| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2004 04:49:34 PM |
| Object: |
US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
Vietnam Veteran (who knew?) John Kerry had an embarrassing moment
when he met some US Marines in a Wendy's while on the campaign trail.
Earlier, their bus convoy pulled over at a Wendy's fast food restaurant
for a photo opportunity lunch that provided an awkward moment.
Spotting a group of US Marines, Kerry, who has made his Vietnam War
service a cornerstone of his campaign, went over to chat. The Marines, who
all turned out to be staunch Bush reporters(sic), were not impressed.
"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our
hands," one of them told reporters afterwards. "I'm 100 percent against"
Kerry, he said. "We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent."
Links to picture and story:
http://tinypic.com/1b5a1
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&u=/afp/20040730/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_democrats_040730232637&printer=1
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001598.html#001598
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Forbis" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 08:05:45 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<410E8EDF.78F2A44C@citlink.net>...
Gary Forbis wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<410DDB8F.DE0BD1B3@citlink.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
He hopes to get other countries behind the effort. You know, first we
get them to stop hating us.
He hopes? That's his solution, to hope something happens?
I was hoping for a bit more detail than that. How does he intend to make
his hope a reality?
It is much easier to make an enemy than to make a friend. No matter
what Kerry does others' hate is beyond his control. One can hope others
will accept Bush to be anomolous once we get rid of him by voting him out
of office. It probably won't be enough. We're going to have to eat some
crow for electing Bush in the first place (even though I don't believe
we did.)
We did, and we shouldn't.
You're reversed order, haven't you?
World leaders can't just thumb their noses at other countries
and poke them in their eyes.
They can, they just shouldn't.
Yes, exactly. "Old Europe" and "New Europe" wasn't helpful rhetoric.
One of the changes Kerry has mentioned is to expand decision making to
include those who would participate.
That doesn't translate into "let the U.N. dictate U.S. foreign policy",
does it?
No. To negotiate isn't the same as to dictate. Actions have reactions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 04:06:46 PM |
|
|
In article <410E8EDF.78F2A44C@citlink.net>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
Gary Forbis wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:<410DDB8F.DE0BD1B3@citlink.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
He hopes to get other countries behind the effort. You know, first we
get them to stop hating us.
He hopes? That's his solution, to hope something happens?
I was hoping for a bit more detail than that. How does he intend to make
his hope a reality?
It is much easier to make an enemy than to make a friend. No matter
what Kerry does others' hate is beyond his control. One can hope others
will accept Bush to be anomolous once we get rid of him by voting him out
of office. It probably won't be enough. We're going to have to eat some
crow for electing Bush in the first place (even though I don't believe
we did.)
We did, and we shouldn't.
World leaders can't just thumb their noses at other countries
and poke them in their eyes.
They can, they just shouldn't.
One of the changes Kerry has mentioned is to expand decision making to
include those who would participate.
That doesn't translate into "let the U.N. dictate U.S. foreign policy",
does it?
It's one thing to proclaim that you're gonna fight terrorism. It's
another to explain HOW. It's one thing to say that you are going to
expand decision making to include those who would participate. it's
quite another to figure out HOW.
The main problem facing the US and Western Europe for the next couple of
generations is HOW to combat terrorism. We simply have no idea. I used
to think that threatening to nuke Mecca or Damascus would do it, or
threaten Muslim states withe economic sanctions if they don't keep their
countries cleaned-out of terrorists. Bush obviously thinks that invading
countries sympathetic to terrorists is the answer. We now know it isn't.
People with no power turn to terrorism, people who see their interests
under siege turn to terrorism. That's the problem. We have to find ways
to address these peoples' concerns. part of it is that they envy the
West and the Western lifestyle and wealth. Part of it that they see
their values being eroded away by Western influence (yes, they are more
than slightly contradictory). Do you know that the Wa Ha Bin (the Muslim
sect to which Bin Laden belongs and which advocates the triumph of 12th
Century fundamentalist Islam) has some of the only schools in
Afghanistan? Many moderate Muslims send their kids to these schools
because they are the only ones around. When we invaded Afghanistan and
put a new government in, did we send advisors and teachers to set up a
network of schools for Afghanis? No we did not. The result is that the
children of these moderate Muslims will come out of the Wa Ha BIn
schools as West/America hating Muslim fundamentalist radicals because
that's what the Mullahs there are teaching them along with their A-B-Cs.
A new generation of terrorists growing up right before our eyes. The Wah
Ha Bin knows that 17 years is not that long to grow a crop of fanatics.
