On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:14:51 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:12:48 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

Here's a bit of history you should know about your candidate.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.a...04 0311d.html


There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community
doe not.

As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not
recounting his own deeds.

So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war
fanatics? Those are some credentials for President.

Are you denying that there were many atrocities commited in Vietnam?

Beyond Mi lai I haven't seen any charge of atrocity proven.

Considering the difficulty even getting My Lai in front of the court,
is there any wonder about that?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._boston_globe/

More on that:

http://mumbai.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/8288.shtml

And I like the way that Kerry's detractors now claim that *he* claimed
that it was "American policy to commit atrocities" when in fact, what
he said was, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at
which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated
veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command", which is *not*
saying that it was "official policy".

Wasn't Kerry one of those officers? Sounds like a confession. But reality
is the Winter Soldier investigation was fraut with fraudulent testimony. The
link I provided above is but one example. For Kerry to be the spokesman on
the national stage and propogate such lies isn't the making of a president.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...pic=Historians

"So Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military
personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement,
you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of
policy, and were prosecuted when discovered".

Where did Kerry say that it was "policy"? This is exactly the sort of
hyperbole and disinformation that I'm talking about.

It's all very much "eye of the beholder" stuff. As someone who was
against the war in Vietnam but who later served, I see things a
certain way, and those who are freaked out about a young guy who had
the courage of his convictions see things *their* way. The hysteria
that a few are promoting certainly is a testiment to the desperation
that some have in trying to keep President Bush in office.

It could be what it is, hysteria to keep Kerry from the presidency. I am
not enamored with GW, particularly on the issue of immigration. But Kerry
lacks even a smidge of credibility and for him to attack everyone who served
in Vietnam is unforgiveable.

If he had ACTUALLY done this, yes, it might be.

The media conspiracy to support this guy is
also amazing. Why were there no reports of the vets turning their backs on
Kerry in Cincinnatti?

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

Will it come the point of the media mass
manipulation being capable of picking our president?

Well, you might ask Fox or Drudge or WorldNetDaily this very question.

Clyde Slick wrote:



You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler.


Actually, the ultra-conservative mentality of the
groups that upport him right now are surprizingly
simmilar to Germany in the late 20's. We just have
enough checks and balances to keep one group from
siezing complete control.

Make no mistake - these groups exist throught all
nations and societies - even the U.S.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Me:

You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points'

in

order to repeat them.

As do you.

No, I respond to you,


With your talking points.

The thing about Kerry disparaging Viet Nam Vets at those hearings was true.
That there were G.I.'s coming home from VN that were abused by anti-war
leftists is a direct consequence of his words and I will never forgive him
for it.

First off, one man can't make an entire movement like that. Secondly,
If yelling at the government and making a scene helped to shorten
the war even one week by pressuring the government, then it's
more a matter of doing what netted the greater good.
Or would you have rather hhad it drag on to 1980? It easily could
have.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:14:51 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:12:48 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/f...war_book.shtml

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...errytales2.htm



Here's a bit of history you should know about your candidate.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.a...04 0311d.html


There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community
doe not.

As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war
fanatics? Those are some credentials for President.

Are you denying that there were many atrocities commited in Vietnam?

Beyond Mi lai I haven't seen any charge of atrocity proven.

Considering the difficulty even getting My Lai in front of the court,
is there any wonder about that?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._boston_globe/

More on that:

http://mumbai.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/8288.shtml

This is one group. This does not come close to substantiating Kerry's
claims.

And I like the way that Kerry's detractors now claim that *he* claimed
that it was "American policy to commit atrocities" when in fact, what
he said was, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at
which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated
veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command", which is *not*
saying that it was "official policy".

Wasn't Kerry one of those officers? Sounds like a confession. But reality
is the Winter Soldier investigation was fraut with fraudulent testimony.
The
link I provided above is but one example. For Kerry to be the spokesman
on
the national stage and propogate such lies isn't the making of a
president.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...pic=Historians

"So Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military
personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement,
you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of
policy, and were prosecuted when discovered".

Where did Kerry say that it was "policy"? This is exactly the sort of
hyperbole and disinformation that I'm talking about.

Your basing this argument on weak semantics. If "awareness of officers at
all levels of command" doesn't equate to "policy" (albeit unwritten), what
does?

It's all very much "eye of the beholder" stuff. As someone who was
against the war in Vietnam but who later served, I see things a
certain way, and those who are freaked out about a young guy who had
the courage of his convictions see things *their* way. The hysteria
that a few are promoting certainly is a testiment to the desperation
that some have in trying to keep President Bush in office.

