| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2004 11:58:37 PM |
| Object: |
Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/barnes60minutes/index_np.html
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -977 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
02 Sep 2004 12:36:13 AM |
|
|
*How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and
Southerners?
Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking liberal with a huge knife
comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you
are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before the liberal reaches
you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal's Stupid Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer
the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away?
What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing
the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the
law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate
safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what
kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it
possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want
to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab
his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing
me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to
raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier,
healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so
confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and
try to come to a consensus.
Conservative Answer: BANG!
Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click...(sounds of reloading). Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like
he's still moving...What do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it, too." BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were
those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Senor Chico" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
02 Sep 2004 01:48:56 AM |
|
|
"Hanoi Jane Fonda" <hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message
news:59cdj0dlkdc9ao19rojdvh60avudss85kb@4ax.com...
*How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and
Southerners?
Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking liberal with a huge knife
comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you
are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before the liberal reaches
you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal's Stupid Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer
the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away?
What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing
the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the
law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate
safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what
kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it
possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want
to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab
his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing
me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to
raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier,
healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so
confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and
try to come to a consensus.
Conservative Answer: BANG!
Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click...(sounds of reloading). Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like
he's still moving...What do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it, too." BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were
those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 01:42:11 PM |
|
|
Hanoi Jane Fonda <hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:<59cdj0dlkdc9ao19rojdvh60avudss85kb@4ax.com>...
*How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and
Southerners?
Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking liberal with a huge knife
comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges.
Liberals, whom I believe you folks like to refer to as girly men, are
not known for wandering around with knives, screaming obscenities, or
charging people.
The second question, of course, is how often you expect this to
happen, and what the price would be for your success, or your failure.
Now, I've been around well over half a century, and I don't believe
I've ever had, or witness, or even heard about, someone attacking
someone else they didn't know with a knife. I would guess your level
of danger would be somewhat lower than crossing a street with the
light.
So the question, as posed, is paranoid, designed only to illicit a
fear. Which would make it a Republican strategy.
Now let's tally up the costs. If you're right, you'll probably get
off with only several hundred thousand in legal fees. If you're in
any way wrong, you're going to pay the living expenses of this guy's
family for the rest of your life, and if you're really wrong, you're
going to jail for a good period of time, and your life will otherwise
be ended.
The third question is, where are the police while this guy supposedly
wanders about with a knife?
You are carrying a Glock .40, and you
are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before the liberal reaches
you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal's Stupid Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer
the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away?
What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing
the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the
law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate
safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what
kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it
possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want
to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab
his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing
me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to
raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier,
healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so
confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and
try to come to a consensus.
Conservative Answer: BANG!
Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click...(sounds of reloading). Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like
he's still moving...What do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it, too." BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were
those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
02 Sep 2004 09:57:24 AM |
|
|
Hanoi Jane Fonda <hanoi_jane@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:<59cdj0dlkdc9ao19rojdvh60avudss85kb@4ax.com>...
*How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and
Southerners?
Pose the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking liberal with a huge knife
comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you
are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before the liberal reaches
you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal's Stupid Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer
the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away?
What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing
the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the
law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate
safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what
kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it
possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want
to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab
his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing
me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to
raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier,
healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so
confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and
try to come to a consensus.
Conservative Answer: BANG!
Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click...(sounds of reloading). Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like
he's still moving...What do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it, too." BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were
those the Winchester Silver Tips?"
I prefer a Colt 1911A, but only for nostalgic reasons - it's the gun
my daddy taught me with. He was all-army US champion for some years.
That was competitive traditional target shooting - sort of stylized,
solo dueling. I prefer the modern quick kill techniques. In your
scenario, that repsonse would be assuming I was carrying and had time
to reach for it. Otherwise, I'd have to use my hands. <shrug> Pretty
much the same result.
BTW, I'm voting for Kerry.
The last candidate I voted for was a Viet Nam vet, and the next one I
vote for will be, too. While I didn't approve of the war anymore than
Kerry did after he had time to think about it, people who have seen
combat are less likely to start fights for stupid reasons, and they
have a better grasp of how things can go wrong when you do fight.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relaxification" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
02 Sep 2004 03:59:06 PM |
|
|
I prefer a Colt 1911A, but only for nostalgic reasons - it's the gun
my daddy taught me with. He was all-army US champion for some years.
That was competitive traditional target shooting - sort of stylized,
solo dueling. I prefer the modern quick kill techniques. In your
scenario, that repsonse would be assuming I was carrying and had time
to reach for it. Otherwise, I'd have to use my hands. <shrug> Pretty
much the same result.
BTW, I'm voting for Kerry.
The last candidate I voted for was a Viet Nam vet, and the next one I
vote for will be, too. While I didn't approve of the war anymore than
Kerry did after he had time to think about it, people who have seen
combat are less likely to start fights for stupid reasons, and they
have a better grasp of how things can go wrong when you do fight.
Kermit
Excellent response. I am essentially a liberal. (I say essentially
because I'm certainly not a conservative.) I would shoot the ***** out
of the guy. To assume a liberal wouldn't is to underestimate one's
enemy.
Wait a sec. Isn't that what Bush did in Iraq?
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
02 Sep 2004 04:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409021259.51b3c093@posting.google.com...
I prefer a Colt 1911A, but only for nostalgic reasons - it's the gun
my daddy taught me with. He was all-army US champion for some years.