What the West has to do is offer the people of this region an
alternative to Muslim fundamentalism for a start, and then figure out
some way to give these people a piece of the pie with short-changing
ourselves or our children. The answers aren't easy and Mr. Kerry has no
more of an idea what those answers are than did Mr. Bush, or Mr. Clinton
Before him.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Forbis" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
03 Aug 2004 01:22:33 AM |
|
|
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<gmgravesnos-671C5A.14064602082004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
A new generation of terrorists growing up right before our eyes. The Wah
Ha Bin knows that 17 years is not that long to grow a crop of fanatics.
What the West has to do is offer the people of this region an
alternative to Muslim fundamentalism for a start, and then figure out
some way to give these people a piece of the pie with short-changing
ourselves or our children. The answers aren't easy and Mr. Kerry has no
more of an idea what those answers are than did Mr. Bush, or Mr. Clinton
Before him.
"... without short-changing ourselves or our children."
Yes. There are no quick fixes.
The major contribution of Kerry is that when something doesn't work it
makes sense to change it. Bush appears to be unable to make the needed
changes to his policy. He can't be wrong so he keeps doing what he's done
and keeps getting the same results.
Our current politics is designed for quick simplistic solutions. Kerry
is being touted as a waffler. I'd like to believe he's nuanced but don't
know. He says he's open to all views. Maybe he is but it reduces his
electability when the eletorate is looking for sloganeered positions ripe
for TV presentation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 09:52:59 AM |
|
|
In article <5a1238fe.0408020440.677008ca@posting.google.com>, Gary
Forbis <forbisgaryg@msn.com> wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:<410DDB8F.DE0BD1B3@citlink.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
He hopes to get other countries behind the effort. You know, first we
get them to stop hating us.
He hopes? That's his solution, to hope something happens?
I was hoping for a bit more detail than that. How does he intend to make
his hope a reality?
It is much easier to make an enemy than to make a friend. No matter
what Kerry does others' hate is beyond his control. One can hope others
will accept Bush to be anomolous once we get rid of him by voting him out
of office. It probably won't be enough. We're going to have to eat some
crow for electing Bush in the first place (even though I don't believe
we did.) World leaders can't just thumb their noses at other countries
and poke them in their eyes.
One of the changes Kerry has mentioned is to expand decision making to
include those who would participate.
Exactly. Bush could never repair the damage he has done to our country
at this point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Swedish Meatball" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 11:11:21 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <410D833A.D42A6B34@citlink.net>, Frank Dwyer
<fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <D8WdncXeUKWq-5DcRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
One must first define the problems.
Terrorist and the threat they pose to the U.S. and our national
interest.
So what is the solution?
Kerry
What's his solution?
He hopes to get other countries behind the effort. You know, first we
get them to stop hating us.
He hopes? That's his solution, to hope something happens?
I was hoping for a bit more detail than that. How does he intend to make
his hope a reality?
Why, I figured that was obvious to everyone...he'll go someplace close to the
middle-east (like England, or maybe spain), trip over something so that he gets
a little boo-boo on his finger, put himself in for a congressional medal of
honor, then use that to show all those who hate the US what a great and brave
serviceman he is/was and hope everyone will want to follow him into the fray,
where, when he meets the enemy, he'll rip of the medal and throw it on the
ground and whine at them that he wants only peace so that the enemy doesn't
stomp his lily livered ***** into the ground.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 04:28:50 PM |
|
|
In article <L8mdnZry4K0hxJDcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
People who don't want wars, don't go to war -- it is that simple. People
who wants solutions to problems look for solutions.
What is the solution then?
Republicans can't figure out any answer but "war."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 02:32:40 PM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have to add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a democrat -
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 01:40:32 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have to add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a democrat -
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
Aw, *****. You're a freaking idiot.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:16:00 PM |
|
|
In article <010820041232408974%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have to
add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a democrat
-
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
You're a fool.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:28:42 PM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-E74AC8.13173301082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <010820041232408974%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have
to
add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the
war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a
democrat
-
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
You're a fool.
War serves many agendas incluidng, abrogation of rights. It's a nice
cover to operate from.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:21:17 PM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-E74AC8.13173301082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <010820041232408974%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have
to
add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the
war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a
democrat
-
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
You're a fool.
I've seen it first hand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 01:40:55 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-E74AC8.13173301082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <010820041232408974%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <gmgravesnos-3946B9.12153401082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have
to
add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the
war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a
democrat
-
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
The whole point that all of you lefties seem to miss is that nobody
wants war; neither party "loves" war as this idiot Barnes asserts. But
as an extension of policy, wars are often unavoidable, sometimes
necessary, and always regrettable.
Republicans use war as a diversion. They love it for that.