It could be what it is, hysteria to keep Kerry from the presidency. I
am
not enamored with GW, particularly on the issue of immigration. But Kerry
lacks even a smidge of credibility and for him to attack everyone who
served
in Vietnam is unforgiveable.

If he had ACTUALLY done this, yes, it might be.

The media conspiracy to support this guy is
also amazing. Why were there no reports of the vets turning their backs
on
Kerry in Cincinnatti?

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

I heard witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.

Will it come the point of the media mass
manipulation being capable of picking our president?

Well, you might ask Fox or Drudge or WorldNetDaily this very question.

I doubt that Fox or Drudge or WND would ever have come to exist if the
mainstream media hadn't strayed so far from it's primary function of
reporting news.

ScottW

Michael McKelvy wrote:

More recently they ran an editorial claiming that a recent CBO report showed
that the tax burden had shifted to the middle class due to the Bush tax
cuts. Nowhere is that shown to be true. At most there is .2% increase in
the middle class tax burden, the top 50% of income earners still pay over
90% of the income tax.

Bad math. Tax is supposed to be porportional to your income.
A person who pays 20% tax pays 20% tax. The amount that actually
is collected is bad math - because one Billionare paying
even 5% in actual taxes outweighs thousands of normal working
families.

So it looks like we're sticking it to 2%. Until you realize
that they have nearly half of the money in the country.

Based upon individual *percentages*, the wealthy pay far less
after you factor in tax incentives and refunds and havens and
so on.

MINe 109 wrote:


The LA Times has done many outrageous things over the years, especially
concerning local politics. However, their fact-based reporting, as in
the report on the Swifties, is considered credible. Things are improving
on the opinion page.

The L.A. times is anything but unbiased. I live here and know
all too well.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Me:

You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points'

in

order to repeat them.

As do you.

No, I respond to you,


With your talking points.

The thing about Kerry disparaging Viet Nam Vets at those hearings was
true.
That there were G.I.'s coming home from VN that were abused by anti-war
leftists is a direct consequence of his words and I will never forgive
him
for it.

First off, one man can't make an entire movement like that. Secondly,
If yelling at the government and making a scene helped to shorten
the war even one week by pressuring the government, then it's
more a matter of doing what netted the greater good.
Or would you have rather hhad it drag on to 1980? It easily could
have.

Funny how the antiwar movement takes such a joy in forgetting that the war
ended with a peace treaty which the North Vietnamese then violated after the
democrats succeeded in blocking all defense funding of the South Vietnamese
government. This revisionist history and creation of a worldwide perception
that the US is incapable maintaining a national will to fight sustains our
enemies even today. Really good job.

ScottW

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

More recently they ran an editorial claiming that a recent CBO report
showed
that the tax burden had shifted to the middle class due to the Bush tax
cuts. Nowhere is that shown to be true. At most there is .2% increase
in
the middle class tax burden, the top 50% of income earners still pay over
90% of the income tax.

Bad math. Tax is supposed to be porportional to your income.
A person who pays 20% tax pays 20% tax. The amount that actually
is collected is bad math - because one Billionare paying
even 5% in actual taxes outweighs thousands of normal working
families.

So it looks like we're sticking it to 2%. Until you realize
that they have nearly half of the money in the country.

Based upon individual *percentages*, the wealthy pay far less
after you factor in tax incentives and refunds and havens and
so on.

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past? Show me the incentives and refunds and havens. BTW,
Kerry seems to have taken advantage of some tax credits he could have
declined if he truly felt he should be paying more. While the middle class
might pay a slightly higher percentage of the overall revenue, they are in
reality paying less in dollars and percent of income than before the Bush
cuts.

ScottW

Clyde Slick wrote:

You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler.

"My comments regarding the French national character regarding
war are based upon historical performance, say, of the
previous seventy five years or so."

Hitler and anti-semists was saying exactly the same kind of things about
Jewish character by the begining of the '30s.
they was never giving details or statistics, he was just making this
kind of hateful declarations.

I have found this on the internet. The guy who has written that has the
same motivations than you : hatred and xenophobia :-(

"The Jews are cowards, they are a people of money and not a people of
fighting. "

http://www.khilafah.com/summit/leafl...ce%20Nov99.htm

Next time let me discuss about sport and keep your xenophobic trolls for
discussions with guys like him.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/f...war_book.shtml

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...errytales2.htm


Nowhere does this say that Kerry claimed that .50 cal machine guns are
"against international law".

