-phrase feel free.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
07 Oct 2004 02:40:06 PM |
|
|
"Galen Hekhuis" <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nk5bm011jlieq2utg44a38qb4d3lv8pq81@4ax.com...
On 7 Oct 2004 12:17:15 -0700,
(DJYahtzee) wrote:
OK, if you insist, I'll explain, as to a child, what I meant by that
comparison as you obviously don't understand what patrial-birth
abortion is.
Partial-birth abortion is a most disgusting and barbaric procedure.
One definition is; "The late-term abortion of a viable fetus,
partially born before extraction".
In practice, the 'doctor' waits until the fetus is almost completely
developed before inducing labor and killing the baby, usually by the
expediency of stabbing the child at the base of the brain, but some
times by *cutting off the parts as they appear until the baby is
nothing more than a pile of gore*.
The first thing to appear for amputation is usually the *HEAD* (if the
baby is lucky, that is), hence the comparison with the hostage-takers.
Is that sufficiently clear to you, or do you have something else to
pick at?
No. It is not clear at all. My father was a physician. My mother was a
nurse. At the time of my retirement, I worked for a teaching hospital at
the University of Virginia. There is no medical term called "partial
birth
abortion." I never heard of it until "pro-life" extremists started
mentioning it as a political device.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9276/9276.html
However, the legal scope of the ban in S. 3 is narrower than that
medical definition, because to fall under the legal ban in S. 3, as
the bill explicitly provides, the baby must be delivered, while still
alive, feet-first outside the mother's body (not only outside the
womb), past the navel. (Or, if anybody did it head first, the entire
head must be delivered outside the mother's body.)
Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary
Typed in Partial-Birth abortion
found
Main Entry: par·tial-birth abortion
Pronunciation: 'pär-sh&l-
Function: noun
: an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which
the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through
the birth canal
Medline
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
Typed in partial-birth abortion
Found
Medical Dictionary
One entry found for partial-birth abortion.
Main Entry: par·tial-birth abortion
Pronunciation: 'pär-sh&l-
Function: noun
: an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which
the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through
the birth canal
You can call it what you want, but it is defined in medical terms. The
fetus is not allowed to come out completely because then it would be
considered a full birth, therefore..."partial" birth is only allowed and the
procedure is done. We don't even kill animals with this kind of cruel
procedure, yet you guys don't care if it is done to a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
07 Oct 2004 02:51:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:40:06 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
You can call it what you want, but it is defined in medical terms. The
fetus is not allowed to come out completely because then it would be
considered a full birth, therefore..."partial" birth is only allowed and the
procedure is done. We don't even kill animals with this kind of cruel
procedure, yet you guys don't care if it is done to a human being.
I didn't say you couldn't find it in dictionaries, I said I had never heard
of it until "pro-life" extremists started to use it for political purposes.
I don't think the term was at all widely used before, say, about 25-30
years ago. If you had said such a thing then I doubt any medical
professional would have understood it at all. I'm sure by now many medical
texts define it (fair and balanced, you know), but I have never, never
heard it used outside a political discussion.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 12:03:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:33:47 GMT, "M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net>
wrote, in part:
Jeebus, they are *really* getting desperate.
I try to look on the bright side.
If Kerry *does* get elected, he won't be a lame duck.
If only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only Kerry could invade Iran.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 11:09:16 AM |
|
|
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote
in message news:<80nul0p3q0gq73rjb388ahph0vt21vccns@4ax.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:
===========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned. This is the
reason why.
Subject: Hanoi John's Military Service
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the
Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for
6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of
Inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also
subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a
commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against
his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during
time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an
honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation
should have ended July 1, 1972.
Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release
from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of
obligated service would be completed in December of this year."
On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve
Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.
Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready
Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per
year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records
been released?
Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve
Center where Kerry drilled?
On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -
Inactive.
On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.
===========================================================================
Greg Bernath wrote:
I call horseshit.
You do have some proof of this wild claim, right? Otherwise, people
might think you and the master chief were just making ***** up.
I got out of my contract early. I wasn't required to attend drills.
'Nuff said.
===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
No, Greg, not "nuff said."
What year did you get out early?
What branch of the service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard)
What was the "legal" term of your enlistment (2 yrs, 3 yrs, 4 yrs, 6 yrs,)
What reason was given for getting rid of you early? Were you given
an honorable discharge -- or were you kicked out for ....
If you got out early with an honorable discharge, why did you NOT have
to serve in the reserves?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 01:13:38 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned. This is the
reason why.
Subject: Hanoi John's Military Service
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the
Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for
6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of
Inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also
subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a
commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against
his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during
time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an
honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation
should have ended July 1, 1972.
Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release
from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of
obligated service would be completed in December of this year."
On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve
Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.
Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready
Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per
year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records
been released?
Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve
Center where Kerry drilled?
On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -
Inactive.
On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.
I call horseshit.
You do have some proof of this wild claim, right? Otherwise, people
might think you and the master chief were just making ***** up.
I got out of my contract early. I wasn't required to attend drills.
'Nuff said.
No, Greg, not "nuff said."
Where did the Chief get his legal training? What qualifies him to
know the terms by which soldiers were released from the service?
And given that the US Navy finds nothing wrong with his service, I'd
say that you and the Chief are rather obviously full of *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 06:27:15 PM |
|
|
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 07:40:12 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
Typical Ray response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 07:56:42 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 08:45:48 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjnio9$jpd$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
How do you know they are lies Ray? Do you know something we don't? Then
perhaps you should think before you speak seeing as how it seems that you
shout "liar" to anything anyone prolife here says. I've seen enough lies by
both sides to make me want to barf. If you continue to want to call
EVERYTHING that prolifers say are lies, why not prove them wrong? You seem
to have a lot of time on your hands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 10:16:52 PM |
|
|
Reasoned Insanity <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
How do you know they are lies Ray?