You're a fool.
I've seen it first hand.
So, you admit to being a fool.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diogenes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 02:23:21 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It took a
democrat - Eisenhower - to get us out.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 01:44:57 PM |
|
|
Diogenes wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
It took a
democrat - Eisenhower - to get us out.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
The proof is before us that the liberals aren't all that bright.
:-))
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 01:39:44 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:9sKdnfLLhujLvpDcRVn-sw@bresnan.com...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<gmgravesnos-46E624.21410631072004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <310720042108409179%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <sehix-0BA0CA.20325331072004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
In article <none-B72CFB.16302431072004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,
Warchild <none@none.com> wrote:
So the jar-heads had a negative opinion of Kerry. So What?
So they tend to be representative of a lot more serving military.
Uneducated.
They only get one vote each.
As do we all (unless one resides in Chicago, perhaps.)
Actually, many military votes in Florida were counted twice or more.
Besides which, soon Kerry will be their
'commander-in-chief' and they will be supporting Kerry '100 percent'.
You really ought to take a look at the past forty year.
Note retention rates in particular during the Carter and Clinton
years.
We don't need as many when we aren't at war.
Republicans love war.
That's possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever seen posted on
Usenet.
Lets look at history over the last century:
WWI- 1917 - President: Wilson, Party: Democrat
WWII-1941 - President: Roosevelt, Party: Democrat
Korea- 1950 - President: Truman, Party: Democrat
Vietnam- 1962 -64 - President - Kennedy/Johnson, Party: Democrat
1st Gulf War - 1991 -President - Bush Sr., Party: Republican
Balkan War- ~1996 - President - Clinton, Party: Democrat
Invasion of Iraq - 2003 - President - Bush Jr., Party: Republican
6 Democrat "wars" to 2 Republican "wars". Hmmmm. Which party loves war
again?
Republicans. Does this lying ***** work with others? "Balkin War?"
And Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.
Which was escalated by Democrats and perpetuated. It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
Spin spin spin. Inheriting a war doesn't mean you wanted it.
Oh, Really? Then why didn't Johnson just pull the U.S. out then?
The Balkans wasn't a war. If you want to include the Balkans you have to add
Grenada and Beirut under Reagan.
With the consent of Congress of course.
WWII was foisted on us - we were attacked. Are you suggesting htat FDR
should not have declared war?
No, are you? Please read the thread more closely.
Korea was bi-partisan. Douglas MacArthur - a REPUBLICAN- pushed the war,
pushed for invading china, and pushed for using nukes. It took a democrat -
Eisenhower - to get us out. And he got us out with honor, as opposed to
Nixon, who caved.
Uh, EisenHower was a Republican. Nixon was his VP. You goofed there.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 02:12:21 PM |
|
|
In article <9sKdnfLLhujLvpDcRVn-sw@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<gmgravesnos-46E624.21410631072004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <310720042108409179%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <sehix-0BA0CA.20325331072004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
In article <none-B72CFB.16302431072004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,
Warchild <none@none.com> wrote:
So the jar-heads had a negative opinion of Kerry. So What?
So they tend to be representative of a lot more serving military.
Uneducated.
They only get one vote each.
As do we all (unless one resides in Chicago, perhaps.)
Actually, many military votes in Florida were counted twice or more.
Besides which, soon Kerry will be their
'commander-in-chief' and they will be supporting Kerry '100 percent'.
You really ought to take a look at the past forty year.
Note retention rates in particular during the Carter and Clinton years.
We don't need as many when we aren't at war.
Republicans love war.
That's possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever seen posted on
Usenet.
Lets look at history over the last century:
WWI- 1917 - President: Wilson, Party: Democrat
WWII-1941 - President: Roosevelt, Party: Democrat
Korea- 1950 - President: Truman, Party: Democrat
Vietnam- 1962 -64 - President - Kennedy/Johnson, Party: Democrat
1st Gulf War - 1991 -President - Bush Sr., Party: Republican
Balkan War- ~1996 - President - Clinton, Party: Democrat
Invasion of Iraq - 2003 - President - Bush Jr., Party: Republican
6 Democrat "wars" to 2 Republican "wars". Hmmmm. Which party loves war
again?
Republicans. Does this lying ***** work with others? "Balkin War?"
And Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.
Which was escalated by Democrats and perpetuated. It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
When are you shrieking idiots going to figure out that the problem isn't
party oriented?