I think what you meant to say was that using the .50 cal against
people *is* against international law. Well, sorta. I think it's
contravened by the Geneva Convention. At least that's what I was
taught to teach other soldiers when I did Geneva Convention classes
back in the 80s. I guess it's this sort of thing that has kept the
American government in the forefront of opposing "international war
crimes tribunals", since there are so many instances of such breeches,
and there's no statute of limitations.

Do I think that he should be tried for war crimes? Yeah, if you want
to drag a lot of the Swifties and other vets along for the ride. Of
course, American policy is going to have to change, and at least,
Kerry tried to make amends after the fact, amends that he's being
raked over the coals for.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

There are good reasons why we win wars and the international community
doe not.

As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

So you admit Kerry was duped by a bunch of fraudulent lying anti-war
fanatics? Those are some credentials for President.

Are you denying that there were many atrocities commited in Vietnam?

Beyond Mi lai I haven't seen any charge of atrocity proven.

Considering the difficulty even getting My Lai in front of the court,
is there any wonder about that?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._boston_globe/

More on that:

http://mumbai.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/8288.shtml

This is one group. This does not come close to substantiating Kerry's
claims.

"For example, the Toledo Blade reports that its "review of thousands
of classified Army documents, National Archives records, and radio
logs reveals [the "Tiger Force"] ... carried out the longest series of
atrocities in the Vietnam War [from May and November, 1967]...".
Unfortunately, this seven month atrocity-spree is not nearly the
longest on record. Nor is it even the longest string of atrocities by
one unit within its service branch. According to formerly classified
Army documents, an investigation disclosed that from at least March
1968 through October 1969, "Vietnamese [civilian] detainees were
subjected to maltreatment" by no less than twenty-three separate
interrogators of the 172d Military Intelligence (MI) Detachment. The
inquiry found that, in addition to using "electrical shock by means of
a field telephone," an all too commonly used method of torture by
Americans during the war, MI personnel also struck detainees with
their fists, sticks and boards and employed a form of water torture
which impaired prisoners' ability to breath".

As I said, the fact that the military took great pains to thwart
investigations of such atrocities, I'm not surprised that we're
reduced to "non-official accounts". It will be interesting if all of
this dredges up some serious investigations.

Also, here are some of the stories that have surfaced that *do* have
military backing:

"Military records demonstrate that the "Tiger Force" atrocities are
only the tip of a vast submerged history of atrocities in Vietnam. In
fact, while most atrocities were likely never chronicled or reported,
the archival record is still rife with incidents analogous to those
profiled in the Blade articles, including the following atrocities
chronicled in formerly classified Army documents:

A November 1966 incident in which an officer in the Army's Fourth
Infantry Division, severed an ear from a Vietnamese corpse and affixed
it to the radio antenna of a jeep as an ornament. The officer was
given a non-judicial punishment and a letter of reprimand.

An August 1967 atrocity in which a 13-year-old Vietnamese child was
raped by American MI interrogator of the Army's 196th Infantry
Brigade. The soldier was convicted only of indecent acts with a child
and assault. He served seven months and sixteen days for his crime.

A September 1967 incident in which an American sergeant killed two
Vietnamese children – executing one at point blank range with a bullet
to the head. Tried by general court martial in 1970, the sergeant
pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, unpremeditated murder. He
was, however, sentenced to no punishment.

An atrocity that took place on February 4, 1968, just over a month
before the My Lai massacre, in the same province by a man from the
same division (Americal). The soldier admitted to his commanding
officer and other men of his unit that he gunned down three civilians
as they worked in a field. A CID investigation substantiated his
confession and charges of premeditated murder were preferred against
him. The soldier requested a discharge, which was granted by the
commanding general of the Americal Division, in lieu of court martial
proceedings.

A series of atrocities similar to, and occurring the same year as, the
"Tiger Force" war crimes in which one unit allegedly engaged in an
orgy of murder, rape and mutilation, over the course of several
months.

While not yielding the high-end body count estimate of the "Tiger
Force" series of atrocities, the above incidents begin to demonstrate
the ubiquity of the commission of atrocities on the part of American
forces during the Vietnam War. Certainly, war crimes, such as murder,
rape and mutilation were not an everyday affair for American combat
soldiers in Vietnam, however, such acts were also by no means as
exceptional as often portrayed in recent historical literature or as
tacitly alluded to in the Blade articles".

Who knows what's still classified or never even investigated?

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

And I like the way that Kerry's detractors now claim that *he* claimed
that it was "American policy to commit atrocities" when in fact, what
he said was, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at
which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated
veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command", which is *not*
saying that it was "official policy".