That was competitive traditional target shooting - sort of stylized,
solo dueling. I prefer the modern quick kill techniques. In your
scenario, that repsonse would be assuming I was carrying and had time
to reach for it. Otherwise, I'd have to use my hands. <shrug> Pretty
much the same result.
BTW, I'm voting for Kerry.
The last candidate I voted for was a Viet Nam vet, and the next one I
vote for will be, too. While I didn't approve of the war anymore than
Kerry did after he had time to think about it, people who have seen
combat are less likely to start fights for stupid reasons, and they
have a better grasp of how things can go wrong when you do fight.
Kermit
Excellent response. I am essentially a liberal. (I say essentially
because I'm certainly not a conservative.) I would shoot the ***** out
of the guy. To assume a liberal wouldn't is to underestimate one's
enemy.
Wait a sec. Isn't that what Bush did in Iraq?
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of voting on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich" tax cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also said he
will provide national health care to every American who can't afford it and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer: He can't
without raising taxes significantly. Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's going to arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote down every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years? Why did he vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq? The list goes on and on.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 03:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<IDMZc.683$HY1.89@trnddc02>...
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409021259.51b3c093@posting.google.com...
I prefer a Colt 1911A, but only for nostalgic reasons - it's the gun
my daddy taught me with. He was all-army US champion for some years.
That was competitive traditional target shooting - sort of stylized,
solo dueling. I prefer the modern quick kill techniques. In your
scenario, that repsonse would be assuming I was carrying and had time
to reach for it. Otherwise, I'd have to use my hands. <shrug> Pretty
much the same result.
BTW, I'm voting for Kerry.
The last candidate I voted for was a Viet Nam vet, and the next one I
vote for will be, too. While I didn't approve of the war anymore than
Kerry did after he had time to think about it, people who have seen
combat are less likely to start fights for stupid reasons, and they
have a better grasp of how things can go wrong when you do fight.
Kermit
Excellent response. I am essentially a liberal. (I say essentially
because I'm certainly not a conservative.) I would shoot the ***** out
of the guy. To assume a liberal wouldn't is to underestimate one's
enemy.
Wait a sec. Isn't that what Bush did in Iraq?
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of voting on
who looks the best.
You *do know he's kidding, right?
For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich" tax cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also said he
will provide national health care to every American who can't afford it and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer: He can't
without raising taxes significantly.
<shrug> Mr. Bush says he can pay for it *without raising taxes. Seems
like it would be easier to pay as you go than borrow and spend like
there's no tomorrow.
Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's going to arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote down every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years? Why did he vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq? The list goes on and on.
Bush sent the troops out undermanned and poorly equiped. Was that
because of Kerry's vote?
Those lists always go on and on, but never with the context needed to
evaluate them.
"Kerry voted against 13 major weapons systems" Well, yes he did. Does
Rush tell you that 10 of them were on one bill in 1991, and Cheney,
G.H.W.Bush , and Powell asked that congress vote against it?
We're told that Kerry wanted to gut the intelligence budget. Yes, he
did, in 1996. Does Rush tell you that the Republican congress then
voted for a *larger budget reduction than Kerry supported?
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
See: this is polite and funny (even though it's wrong).
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
This is just crude. See the difference?
The social conservatives are fond of complaining about the fall of
American civilization, but then they take the lessons of mean and
vulgar speech and use it with enthusiasm.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Relaxification" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 03:53:33 AM |
|
|
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of voting on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich" tax cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also said he
will provide national health care to every American who can't afford it and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer: He can't
without raising taxes significantly. Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's going to arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote down every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years? Why did he vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq? The list goes on and on.
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 05:51:04 AM |
|
|
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409030053.3c9bfb08@posting.google.com...
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of voting
on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich" tax
cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also said
he
will provide national health care to every American who can't afford it
and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to
give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer: He
can't
without raising taxes significantly. Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's going to
arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote down
every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years? Why did he
vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq? The list goes on and on.
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
No. I don't believe in God. If you said that I would say people hearing
voices in their head need to seek help.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 08:49:15 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s0YZc.1350$HY1.7@trnddc02...
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:dae65ca5.0409030053.3c9bfb08@posting.google.com...
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least
he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand
instead of voting
on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to
repeal the "rich" tax
cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds
good. He also said
he
will provide national health care to every American who
can't afford it
and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion
dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is
he going to
give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion
dollars? Answer: He
can't
without raising taxes significantly.
Exactly why you fear paying the bills is a puzzle to me. And
these are our bills. We'll pay them one way or another, or
our descendants will. An ever-growing body of economically
marginalized people can only weaken the nation and make us
more vulnerable to all kinds of threats. I find it extremely
puzzling that so many people who work for a living believe Mr.
Bush's social agenda is desirable.
Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He
says he's going to
arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then
did he vote down
every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19
years?
I suspect the implied accusation is less than entirely true,
and I think if you check you'll find his votes were matched by
most of those who are criticizing now. In fact, at least some
of those now hated votes were in cooperation with the wishes
of the first Mr. Bush.
Why did he vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack
jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq?
I understand he voted for it when it was to be paid for with a
partial roll-back of the irresponsible tax cut, and that was,
of course, defeated by Republicans. When it was to be funded
by deficit spending, he opposed it. Here are a couple of
questions: why wasn't the equipment provided when it was paid
for, and why is the administration cutting medical services to
veterans? Are they trying to have it both ways? Well,
obviously. That's politics!
The list goes on and on.
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God
telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
No. I don't believe in God. If you said that I would say
people hearing
voices in their head need to seek help.
And yet you're so fearful of properly paying the bills, you'll
support one who actually claims to hear those voices?