That was my point. This hysterical left-wing nincompoop Barns said that
Republicans love war. I pointed out to him that most of the wars in the
20th century started when there was a democrat in the White House and a
good number of them were unavoidable and US involvement would have
occurred no matter which party was in the hot seat. The point being that
NOBODY loves war, but as an extension of policy, sometimes there's no
choice and Republican or Democrat, it has to be done. This dunderhead
missed that point entirely. Perhaps he needed it spelled out for him.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 01:55:33 PM |
|
|
In article <9sKdnfLLhujLvpDcRVn-sw@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
<mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<gmgravesnos-46E624.21410631072004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <310720042108409179%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <sehix-0BA0CA.20325331072004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
In article <none-B72CFB.16302431072004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,
Warchild <none@none.com> wrote:
So the jar-heads had a negative opinion of Kerry. So What?
So they tend to be representative of a lot more serving military.
Uneducated.
They only get one vote each.
As do we all (unless one resides in Chicago, perhaps.)
Actually, many military votes in Florida were counted twice or more.
Besides which, soon Kerry will be their
'commander-in-chief' and they will be supporting Kerry '100 percent'.
You really ought to take a look at the past forty year.
Note retention rates in particular during the Carter and Clinton years.
We don't need as many when we aren't at war.
Republicans love war.
That's possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever seen posted on
Usenet.
Lets look at history over the last century:
WWI- 1917 - President: Wilson, Party: Democrat
WWII-1941 - President: Roosevelt, Party: Democrat
Korea- 1950 - President: Truman, Party: Democrat
Vietnam- 1962 -64 - President - Kennedy/Johnson, Party: Democrat
1st Gulf War - 1991 -President - Bush Sr., Party: Republican
Balkan War- ~1996 - President - Clinton, Party: Democrat
Invasion of Iraq - 2003 - President - Bush Jr., Party: Republican
6 Democrat "wars" to 2 Republican "wars". Hmmmm. Which party loves war
again?
Republicans. Does this lying ***** work with others? "Balkin War?"
And Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.
Which was escalated by Democrats and perpetuated.
And then escalated again by Nixon.
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
When are you shrieking idiots going to figure out that the problem isn't
party oriented?
Really? So tell us, wise one, what is the real "problem?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 01:56:11 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
news:010820041155335374%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com:
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 02:41:35 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam and
instead escalated the conflict.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:04:26 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cejh1f$58s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam
And he did so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:20:42 PM |
|
|
In article <e792b0adf2a6773006cd8c6ef208ac0e@news.bubbanews.com>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cejh1f$58s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam
And he did so.
Because of people like John Kerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 03:26:35 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
news:010820041320427577%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com:
In article <e792b0adf2a6773006cd8c6ef208ac0e@news.bubbanews.com>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cejh1f$58s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam
And he did so.
Because of people like John Kerry.
People like John Kerry are the reason why we lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "forge" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 11:31:42 PM |
|
|
In article <73df669f2471e682cc1bdb6e2ed301c2@news.bubbanews.com>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam
And he did so.
Because of people like John Kerry.
People like John Kerry are the reason why we lost.
You moron, we "lost" that one because we never had any clear plan for
"winning." Holding a meridian is not a war and doesn't make for a
clear-cut victory. Or doesn't that occur to you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
03 Aug 2004 01:12:50 AM |
|
|
forge wrote:
In article <73df669f2471e682cc1bdb6e2ed301c2@news.bubbanews.com>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam
And he did so.
Because of people like John Kerry.
People like John Kerry are the reason why we lost.
You moron, we "lost" that one because we never had any clear plan for
"winning." Holding a meridian is not a war and doesn't make for a
clear-cut victory. Or doesn't that occur to you?
I know one thing for certain... it took the traffic analysts in VietNam
about two weeks to figure out what was going on... profiteering by the
major corporations. They had no desire to win, just make money. They
had their bombing plans pretty much limited to the Hoh Chi Min trail and
they were forbidden to drop them elsewhere. In the meantime, charlie
was going around that trail.
After that they, the traffic analysts, pretty much treated the whole
thing as a joke and with contempt.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 01:45:31 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam and
instead escalated the conflict.
Idiot. He did get us out.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
02 Aug 2004 11:51:03 PM |
|
|
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam and
instead escalated the conflict.
Idiot. He did get us out.
Because of people like Kerry, who spoke out against a corrupt and
immoral war than killed over 5,000,000 people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
03 Aug 2004 01:14:24 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Because it was Nixon who promised to get the US out of Vietnam and
instead escalated the conflict.
Idiot. He did get us out.
Because of people like Kerry, who spoke out against a corrupt and
immoral war than killed over 5,000,000 people.
And they had to also put a lot of pressure on the major corporations to
do it as well. I remember that part. After the pressure was put on the
corps. it was easy for Nixon to bail out.