Wasn't Kerry one of those officers? Sounds like a confession. But reality
is the Winter Soldier investigation was fraut with fraudulent testimony.
The
link I provided above is but one example. For Kerry to be the spokesman
on
the national stage and propogate such lies isn't the making of a
president.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...pic=Historians

"So Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military
personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement,
you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of
policy, and were prosecuted when discovered".

Where did Kerry say that it was "policy"? This is exactly the sort of
hyperbole and disinformation that I'm talking about.

Your basing this argument on weak semantics. If "awareness of officers at
all levels of command" doesn't equate to "policy" (albeit unwritten), what
does?

Actually, using the word "policy" is weak semantics. Rogue elements at
all levels of command don't equate to "policy".

Sorry for breaking this into segments, but the original post has
gotten lengthy.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

I heard witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.

Even Drudge and other right-wing sources haven't reported that. I saw
a picture of the two vets on a web site. There are two guys standing
with their back to the front of the hall.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001191.html

Sorry if I don't take your second hand account as gospel.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/f...war_book.shtml

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...errytales2.htm


Nowhere does this say that Kerry claimed that .50 cal machine guns are
"against international law".

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes,
I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sorry, their use is an atrocity according to Kerry. Are atrocities against
international law?


I think what you meant to say was that using the .50 cal against
people *is* against international law. Well, sorta. I think it's
contravened by the Geneva Convention.

Many have said so yet the Geneva Convention mentions the .50 as weapon is
acceptable for use against paratroopers so that claim appears invalid.

At least that's what I was
taught to teach other soldiers when I did Geneva Convention classes
back in the 80s. I guess it's this sort of thing that has kept the
American government in the forefront of opposing "international war
crimes tribunals", since there are so many instances of such breeches,
and there's no statute of limitations.

Do I think that he should be tried for war crimes?

No, I am inclined to think he should be tried for subversion and treason.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

I heard witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.

Even Drudge and other right-wing sources haven't reported that. I saw
a picture of the two vets on a web site. There are two guys standing
with their back to the front of the hall.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001191.html

Sorry if I don't take your second hand account as gospel.

I take very little as gospel these days.

Wonder how many constitutes a "handful"

"A handful of his fellow Vietnam vets got up and walked out."

These kind of things often get blown out of proportion, like the couple that
claimed they were handcuffed and escorted away from a Bush rally for their
T-Shirts, Love America, Hate Bush.

ScottW

In article ,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


The LA Times has done many outrageous things over the years, especially
concerning local politics. However, their fact-based reporting, as in
the report on the Swifties, is considered credible. Things are improving
on the opinion page.

The L.A. times is anything but unbiased. I live here and know
all too well.


I am willing to split the difference between editorial and journalistic
content. Of course, every media outlet has a "bias".

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:11:55 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/f...war_book.shtml

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...errytales2.htm


Nowhere does this say that Kerry claimed that .50 cal machine guns are
"against international law".

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes,
I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sorry, their use is an atrocity according to Kerry. Are atrocities against
international law?

Their use *against people*. That's different than what *you* said.

I think what you meant to say was that using the .50 cal against
people *is* against international law. Well, sorta. I think it's
contravened by the Geneva Convention.

Many have said so yet the Geneva Convention mentions the .50 as weapon is
acceptable for use against paratroopers so that claim appears invalid.

Citation?

I don't think it mentions the .50 specifically. The idea that the
Geneva Convention can be interpreted as prohibiting the .50 is the
pssage about causing "unnecessary or grevious injuries" (or whatever
the language is. As I said, the Army taught this as doctrine during
the 80s (at least that's what i was instructed to teach). I think that
what you're confusing is the right to fire upon paratroops but not
ejecting personnel from damaged aircraft.

At least that's what I was
taught to teach other soldiers when I did Geneva Convention classes
back in the 80s. I guess it's this sort of thing that has kept the
American government in the forefront of opposing "international war
crimes tribunals", since there are so many instances of such breeches,
and there's no statute of limitations.

Do I think that he should be tried for war crimes?

No, I am inclined to think he should be tried for subversion and treason.

For speaking out against a military action that wasn't even a "war"
and yet caused the death of 50,000 troops. OK.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:19:29 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

I heard witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.

Even Drudge and other right-wing sources haven't reported that. I saw
a picture of the two vets on a web site. There are two guys standing
with their back to the front of the hall.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001191.html

Sorry if I don't take your second hand account as gospel.

I take very little as gospel these days.

You seem to, until confronted with "facts".