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're
ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
Even at his most vicious, Mr. Reagan used humor and *civility.
I often disagreed with him, but I can't remember that he ever
suggested it was my "patriotic" duty to support him.
It is my opinion, though, that Mr. Reagan enabled the
reactionaries in our society, almost certainly unintentionally
on his part. We still had unrepentant racists, sexists,
preditory capitalists, and other undesirables that fail to
come to mind at the moment, but they knew their views and
practices weren't acceptable to the majority and they were on
the defensive when they were exposed. Racism and sexism are
cosmetically different today but still common, and predatory
capitalism is back with a vengance. Trickle-down was
discredited, but the present idea that all regulations and
legal liabilities should be removed from industry,
stockholders, etc. will ultimately be even worse for the
country if it isn't curtailed. While I fail to be convinced
by the doctrine that the market will regulate itself, even if
it would eventually, can we really accept the damage that is
done to so many during the process? What about the thousands
who lost everything in the bankruptcies of Enron and other
unregulated or poorly regulated "industries" just recently.
I put industry in quotes because all the information I've seen
or heard indicates Enron produced nothing; rather it sought
ways to profit from what others produced and, as we know now,
actually reduced value in at least some cases.
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling
Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they
would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other
highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly
cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Exactly where would this be considered a source worth
considering?
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 02:06:11 PM |
|
|
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in message
news:ay_Zc.145$KQ5.93@fe25.usenetserver.com...
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s0YZc.1350$HY1.7@trnddc02...
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:dae65ca5.0409030053.3c9bfb08@posting.google.com...
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't
have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of
voting on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich"
tax cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also
said he
will provide national health care to every American who can't
afford it and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He
also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to
give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer:
He can't
without raising taxes significantly.
Exactly why you fear paying the bills is a puzzle to me. And
these are our bills. We'll pay them one way or another, or
our descendants will. An ever-growing body of economically
marginalized people can only weaken the nation and make us
more vulnerable to all kinds of threats. I find it extremely
puzzling that so many people who work for a living believe Mr.
Bush's social agenda is desirable.
I think I pay enough taxes as it is. I want to keep the money I earn, not
hand it over to the government. But hey, if YOU like giving away the money
you make, go right ahead. We believe Bush's agenda is desireable because
like you said, we work for a living. Those of us who work like to keep as
much of the money we make as possible. Those that are lying around waiting
for a liberal to get elected so they can redistribute the wealth around are
the ones I see making the most noise.
Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's
going to arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote
down every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years?
I suspect the implied accusation is less than entirely true,
and I think if you check you'll find his votes were matched by
most of those who are criticizing now. In fact, at least some
of those now hated votes were in cooperation with the wishes
of the first Mr. Bush.
If that were the case, none of those weapon systems would be in our arsenal
right now. Which votes on raising taxes and nixing military budgets would
those be that Bush wanted?
Why did he vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and
armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq?
I understand he voted for it when it was to be paid for with a
partial roll-back of the irresponsible tax cut, and that was,
of course, defeated by Republicans. When it was to be funded
by deficit spending, he opposed it. Here are a couple of
questions: why wasn't the equipment provided when it was paid
for, and why is the administration cutting medical services to
veterans? Are they trying to have it both ways? Well,
obviously. That's politics!
That irresponsible tax cut is what's stimulating the economy out of a
recession. Tax cuts have always helped turn around recessions. It's worked
at the state level and at the federal level time and again. Kerry knows it
but he wants bigger government and the only way to get that is to raise
taxes. To be sure our regular armed forces are equipped but the money was
needed to outfit the reservists who are the ones there now being shot and
blown up.
As for cutting medical services for veterans, that simply isn't true. In
fact, veteran funding has increased more under Bush than it did under
Clinton. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144
The list goes on and on.
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
No. I don't believe in God. If you said that I would say people hearing
voices in their head need to seek help.
And yet you're so fearful of properly paying the bills, you'll
support one who actually claims to hear those voices?
No one has claimed to hear these voices. I pay my taxes every year. In fact,
since I'm self employed, 48% of every dollar I make goes to the government.
I think that's more then enough.
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its
just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
Even at his most vicious, Mr. Reagan used humor and *civility.
I often disagreed with him, but I can't remember that he ever
suggested it was my "patriotic" duty to support him.
No one said it was.
It is my opinion, though, that Mr. Reagan enabled the
reactionaries in our society, almost certainly unintentionally
on his part. We still had unrepentant racists, sexists,
preditory capitalists, and other undesirables that fail to
come to mind at the moment, but they knew their views and
practices weren't acceptable to the majority and they were on
the defensive when they were exposed. Racism and sexism are
cosmetically different today but still common, and predatory
capitalism is back with a vengance. Trickle-down was
discredited, but the present idea that all regulations and
legal liabilities should be removed from industry,
stockholders, etc. will ultimately be even worse for the
country if it isn't curtailed. While I fail to be convinced
by the doctrine that the market will regulate itself, even if
it would eventually, can we really accept the damage that is
done to so many during the process? What about the thousands
who lost everything in the bankruptcies of Enron and other
unregulated or poorly regulated "industries" just recently.
I put industry in quotes because all the information I've seen
or heard indicates Enron produced nothing; rather it sought
ways to profit from what others produced and, as we know now,
actually reduced value in at least some cases.
You can't judge what happened from one or two companies and make a blanket
statement that all businesses are like that. Government should stay out of
regulating non-monopoly businesses. Businesses will learn from their
mistakes. When the quality of their goods or services take a nose dive
because of them outsourcing overseas, then the jobs will come back. People
will stop buying their product or service. It's like calling Dell for a
problem and getting someone in India. All you have to do is tell the
operator you can't understand them and to give you an English speaking rep.