They didn't come from Kerry.
Do you know something we don't?
Snort. Like that's hard.
Although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have repeatedly
said they have made public their complete military service
records, neither presidential candidate has yet permitted
independent access to original files held in a high-security
vault.
[...]
More than seven months after the White House announced that Bush's
records had been ``fully released,'' files continue to trickle out
almost weekly from the Pentagon and elsewhere. Some of the newly
released records contradict earlier claims by the Bush camp, such
as his assertion in a 1999 campaign autobiography that he gave up
flying ``because the F-102 jet I had trained in was being replaced
by a different fighter.''
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9797602.htm
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "papa jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 10:55:11 AM |
|
|
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
in message news:<cjnqv3$qjo$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Reasoned Insanity <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
============================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to
lie
about Kerry instead.
============================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred
of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
============================================================================
Reasoned Insanity asked:
How do you know they are lies Ray?
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
They didn't come from Kerry.
============================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
You're correct, Ray, they didn't come from Kerry -- so they
are probably true. They actually came from Master Chief
A. L. "Steve" Nash. Let's look at what you were so desperate
to delete.
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with
the
Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract
for
6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year
of
Inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3
years
and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills
per
year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was
also
subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry,
as a
commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements
against
his chain of command or statements against his country, especially
during
time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain
an
honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service
obligation
should have ended July 1, 1972.
Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release
from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of
obligated service would be completed in December of this year."
On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve
Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.
Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready
Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active
duty per
year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these
records
been released?
Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval
Reserve
Center where Kerry drilled?
On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -
Inactive. On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US
Naval Reserve.
Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready
Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against
the
War:
1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was
displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby
giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating
members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US
Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television,
and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in
direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.
Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S.
Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of
Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970
meeting
with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's
Article
104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's
subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests
against our
military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation
of
our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as
"giving
aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person
shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of
President
and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath . to support
the
Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection
or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof."
A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication
Team -Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where
all
investigators are US Navy SEALs"
============================================================================
Reasoned Insanity asked:
Do you know something we don't?
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Snort. Like that's hard.
Although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have repeatedly
said they have made public their complete military service
records, neither presidential candidate has yet permitted
independent access to original files held in a high-security
vault.
[...]
More than seven months after the White House announced that Bush's
records had been ``fully released,'' files continue to trickle out
almost weekly from the Pentagon and elsewhere. Some of the newly
released records contradict earlier claims by the Bush camp, such
as his assertion in a 1999 campaign autobiography that he gave up
flying ``because the F-102 jet I had trained in was being replaced
by a different fighter.''
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9797602.htm
============================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
What about the part you deleted,Ray, which said:
"It is difficult to tell which documents on Kerry's Web
site come from his master personnel file. At least one
document first posted in August -- a recommendation for
a Bronze Star -- appears to have come from his personnel
file, contradicting earlier assertions by his campaign
that everything in the file had already been made public."
However, the article I posted -- which you so quickly deleted --
had nothing to do with the above.
Why are you running away from the Master Chief's allegations
about Kerry's poor military record?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 01:08:14 PM |
|
|
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Reasoned Insanity <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
============================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to
lie
about Kerry instead.
============================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred
of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
How do you know they are lies Ray?
They didn't come from Kerry.
You're correct, Ray, they didn't come from Kerry -- so they
are probably true.
Jackass is such a hate-filled bigot that he'd rather believe lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
03 Oct 2004 05:18:02 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
Reasoned Insanity <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
============================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
============================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote:
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to
lie
about Kerry instead.
============================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred
of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
What "discussion"? All I see are lies about what Kerry supposedly
wants.
How do you know they are lies Ray?
They didn't come from Kerry.
You're correct, Ray, they didn't come from Kerry -- so they
are probably true.
Jackass is such a hate-filled bigot that he'd rather believe lies.
Second verse, same as the first...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sports Pants" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 09:19:36 PM |
|
|
In article <MTH7d.8158$9K5.4199@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
Typical Ray response.
Also, Ray seems to think "neocon" is just a new, hip way of saying the
same thing as "conservative."
--
ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the|"Akhtar didn't come here to
power of his brain plumbed the depths|live the American dream, he
of the mysteries of the Universe. |came here to kill you."
‹‹‹ € ‹‹‹ |
http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow | -- local political ad
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: A Master Chief's Take on Kerry |
02 Oct 2004 09:31:34 PM |
|
|
(Sports Pants) wrote in news:tagutcow-
0210042208200001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com:
In article <MTH7d.8158$9K5.4199@news02.roc.ny>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: A MASTER CHIEF'S (SEAL) TAKE ON KERRY
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Commander-in-cheif
John Kerry does not want his service record questioned.
Typical neocon: They cannot deal with the issues and have to lie
about Kerry instead.
"neocon"... "can't deal with issues"... "lies". Yet not one shred of
anything tangible added to the discussion.
Typical Ray response.
Also, Ray seems to think "neocon" is just a new, hip way of saying the
same thing as "conservative."
It is, genius. What do you think the "con" in neocon stands for? The
terms "wingnut" or "right-wing nutjob" are also synonymous with
"Conservatives" in case you didn't know. And rightfully so. (no pun
intended)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