Wonder how many constitutes a "handful"

"A handful of his fellow Vietnam vets got up and walked out."

These kind of things often get blown out of proportion,

Yes, like you tried to do with this incident, indicting the entire
mass media in the process.

like the couple that
claimed they were handcuffed and escorted away from a Bush rally for their
T-Shirts, Love America, Hate Bush.

Well, that goes a little bit further than a couple of vets standing in
silent protest. There are several issues involved, including what
constitutes protected speech (as we know, you can't say, "I'd love to
kill the president" while in proximity of said president), and what
constitutes due process and possible assault/and or false detainment.
I don't know how much play *that* got, since I didn't hear about that
either.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:47:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

More recently they ran an editorial claiming that a recent CBO report
showed
that the tax burden had shifted to the middle class due to the Bush tax
cuts. Nowhere is that shown to be true. At most there is .2% increase
in
the middle class tax burden, the top 50% of income earners still pay over
90% of the income tax.

Bad math. Tax is supposed to be porportional to your income.
A person who pays 20% tax pays 20% tax. The amount that actually
is collected is bad math - because one Billionare paying
even 5% in actual taxes outweighs thousands of normal working
families.

So it looks like we're sticking it to 2%. Until you realize
that they have nearly half of the money in the country.

Based upon individual *percentages*, the wealthy pay far less
after you factor in tax incentives and refunds and havens and
so on.

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past?

Aren't you a little out of the "middle class"?

Show me the incentives and refunds and havens. BTW,
Kerry seems to have taken advantage of some tax credits he could have
declined if he truly felt he should be paying more. While the middle class
might pay a slightly higher percentage of the overall revenue, they are in
reality paying less in dollars and percent of income than before the Bush
cuts.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and
I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

"In as much as I...."



That's the "free fire zone" part.

Yep

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it
not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

Free speech, except for Cleland?

I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so.

Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the
same as censorship.


You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler.

The one sent in to a MoveOn contest? However heinous, that would still
be a political opinion, different in kind from the Swiftee claims.

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it
not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

Free speech, except for Cleland?

I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so.

Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the
same as censorship.


You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler.

The one sent in to a MoveOn contest? However heinous, that would still
be a political opinion, different in kind from the Swiftee claims.

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

The one I was thinking of was never broadcast and was only available on
the site for a short time. The was also a flap when Gore referred to,
IIRC, "digital brownshirts" to describe the phenomenom of Bush
supporters spreading Bush's talking points to site forums, Usegroups,
etc, like McKelvey does here. Still, the term is too strong for the
offense.

Of course, the most prominent ad comparing Bush to Hitler is Bush's own
which tries to pin the blame on Kerry. Allowable as opinion, if
tasteless.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and
I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

"In as much as I...."



That's the "free fire zone" part.

Yep

Hard to single Kerry out for that one.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


Clyde Slick wrote:



You must mean the one that equated Bush with Hitler.


Actually, the ultra-conservative mentality of the
groups that upport him right now are surprizingly
simmilar to Germany in the late 20's. We just have
enough checks and balances to keep one group from
siezing complete control.

Make no mistake - these groups exist throught all
nations and societies - even the U.S.


1%, or less

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

..

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

The one I was thinking of was never broadcast and was only available on
the site for a short time. The was also a flap when Gore referred to,
IIRC, "digital brownshirts" to describe the phenomenom of Bush
supporters spreading Bush's talking points to site forums, Usegroups,
etc, like McKelvey does here. Still, the term is too strong for the
offense.


I know the one you were talking about, I saw it on the web.

Of course, the most prominent ad comparing Bush to Hitler is Bush's own
which tries to pin the blame on Kerry. Allowable as opinion, if
tasteless.

I don't know about that one. Did not see it on the news or talk.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as
being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where
American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to,
and
I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has
admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the
"Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the
Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

"In as much as I...."



That's the "free fire zone" part.

Yep

Hard to single Kerry out for that one.

I don't agree. It included burning down villages, among
other things. He said that he did those things.

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as
being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where
American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to,
and
I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has
admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the
"Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the
Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

"In as much as I...."



That's the "free fire zone" part.

Yep

Hard to single Kerry out for that one.

I don't agree. It included burning down villages, among
other things. He said that he did those things.

Here's the source, Kerry on Dick Cavett:

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw
somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part
in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire.
I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of
noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out
later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions
and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in
those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles is,
in fact, guilty.

End quote.

Not so damning in context. To be fair, Bush never did any of those
things.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes
as
being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where
American
G.I.s
were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated
to,
and
I
think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has
admitted
to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the
"Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the
Senate,
not
recounting his own deeds.