Then you write to the company and complain. But it's far easier to say the
government should regulate private businesses and let it go at that. What
sort of regulation is next?
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Exactly where would this be considered a source worth
considering?
When you read 99.9% of the posts made here by liberals. Invariably they call
a conservative dumb or some connotation of the word. I'm sure you know
exactly what I mean.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Relaxification" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 10:41:41 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<s0YZc.1350$HY1.7@trnddc02>...
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409030053.3c9bfb08@posting.google.com...
Kerry it is, then. He may be odd looking but at least he doesn't have
little pig-eyes.
Maybe you should find out where the candidates stand instead of voting
on
who looks the best. For example, Kerry proposes to repeal the "rich" tax
cut
and give a big tax break to the middle class. Sounds good. He also said
he
will provide national health care to every American who can't afford it
and
create 20 million new jobs. Estimated cost: $3 trillion dollars. He also
says he'll cut the deficit in half in four years. How is he going to
give
the middle class a tax break and raise $3 trillion dollars? Answer: He
can't
without raising taxes significantly. Which by the way he's voted yes on
every single tax hike that's come across his desk. He says he's going to
arm
our soldiers and give them better equipment. Why then did he vote down
every
single military pay raise and budget for the last 19 years? Why did he
vote
down the 87 billion that would have provided flack jackets and armored
vehicles to our troops in Iraq? The list goes on and on.
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
No. I don't believe in God. If you said that I would say people hearing
voices in their head need to seek help.
I've read your response several times and don't understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: *How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners? |
03 Sep 2004 02:10:21 PM |
|
|
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409030741.20766c35@posting.google.com...
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<s0YZc.1350$HY1.7@trnddc02>...
"Relaxification" <relaxification@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae65ca5.0409030053.3c9bfb08@posting.google.com...
If I told you I had recieved personal messages from God telling me his
pig-eyes were definitely creepy would it change your mind?
No. I don't believe in God. If you said that I would say people hearing
voices in their head need to seek help.
I've read your response several times and don't understand it.
What's not to understand? You asked if God told you personally would I
believe you and I said no, if someone was hearing voices in their head they
should seek help.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: *Liberals claim that they are actually TURDS! |
02 Sep 2004 12:40:29 AM |
|
|
*Liberals claim that they are actually TURDS!
NEWSWEEK reports that liberals, appearing before a right-to-life rally
in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated: “We must always remember that
all liberals begin life as a feces. A feces is a living being also
known as a liberal, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights
and government welfare programs of any other piece of liberal feces.”
Liberals repeated this error at least a dozen times, before realizing
that they had used the word “feces” when they meant to say “turd.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pvt. Joker" |
|
| Title: Re: *Neocon bootlickers are actually TURDS! |
02 Sep 2004 03:38:00 AM |
|
|
"Neocon Jane Fondles Rove's *****" <IEatTubeSteak@MySkull'sFullaSPAM.C0M>
wrote in message news:jhcdj0d60hr3teb9otj2d6u2p69hi0tmk4@4ax.com...
*Neocons are actually TURDS!
NEWSWEEK reports that neocons, appearing before a corporate geek rally
in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated: "We must always remember that
all neocons begin life as a feces. A feces is a living being also
known as a neocon, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights
and government welfare programs of any other piece of neocon *****."
Neocons repeated this error at least a dozen times, before realizing
that they had used the word "feces" when they meant to say "turd."
You sure got a fixation with fecal matter, don't you *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: Kerry liberal quotient |
02 Sep 2004 04:00:15 AM |
|
|
Kerry liberal quotient
Yup, Kerry is the most liberal. Why does he try and pass himself
off as "moderate"? Isn't he proud of his accomplishments?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040301-085725-5267r
National Journal, the non-ideological, authoritative weekly magazine
that covers Washington politics and policy, issued its congressional
vote ratings for 2003 last week. Not surprisingly, Massachusetts Sen.
John Kerry, who is increasingly looking like a cinch to be his party's
presidential nominee, found himself in familiar territory. Once again,
Mr. Kerry has staked out the far-left fringe on the National Journal's
liberal-conservative continuum.
On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite
liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed
proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer
(91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's
liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It
was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry
compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its
liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.
Each year, National Journal selects dozens of key votes (62 for the
Senate in 2003) and divides them among three categories of issues:
economic, social and foreign policy. On economic votes, Mr. Kerry tied
with six other Democrats to claim the highest ranking of 93. It was
the third year in a row that Mr. Kerry established himself among the
select, small group whose members were cumulatively ranked as the most
liberal in the Senate on economic matters.
Because Mr. Kerry spent much of last year campaigning for the
Democratic presidential nomination, he did not cast enough official
votes to obtain a specific ranking in the social and foreign-policy
categories. (Suffice to say that the votes that he did cast were
sufficiently to the left that his composite score still placed him at
the top of the liberal scale.) Moreover, in 16 of the social and
foreign-policy votes that Mr. Kerry missed, he announced his position
on the issue. And according to tabulations by CQ Weekly (another
non-ideological journal covering Congress), Mr. Kerry's publicly
announced position was identical to the vote cast by Mr. Kennedy on 14
of those occasions, or 88 percent of the time. It should also be noted
that during 10 years of Mr. Kerry's Senate career, including 2002, not
a single senator was ranked more liberal than Mr. Kerry on
social-issue votes. In addition, regarding CQ's separate survey of
"key votes" in 2003 on which Mr. Kerry either cast a vote or publicly
announced his position, it was identical to Mr. Kennedy's vote 100
percent of the time.