--
---------------------------------
My other computer is a VAX.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 02:26:20 PM |
|
|
In article <7cc45e2ff4f578c2ee042100ada386ad@news.bubbanews.com>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
news:010820041155335374%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com:
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
The war was botched by Democrats.
Great support from the six year old.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Graves" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:22:48 PM |
|
|
In article <010820041155335374%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <9sKdnfLLhujLvpDcRVn-sw@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
<mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<gmgravesnos-46E624.21410631072004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <310720042108409179%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <sehix-0BA0CA.20325331072004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
In article <none-B72CFB.16302431072004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,
Warchild <none@none.com> wrote:
So the jar-heads had a negative opinion of Kerry. So What?
So they tend to be representative of a lot more serving military.
Uneducated.
They only get one vote each.
As do we all (unless one resides in Chicago, perhaps.)
Actually, many military votes in Florida were counted twice or more.
Besides which, soon Kerry will be their
'commander-in-chief' and they will be supporting Kerry '100 percent'.
You really ought to take a look at the past forty year.
Note retention rates in particular during the Carter and Clinton years.
We don't need as many when we aren't at war.
Republicans love war.
That's possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever seen posted on
Usenet.
Lets look at history over the last century:
WWI- 1917 - President: Wilson, Party: Democrat
WWII-1941 - President: Roosevelt, Party: Democrat
Korea- 1950 - President: Truman, Party: Democrat
Vietnam- 1962 -64 - President - Kennedy/Johnson, Party: Democrat
1st Gulf War - 1991 -President - Bush Sr., Party: Republican
Balkan War- ~1996 - President - Clinton, Party: Democrat
Invasion of Iraq - 2003 - President - Bush Jr., Party: Republican
6 Democrat "wars" to 2 Republican "wars". Hmmmm. Which party loves war
again?
Republicans. Does this lying ***** work with others? "Balkin War?"
And Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.
Which was escalated by Democrats and perpetuated.
And then escalated again by Nixon.
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
When are you shrieking idiots going to figure out that the problem isn't
party oriented?
Really? So tell us, wise one, what is the real "problem?"
The problem is that war is an extension of policy, and neither party can
avoid using it. But you seem too stupid to grasp that.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: US Marines Give Kerry the Cold Shoulder |
01 Aug 2004 03:41:41 PM |
|
|
In article <gmgravesnos-3D07C7.13242201082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <010820041155335374%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <9sKdnfLLhujLvpDcRVn-sw@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
<mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<gmgravesnos-46E624.21410631072004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
In article <310720042108409179%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <sehix-0BA0CA.20325331072004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
In article <none-B72CFB.16302431072004@news5.west.earthlink.net>,
Warchild <none@none.com> wrote:
So the jar-heads had a negative opinion of Kerry. So What?
So they tend to be representative of a lot more serving military.
Uneducated.
They only get one vote each.
As do we all (unless one resides in Chicago, perhaps.)
Actually, many military votes in Florida were counted twice or more.
Besides which, soon Kerry will be their
'commander-in-chief' and they will be supporting Kerry '100
percent'.
You really ought to take a look at the past forty year.
Note retention rates in particular during the Carter and Clinton
years.
We don't need as many when we aren't at war.
Republicans love war.
That's possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever seen posted on
Usenet.
Lets look at history over the last century:
WWI- 1917 - President: Wilson, Party: Democrat
WWII-1941 - President: Roosevelt, Party: Democrat
Korea- 1950 - President: Truman, Party: Democrat
Vietnam- 1962 -64 - President - Kennedy/Johnson, Party: Democrat
1st Gulf War - 1991 -President - Bush Sr., Party: Republican
Balkan War- ~1996 - President - Clinton, Party: Democrat
Invasion of Iraq - 2003 - President - Bush Jr., Party: Republican
6 Democrat "wars" to 2 Republican "wars". Hmmmm. Which party loves war
again?
Republicans. Does this lying ***** work with others? "Balkin War?"
And Vietnam began under Eisenhower, a Republican.
Which was escalated by Democrats and perpetuated.
And then escalated again by Nixon.
It took a Republican
to extricate the U.S. out of VietNam.
It took John Kerry and others who spoke out and pressured the
REPUBLICANS.
When are you shrieking idiots going to figure out that the problem isn't
party oriented?
Really? So tell us, wise one, what is the real "problem?"
The problem is that war is an extension of policy, and neither party can
avoid using it. But you seem too stupid to grasp that.
Administrations aren't the most colourful crayons in the box. Who woulda
thunk it that if you train and fund terrorists that they could turn on
you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