"In as much as I...."



That's the "free fire zone" part.

Yep

Hard to single Kerry out for that one.

I don't agree. It included burning down villages, among
other things. He said that he did those things.

Here's the source, Kerry on Dick Cavett:

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw
somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part
in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire.
I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of
noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out
later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions
and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in
those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles is,
in fact, guilty.

End quote.

Not so damning in context. To be fair, Bush never did any of those
things.

there was a similar clip I saw and heard, it was testimony before Congress.
It went farther than that

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:11:55 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Free fire" zones are against international law.

So are .50 cal machine guns.

Since when?

Since Kerry said so, but apparently you also agree that is a false
statement.

Citations please.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/f...war_book.shtml

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com...errytales2.htm


Nowhere does this say that Kerry claimed that .50 cal machine guns are
"against international law".

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes,
I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers
have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against
people.
I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sorry, their use is an atrocity according to Kerry. Are atrocities
against
international law?

Their use *against people*. That's different than what *you* said.

I think what you meant to say was that using the .50 cal against
people *is* against international law. Well, sorta. I think it's
contravened by the Geneva Convention.

Many have said so yet the Geneva Convention mentions the .50 as weapon is
acceptable for use against paratroopers so that claim appears invalid.

Citation?

How about the Dutch Army manual?

http://home.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000210.htm


I don't think it mentions the .50 specifically. The idea that the
Geneva Convention can be interpreted as prohibiting the .50 is the
pssage about causing "unnecessary or grevious injuries" (or whatever
the language is. As I said, the Army taught this as doctrine during
the 80s (at least that's what i was instructed to teach). I think that
what you're confusing is the right to fire upon paratroops but not
ejecting personnel from damaged aircraft.

You have it right. The .50 is not prohibited for use against personel
unless an incendiary or exploding round is employed.


At least that's what I was
taught to teach other soldiers when I did Geneva Convention classes
back in the 80s. I guess it's this sort of thing that has kept the
American government in the forefront of opposing "international war
crimes tribunals", since there are so many instances of such breeches,
and there's no statute of limitations.

Do I think that he should be tried for war crimes?

No, I am inclined to think he should be tried for subversion and treason.

For speaking out against a military action that wasn't even a "war"
and yet caused the death of 50,000 troops. OK.

Speaking out hardly equates with accusing the entire military of being war
criminals.

ScottW

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

.

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

The one I was thinking of was never broadcast and was only available on
the site for a short time. The was also a flap when Gore referred to,
IIRC, "digital brownshirts" to describe the phenomenom of Bush
supporters spreading Bush's talking points to site forums, Usegroups,
etc, like McKelvey does here. Still, the term is too strong for the
offense.


I know the one you were talking about, I saw it on the web.

Of course, the most prominent ad comparing Bush to Hitler is Bush's own
which tries to pin the blame on Kerry. Allowable as opinion, if
tasteless.

I don't know about that one. Did not see it on the news or talk.

I think I found the second ad. Short-lived, as it should be, but it was
also a contest entrant, not a commissioned work. MoveOn.org disowned
them both and changed their policies to prevent future mistakes. It
should be noted that neither ad would have been widely seen if the
Republicans hadn't shown them in order to stir up outrage on the talk
shows.

Here's the one I meant:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040626_885.html

I should have described it better. In this case, Bush supporters used
the MoveOn ads as 'cover' so they could juxtapose images of Democrats
and Hitler. Bad tactic, no matter who does it, unless someone really
does act like Hitler.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:19:29 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:33:17 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Could it be that TWO vets out of a crowd of hundreds turning their
backs on Kerry isn't exactly newsworthy, *or* noteworthy, ESPECIALLY
when you might think that if vets were overwhelmingly against Kerry,
there might be more than just two (I've seen news reports that talked
about some vets standing with their arms crossed though).

I heard witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.

Even Drudge and other right-wing sources haven't reported that. I saw
a picture of the two vets on a web site. There are two guys standing
with their back to the front of the hall.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001191.html

Sorry if I don't take your second hand account as gospel.

I take very little as gospel these days.

You seem to, until confronted with "facts".

This is what makes conversing with you such a delight Dave. I say "I heard
witness accounts estimating 1/3 of those present.", and you somehow
interpret this as I am claiming it is gospel. I think you miss Trotsky too
much.

Wonder how many constitutes a "handful"

"A handful of his fellow Vietnam vets got up and walked out."