When questioned at Sunday's Democratic debate in New York City about
reclaiming his distinction as the most liberal U.S. senator in 2003,
Mr. Kerry called it "a laughable characterization" and "the most
ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." He asserted that "labels
are so silly in American politics." But Mr. Kerry often indulges in
ascribing "right-wing" or "far-right" labels to President Bush. For
example, on what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th
birthday, Mr. Kerry accused the president of threatening civil rights
on behalf of right-wing ideologues." Apparently, Mr. Kerry doesn't
have anything against labels. He just doesn't like the "liberal"
label.
In fact, the recent analyses of 2003 votes by National Journal and CQ
Weekly clearly confirm what Mr. Kerry has spent two decades doing in
the Senate -- and that is establishing himself as one of that body's
most liberal members. If Mr. Kerry doesn't like the votes selected by
National Journal and CQ Weekly, perhaps he should look at the vote
ratings compiled by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the
premier, self-styled liberal organization in America. Based on the 20
votes each year that it considers to be the most important to
liberals, ADA assigns a "liberal quotient" to each member of Congress.
Mr. Kerry's career "liberal quotient" is a solid 92 percent. That
ranks him higher than Mr. Kennedy (90 percent), establishing Mr. Kerry
irrefutably as the "liberal senator from Massachusetts." No wonder Mr.
Kerry is running as fast as he can from the liberal record he has
spent 20 years compiling. It is a record this page will be
meticulously reviewing as the campaign moves forward.
--------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cyber" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
02 Sep 2004 01:35:03 PM |
|
|
In article <d69dj018v0c5vujdpoe1jml0pj28dlnpbf@4ax.com>,
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/barnes60minutes/index_np.html
and.
Ben Barnes to break silence on "60 Minutes"
The Republican campaign gets ready for shock waves, as the former Texas
official who says he pulled strings to get George W. Bush into the Air
National Guard finally goes public.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 1, 2004 | The campaign battle over Vietnam War records is still
raging, but President Bush may soon be the one answering uncomfortable
questions about his past service. Ben Barnes, the former lieutenant
governor
of Texas, will finally break his silence and talk to the press about what
role he played in helping Bush get a coveted slot in the Texas Air
National
Guard in 1968. Sources say Barnes has already sat down for a "60 Minutes"
interview that will air next week. A "60 Minutes" spokesperson declined
to
comment, saying the program does not discuss reports that are in
progress.
Barnes made headlines last week when his videotaped comments that he was
"very ashamed" of getting Bush into the National Guard began circulating
on
the Web. He said the remorse was prompted by a recent visit to the
Vietnam
War Memorial in Washington, where he saw the names of thousands of other
young men who did not enjoy the connections of the Bush family. Barnes
made
his comments in May and the video was posted on a pro-Kerry Web site in
June, but word of it only began to spread widely last Friday.
Over the weekend, the national press, which for weeks has been amplifying
factually challenged allegations against John Kerry by the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, gave Barnes' stunning remarks only cursory coverage.
The
Washington Post, for instance, ran a brief wire story on Saturday, the
same
day it printed yet another exhaustive piece about allegations surrounding
Kerry's war past. In a subsequent WashingtonPost.com online chat, the
Post
reporter covering the Swift boat story suggested Barnes' comments didn't
qualify as "fresh information," and consequently he wasn't interested in
"simply regurgitating old controversies." The New York Times ran a brief
item on Barnes' statements deep inside its Saturday news section, next to
yet another lengthy profile of Kerry's longtime Swift boat nemesis, John
O'Neill.
With Barnes now being featured in a sit-down interview with "60 Minutes,"
the highly rated CBS news magazine, reporters may finally be forced to
address the consistent curiosities of Bush's National Guard record. Such
as
why, after nearly a decade of sifting through military records, neither
Bush
nor his team of longtime advisors can piece together a coherent
explanation
for his whereabouts, particularly after April 1972 when Bush inexplicably
stopped flying and moved to Alabama, failed to take his physical exam,
was
grounded by his superiors, and by all accounts failed to show up for
weekend
training for months at a time. Bush received an honorable discharge in
1973
in order to attend Harvard Business School. Bush supporters insist the
honorable discharge proves his service was above reproach. But military
legal experts note honorable discharges, particularly in the early '70s
as
the Vietnam War was winding down, do not indicate unblemished military
records.
Rather than offering insight into Bush's so-called missing year, Barnes
has
firsthand knowledge of how Bush was able to get into the Guard. During
the
Vietnam War, Guard members were rarely called up for duty in Vietnam,
making
it a top choice among those seeking to avoid serving in wartorn Southeast
Asia. (On his Air Force pilot application, when asked about an overseas
assignment, Bush checked "do not volunteer.") In fact, Bush's Guard unit
was
known as the Champagne Unit, because among its members were sons of
prominent Texas politicians and businessmen.
Throughout his political career Bush has adamantly denied that he got a
Guard pilot spot through preferential treatment. That, despite the fact
Bush
was jumped ahead of a nationwide waiting list of 100,000 Guard
applicants,
while achieving the lowest possible passing grade on his pilot aptitude
test
for would-be fliers, and listing "none" as his background qualifications.