These kind of things often get blown out of proportion,

Yes, like you tried to do with this incident, indicting the entire
mass media in the process.

like the couple that
claimed they were handcuffed and escorted away from a Bush rally for their
T-Shirts, Love America, Hate Bush.

Well, that goes a little bit further than a couple of vets standing in
silent protest. There are several issues involved, including what
constitutes protected speech (as we know, you can't say, "I'd love to
kill the president" while in proximity of said president), and what
constitutes due process and possible assault/and or false detainment.
I don't know how much play *that* got, since I didn't hear about that
either.

I heard it on the new liberal radio network that just came on the air in
SD. I never heard it again, anywhere.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:47:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

More recently they ran an editorial claiming that a recent CBO report
showed
that the tax burden had shifted to the middle class due to the Bush tax
cuts. Nowhere is that shown to be true. At most there is .2% increase
in
the middle class tax burden, the top 50% of income earners still pay
over
90% of the income tax.

Bad math. Tax is supposed to be porportional to your income.
A person who pays 20% tax pays 20% tax. The amount that actually
is collected is bad math - because one Billionare paying
even 5% in actual taxes outweighs thousands of normal working
families.

So it looks like we're sticking it to 2%. Until you realize
that they have nearly half of the money in the country.

Based upon individual *percentages*, the wealthy pay far less
after you factor in tax incentives and refunds and havens and
so on.

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past?

Aren't you a little out of the "middle class"?

Unfortunately no, I don't think so, regardless what the dems will say.

ScottW

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

Kerry on Cavett

there was a similar clip I saw and heard, it was testimony before Congress.
It went farther than that

That's the Senate testimony. Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard at the
"Winter Soldiers" meeting in Detroit. Here's a bit:

I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made
them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped,
cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to
human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion of Genghis
Khan.

End quote.

"They" "them". You can see the difference. There's some hyperbole, but
it was a tumultuous time.

Stephen

In article IiPXc.50298$yh.5263@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:47:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past?

Aren't you a little out of the "middle class"?

Unfortunately no, I don't think so, regardless what the dems will say.

To answer the question, move to Texas! The beaches aren't as nice, but
you'll like the Aggies.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article IiPXc.50298$yh.5263@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:47:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past?

Aren't you a little out of the "middle class"?

Unfortunately no, I don't think so, regardless what the dems will say.

To answer the question, move to Texas! The beaches aren't as nice, but
you'll like the Aggies.

Wife was just in San Antonio for a week. She was extremely grateful to
escape the heat and humidity. Then there was that guy who died of flesh
eating bacteria contracted just swimming in the gulf with a scratch.
While I grow tired of the congestion, Texas isn't on my list of potential
escapes. Matter of fact, many communities in Tex suffer from the same
illegal immigrant based problem So. Cal suffers from without the upside. I
see estimates that Bush's legalization plan could cost as much as 19 billion
in increased gov costs for immigrant services. Meanwhile a guy can't make a
middle class living as a construction laboror anymore. I don't know what
immigrant advocates are thinking.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

Kerry on Cavett

there was a similar clip I saw and heard, it was testimony before
Congress.
It went farther than that

That's the Senate testimony. Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard at the
"Winter Soldiers" meeting in Detroit. Here's a bit:

I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made
them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped,
cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to
human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion of Genghis
Khan.

End quote.

"They" "them". You can see the difference. There's some hyperbole, but
it was a tumultuous time.

And now we have the testimony of POWs who heard Kerry's "hyperbole" played
to them in the Hanoi Hilton having endured years of prison and abuse
refusing to engage in similar hyperbole for the North Vietnamese.

If nothing else, Kerry showed incredibly poor judgement in engaging in
"hyperbole". It also turns out that investigations of many winter soldier
testimonials could not be substantiated. Many were out and out frauds.
When the actual military personel were contacted they denied ever having
been in Detroit at the event.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

.

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

The one I was thinking of was never broadcast and was only available
on
the site for a short time. The was also a flap when Gore referred to,
IIRC, "digital brownshirts" to describe the phenomenom of Bush
supporters spreading Bush's talking points to site forums, Usegroups,
etc, like McKelvey does here. Still, the term is too strong for the
offense.


I know the one you were talking about, I saw it on the web.

Of course, the most prominent ad comparing Bush to Hitler is Bush's
own
which tries to pin the blame on Kerry. Allowable as opinion, if
tasteless.

I don't know about that one. Did not see it on the news or talk.