Barnes, once a rising star in Texas politics, insists strings were
pulled on
Bush's behalf, and he helped pull them. Speaking to Kerry supporters in
Austin, Texas, in May, he said, "I got a young man named George W. Bush
into
the Texas National Guard ... I got a lot of other people in the National
Guard because I thought that was what people should do when you're in
office, and you help a lot of rich people." Recalling a recent visit to
the
Vietnam Memorial, Barnes added, "I looked at the names of the people that
died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever
been,
because it was the worst thing I ever did, was help a lot of wealthy
supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get
into
the National Guard. And I'm very sorry about that, and I'm very ashamed."
That story is entirely consistent with the statement Barnes made five
years
ago, when he revealed that in 1968 he made the phone call to the head of
the
Texas Air National Guard at the request of the late Sidney Adger, a
Houston
oil man and longtime Bush family friend. At the time, neither Bush nor
his
campaign directly denied the story. Bush simply stressed that neither he
nor
his father had made a call on his behalf, and he was unaware of any other
such string pulling.
"Ben Barnes is a key to this election because he knows firsthand what
happened in 1968," says Paul Alexander, director of "Brothers in Arms," a
new pro-Kerry documentary about the Democratic candidate's Vietnam
experience. Alexander has also written extensively about Bush's past.
"Barnes is an eyewitness."
Barnes is a Kerry supporter, and the White House last week tried to
depict
him as a longtime partisan. But the fact is, Barnes for years resisted
any
attempt to get dragged into a political debate about Bush's war record.
It
was only under threat of legal action back in 1999 -- and only after
efforts
to assert "executive privilege" failed -- that Barnes came forward with
his
statement about helping Bush. (And even then, Barnes issued it through
his
attorney, refusing to answer press questions.) The lawsuit was brought
by a
disgruntled Texas lottery executive who charged that his former company,
which Barnes lobbied for, was able to keep a lucrative Texas state
contract
in exchange for Barnes' remaining silent about helping Bush get into the
Guard. The case was later settled out of court, with the executive
receiving
$300,000.
In 1998 Barnes even met privately with Bush's then-campaign manager and
current commerce secretary, Donald Evans, in order to give him a heads up
about the unfolding Guard story. Bush himself sent Barnes a note thanking
him "for his candor" on the matter.
Whether Bush still appreciates Barnes' "candor" next week remains to be
seen.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution." Emma Goldman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
02 Sep 2004 05:27:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:58:37 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/barnes60minutes/index_np.html
Uh, noooooooo, Bill Barnes the 'rat helped George get into the TANG. YOU are the draft
dodger.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
02 Sep 2004 11:09:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:27:51 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:58:37 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/barnes60minutes/index_np.html
Uh, noooooooo, Bill Barnes the 'rat helped George get into the TANG. YOU are the draft
dodger.
Uh, Ben Barnes help AWOL CHEAT into TANG, AWOL's a ***** draft dodger,
like you.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -977 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: Admiral speaks out and disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound |
03 Sep 2004 12:52:13 AM |
|
|
Admiral speaks out and disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound
August 27, 2004
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in
his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans
dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on
Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident
that led to his first Purple Heart.
"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said
in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said,
"Kerry requested a Purple Heart."
Schachte, a lieutenant, said he was in command of the small boat
called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first
combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an
enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.
Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the
Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were
alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present.
Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone
so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968.
Kerry supporters said no critics of the Democratic presidential
nominee ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer
Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston
whaler and says the statement that Schachte was aboard in Unfit for
Command undermines that critical book's credibility.
Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question
and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview
with Lisa Meyers of NBC News, for broadcast Thursday night. The second
was a print interview with me, for publication today.
Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to
shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush out enemy
forces so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on
Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a
hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new
officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire
from the enemy," he said.
Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said
they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two
other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was
the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston
whaler for these missions.
Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior
officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions
and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first
assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he
asked for a Purple Heart.
Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill
[Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an
enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to
have been in the skimmer without Schachte.
"I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of
what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support
the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I
didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change
his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged,
starting with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.
The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident,
Schachte said, was "about 20 years" later on the U.S. Senate subway in
the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. "I called, 'Hey,
John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory."
He said they "talked about having lunch" but never did it.
Schachte said he never has been contacted by or talked to anybody in
the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he
has been a political independent who votes for candidates of both
parties.
----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! John Kerry should have been a Canadian! |
03 Sep 2004 12:57:44 AM |
|
|
LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! John Kerry should have been a Canadian!
by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press
August 27, 2004
John Kerry was born in the wrong country; he would be much more at
home in Canada than in the United States. He possesses a quality that
the majority of Canadians have; that distinguishes us from all other
peoples on earth. It's what unites Canadians from coast to coast to
coast.
Canadians and American Liberals love to whine. In fact, -that's about
all they ever do. -When they aren't lying or smearing.
And John F. Kerry is a whiner and a liar. This became absolutely
apparent after he brought legal action against the Swift Boats
Veterans who ran a negative attack ad pointing out that he may not be
quite the military hero that he claims to be. As noted talk show host,
Rush Limbaugh has said, George W. Bush has been subject to hatred
since he came into office--and he takes it quietly. Kerry on the other
hand, whines and moans after one negative ad is aired and goes running
to the Federal Elections Commission with a gaggle of lawyers.
It is sometimes difficult to know exactly why Canadians love to whine
and complain so much. The CBC has been criticized for their coverage
of the Olympics where the on-air commentators seem to spend more time
whining about Canada's poor medal showing than they do reporting the
events. Much like baseball is, south of the border, whining has become
our national pastime. At least it doesn't suffer from labour disputes
and we can happily whine 365 days a year.
In democratic countries such as the United States and Great Britain,
whose free and fair elections are almost never questioned, citizens
occasionally get a tad upset with their government. So when the next
election rolls around they throw the government out and bring in a new
one. Not in Canada though. We whine and complain and then vote the
same tired old Liberal government back in. And 20 minutes after they
are reelected they act the same way as they always have and then we
whine and complain again.
One reason for the constant boo-hooing is that we really do have it
too good in this country. If we were faced with real problems, such as
those that plague such countries as Iraq or Bangladesh, we wouldn't
have the time to sit around all day and complain.
Throughout the election campaign, John Kerry has shown that he would
fit right in up in the Great White North. He would make a great
advisor to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Since both men love to take
both sides of each and every issue, they would be in constant
agreement (or constant disagreement) on everything. You couldn't ask
for much more than that.
Kerry would also make a great Foreign Affairs Minister. Who better
than Kerry to run down to New York and take marching orders from Kofi
Annan at the U.N. (Useless Nothings)? John would have a ball getting
approval of the French and the Germans for whatever stand Canada is
told to take.
Kerry's views on the military are consistent with the much touted
"Canadian values". Only in Canada can you be a war hero and a peace
activist at the same time. And Kerry's testimony in the early 70s that
American soldiers, including him, did nothing in Vietnam except rape,
plunder and murder innocent civilians is just about how the Canadian
elites view the American armed forces.
Kerry included himself in a military that commits war crimes. John
would be pleased to know that Canada is a country that not only takes
steps to keep war criminals out--we welcome them here with open arms.
There is no doubt about it - John Kerry would make an excellent
Canadian.
-----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
03 Sep 2004 12:47:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:09:52 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Uh, noooooooo, Bill Barnes the 'rat helped George get into the TANG. YOU are the draft
dodger.
Uh, Ben Barnes help AWOL CHEAT into TANG, AWOL's a ***** draft dodger,
like you.
Uh, noooooooo, 'rat ben barnes helped George get into the TANG. You are the draft dodger.
Maybe your uncle saddam could have helped you get into the Iraq air force. They ran to
the next country - very appropriate for you.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
03 Sep 2004 10:08:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:47:50 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:09:52 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Uh, noooooooo, Bill Barnes the 'rat helped George get into the TANG. YOU are the draft
dodger.
Uh, Ben Barnes help AWOL CHEAT into TANG, AWOL's a ***** draft dodger,
like you.
Uh, noooooooo, 'rat ben barnes helped George get into the TANG. You are the draft dodger.
Uh, noooooooooooooo, Ben Barnes help AWOL cheat into TANG, thereby
dodging the draft. Which makes AWOL a ***** draft dodger like you.
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no. "
-Duke, explaining why it was patriotic for him to skip out on
Vietnam.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=yang++alt.atheism+duke+hell+no&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5vki609f0ieglkd26debhtqmqjab4cqkrr%404ax.com&rnum=1
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -978 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: Kerry Defender Rood Contradicted by Crewmate |
04 Sep 2004 12:25:55 AM |
|
|
Kerry Defender Rood Contradicted by Crewmate
In a development that the establishment press is treating like
bombshell news, former Swift Boat commander William B. Rood has
stepped forward to defend John Kerry against the charge that he
exaggerated his valor during the Vietnam War in descriptions of a
foiled February 1969 ambush on his boat.
But unmentioned in coverage of Rood's story so far is one salient
fact: His account is sharply contradicted by one of Kerry's own
crewmates, who complained eight years ago that Kerry took credit for
bravery he didn't deserve - in an action that earned him the Silver
Star.
In Sunday editions of the Chicago Tribune, Rood backs Kerry's claim
that he singlehandedly took out a Viet Cong attacker who planned to
ambush his Swift Boat with a grenade launcher along the Bay Hap River.
Recalling what he saw from a different Swift Boat, Rood writes:
"Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a
VC behind a hooch - a thatched hut - maybe 15 yards inland from the
ambush site.
"Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran.
Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom
I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which
is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like
that frequently differ."
They sure do.
Unmentioned by Rood in his Chicago Tribune report is the account of
Tom Bellodeau, who, unlike Rood, was actually aboard Kerry's boat when
the VC in question leveled his grenade launcher at them.
"You know, I shot that guy," Bellodeau told the Boston Globe during a
1996 interview, correcting an earlier Globe report that echoed Kerry's
claim that he alone had neutralized the enemy ambusher.
"He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him," Bellodeau
continued. "You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or
not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast
him, but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the
bank."
Only after the enemy soldier was wounded, said Bellodeau, did Kerry
leap from the boat onto the beach and pursue him around the back of a
nearby hut, where the would-be president finished him off.
Echoing ex-Commander Rood's version, Kerry's Silver Star citation
credits him alone for taking down the Viet Cong soldier, making no
mention whatsoever of Bellodeau, who has died in the intervening
years.
"An enemy soldier sprang up from his position not 10 feet from Swift
Boat 94 and fled," the combat award reads. "Without hesitation
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind
a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round
in the chamber."
And even though Kerry spoke at Bellodeau's funeral, he has done
nothing to incorporate his crewmate's role in subsequent accounts of
the encounter with the enemy fighter.
In a 1996 interview, Kerry made no mention of the first shot
whatsoever.
"It was either going to be him or it was going to be us. It was that
simple. I don't know why it wasn't us - I mean, to this day. He had a
rocket pointed right at our boat. He stood up out of a hole, and none
of us saw him until he was standing in front of us, aiming a rocket
right at us, and, for whatever reason, he didn't pull the trigger - he
turned and ran."