I think I found the second ad. Short-lived, as it should be, but it was
also a contest entrant, not a commissioned work. MoveOn.org disowned
them both and changed their policies to prevent future mistakes. It
should be noted that neither ad would have been widely seen if the
Republicans hadn't shown them in order to stir up outrage on the talk
shows.

Here's the one I meant:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040626_885.html

I should have described it better. In this case, Bush supporters used
the MoveOn ads as 'cover' so they could juxtapose images of Democrats
and Hitler. Bad tactic, no matter who does it, unless someone really
does act like Hitler.

yeah, I did see it. now I know which
one you menat. It didn't like that, either, cause
its about the moveon looniesm, not Kerry

But I was talking about another Dem one that some
527 is running against Bush. And, now I remember it
compared hs policies to Nazisim, it wasn't
personally comparing him to Hitler, but that is
bad enough.

In article QEPXc.50308$yh.28605@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

Kerry on Cavett

there was a similar clip I saw and heard, it was testimony before
Congress.
It went farther than that

That's the Senate testimony. Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard at the
"Winter Soldiers" meeting in Detroit. Here's a bit:

I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made
them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped,
cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to
human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion of Genghis
Khan.

End quote.

"They" "them". You can see the difference. There's some hyperbole, but
it was a tumultuous time.

And now we have the testimony of POWs who heard Kerry's "hyperbole" played
to them in the Hanoi Hilton having endured years of prison and abuse
refusing to engage in similar hyperbole for the North Vietnamese.

Nixon's fault for not ending the war sooner.

If nothing else, Kerry showed incredibly poor judgement in engaging in
"hyperbole". It also turns out that investigations of many winter soldier
testimonials could not be substantiated. Many were out and out frauds.
When the actual military personel were contacted they denied ever having
been in Detroit at the event.

Some, not 'many'. Even Tommy Franks admitted that those kinds of
atrocities did happen.

In article WyPXc.50306$yh.33196@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article IiPXc.50298$yh.5263@fed1read05,
"ScottW" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:47:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

Someone care to show me how to avoid the 40+% income (fed + state) I've
endured in years past?

Aren't you a little out of the "middle class"?

Unfortunately no, I don't think so, regardless what the dems will say.

To answer the question, move to Texas! The beaches aren't as nice, but
you'll like the Aggies.

Wife was just in San Antonio for a week. She was extremely grateful to
escape the heat and humidity.

Don't go in August! Yikes.

Then there was that guy who died of flesh
eating bacteria contracted just swimming in the gulf with a scratch.
While I grow tired of the congestion, Texas isn't on my list of potential
escapes. Matter of fact, many communities in Tex suffer from the same
illegal immigrant based problem So. Cal suffers from without the upside.

San Antonio has a huge Hispanic population. They aren't all illegal.

I see estimates that Bush's legalization plan could cost as much as 19 billion
in increased gov costs for immigrant services. Meanwhile a guy can't make a
middle class living as a construction laboror anymore. I don't know what
immigrant advocates are thinking.

Contractors do okay. Why should laborers expect middle class incomes?

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

.

No, there was another that was broadcast. Not quite as direct
as the one you mention.

The one I was thinking of was never broadcast and was only available
on
the site for a short time. The was also a flap when Gore referred to,
IIRC, "digital brownshirts" to describe the phenomenom of Bush
supporters spreading Bush's talking points to site forums, Usegroups,
etc, like McKelvey does here. Still, the term is too strong for the
offense.


I know the one you were talking about, I saw it on the web.

Of course, the most prominent ad comparing Bush to Hitler is Bush's
own
which tries to pin the blame on Kerry. Allowable as opinion, if
tasteless.

I don't know about that one. Did not see it on the news or talk.

I think I found the second ad. Short-lived, as it should be, but it was
also a contest entrant, not a commissioned work. MoveOn.org disowned
them both and changed their policies to prevent future mistakes. It
should be noted that neither ad would have been widely seen if the
Republicans hadn't shown them in order to stir up outrage on the talk
shows.

Here's the one I meant:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040626_885.html

I should have described it better. In this case, Bush supporters used
the MoveOn ads as 'cover' so they could juxtapose images of Democrats
and Hitler. Bad tactic, no matter who does it, unless someone really
does act like Hitler.

yeah, I did see it. now I know which
one you menat. It didn't like that, either, cause
its about the moveon looniesm, not Kerry

But I was talking about another Dem one that some
527 is running against Bush. And, now I remember it
compared hs policies to Nazisim, it wasn't
personally comparing him to Hitler, but that is
bad enough.

I think I saw a reference, but not the ad itself. There are enough real
issues out there that these tactics get in the way of real debate.

Stephen