When pressed for more details, the top Democrat said: "I just won't
talk about all of it. I don't and can't. The things that really turned
me I've never told anybody. Nobody would understand."
Within hours of the Chicago Tribune's Saturday afternoon announcement
that William Rood had decided to go public with his Kerry defense,
more than 1,500 news outlets were touting the story on their Web
sites, with the Associated Press offering no fewer than 10 updates.
None of them mentioned Kerry's crewmate Tom Bellodeau.
--------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
05 Sep 2004 01:57:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:08:39 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Uh, noooooooo, 'rat ben barnes helped George get into the TANG. You are the draft dodger.
Uh, noooooooooooooo, Ben Barnes help AWOL cheat into TANG, thereby
dodging the draft. Which makes AWOL a ***** draft dodger like you.
What did 'rat ben barnes cheat at?
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no. "
-Duke, explaining why it was patriotic for him to skip out on
Vietnam.
Yet George Bush and I served. You are the coward, chicken little.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
05 Sep 2004 09:33:07 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<f9omj01gcitp3o0qqg60f237sjfitpd6pa@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:08:39 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Uh, noooooooo, 'rat ben barnes helped George get into the TANG. You are the draft dodger.
Uh, noooooooooooooo, Ben Barnes help AWOL cheat into TANG, thereby
dodging the draft. Which makes AWOL a ***** draft dodger like you.
What did 'rat ben barnes cheat at?
He helped AWOL shaet into TANG, *****.
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no. "
-Duke, explaining why it was patriotic for him to skip out on
Vietnam.
Yet George Bush and I served. You are the coward, chicken little.
Isee, a liar and a coawrd, sort of like AWOL
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no. "
-Duke, explaining why it was patriotic for him to skip out on
Vietnam.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=yang++alt.atheism+duke+hell+no&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5vki609f0ieglkd26debhtqmqjab4cqkrr%404ax.com&rnum=1
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -978 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and
mounting
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes: "I Helped AWOL Dodge The Draft" |
06 Sep 2004 07:53:25 AM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2004 19:33:07 -0700, (Yang AthD h.c) wrote:
What did 'rat ben barnes cheat at?
He helped AWOL shaet into TANG, *****.
WHAT!! Where? Shaet?
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no. "
-Duke, explaining why it was patriotic for him to skip out on
Vietnam.
Yet George Bush and I served. You are the coward, chicken little.
Isee, a liar and a coawrd, sort of like AWOL
No, we both served, but you hide.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: These Are the Americans That Michael Moore Called Wimps! Michael Moore Hates America! |
05 Sep 2004 10:16:15 PM |
|
|
These Are the Americans That Michael Moore Called Wimps! Michael Moore
Hates America!
9/11 report: Flight 93 crashed as passengers stormed cockpit!
Bush should use this clip along with Kerry stating that the terrorism
threat is greatly exaggerated
The hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 tried repeatedly to fend
off passengers storming the cockpit in the final minutes before one of
the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, shouted "Allah is the greatest" and nosed
the plane into a field in Somerset County, according to the final
report of the September 11 commission.
The report includes a transcript of conversation captured by the
cockpit voice recorder on the hijacked jetliner that shows the
uprising started at 9:57 a.m. Sept. 11 after passengers onboard
learned through cell phone conversations with family members that
three other hijacked planes had been flown into buildings in New York
and Washington.
As passengers began beating on the cockpit door, the report says,
Jarrah rolled the airplane left and right, attempting to knock the
passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, the report says, Jarrah began to
nose the airplane up and down to topple the passengers outside the
cabin door.
The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts and
breaking glasses and plates, the report states. At five seconds after
10 a.m., the recorder captured a conversation between Jarrah and
another person, apparently another hijacker in the cockpit.
Is that it? Shall we finish it off? Jarrah asks the other person.
The other hijacker responds, No. Not yet. When they all come, we
finish it off.
Fighting continues to be heard outside the cockpit. At that point a
passenger is heard shouting, In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!
Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yells, Roll it!
While the report does not state so, previous reports indicated that
passengers might have used a beverage cart in an attempt to knock down
the cockpit door.
At 10:01 a.m. Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers with the airplane
and said, Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest! He is then
heard asking the other hijacker, Is that it? I mean, shall we put it
down?
The other replies, Yes, put it in, and pull it down.
According to the report, the hijackers never left the cockpit, but
must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming
them. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one oft the hijackers
began shouting, Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.
The aircraft struck the earth at 580 mph outside the Somerset County
town of Shanksville, 20 minutes flying time from Washington.
Jarrah’s objective, the report says, was to crash his airliner into
symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He
was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.
Girlie Men Not Allowed:
http://www.georgewbush.com/Default.aspx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: Where was that Fatboy Liberal Michael Moore on Rwanda? |
05 Sep 2004 10:15:20 PM |
|
|
Where was that Fatboy Liberal Michael Moore on Rwanda?
bush misled us into war. what about clinton misleading us on north
korea and rwanda. in north korea, he sent jimmy carter who came back
saying everything's cool and north korea is NOT an evil country,
something even communists would have a hard time denying. it gave
north korea ample time and opportunity to develop nuclear weapons and
now they have it. clinton should have been tougher or attacked north
korea-bigger threat than iraq in terms of weapons of mass
destruction--before it developed weapons.
but even worse is clinton's misleading us about rwanda. bush misled us
into doing something. clinton misled us into doing nothing and europe
is culpable also as are all the black african nations which just
folded their arms | | | | | | | |
