Re: For Sanders

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(ScottW) wrote:

> Know your boy.
>
> www.wintersoldier.com
>
> or (if that link fails)
>
> http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php

Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
"American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
revelations of atrocities.

Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.

Stephen

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: MINe 109
>Date: 3/16/04 1:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (ScottW) wrote:
>
>> Know your boy.
>>
>> www.wintersoldier.com
>>
>> or (if that link fails)
>>
>> http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php
>
>Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
>"American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
>revelations of atrocities.
>
>Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.
>
>Stephen
>
>

I don't know anyone who denigrates his time in Viet Nam, it's what he did
after.

I do find it odd that he put HIMSELF in for the Purple Heart!

That there were atrocities committed by Americans in RVN is not in question,
the extent and number is.

The people I knew there told me of incidents from both sides VC and G.I.

I was left with the impression that what we did was largely in response to what
they did.

[S888Wheel]

>
>I do find it odd that he put HIMSELF in for the Purple Heart!
>

Why would you find common practice odd?

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: (S888Wheel)

>>I do find it odd that he put HIMSELF in for the Purple Heart!
>>
>
>Why would you find common practice odd?
>
>
>
>

I don't know it to be common practice.

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Mikermckelvy)
>Date: 3/16/2004 5:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (S888Wheel)
>
>>>I do find it odd that he put HIMSELF in for the Purple Heart!
>>>
>>
>>Why would you find common practice odd?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't know it to be common practice.
>
>
>
>
>
>

There are a lot of things you don't know.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (ScottW) wrote:
>
> > Know your boy.
> >
> > www.wintersoldier.com
> >
> > or (if that link fails)
> >
> > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php
>
> Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
> "American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
> revelations of atrocities.

What recent revelations?


I find this section very interesting.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians

>
> Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.

Not if they used their veteran status to give credibility to
lies.

We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day
waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who
died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not
accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American
Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will
find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will
demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently
been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the
creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select
few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese.
We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize
that which was base and grim.

-- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"

----------

Two years later, [1984] he ran for the U.S. Senate - dusting
off his veteran's credentials by standing in front of the black
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to shoot a TV
campaign ad, defying regulations that the memorial not be
used for political purposes. The ad "was filmed illegally against
the wishes of the National Park Service," according to the
Boston Globe. Kerry authorized its broadcast anyway.

-- J. Michael Waller, Insight Magazine, March 5, 2004


"My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the
[congressional] offices we would schedule the most
hardcore hawks for last -- and we would shoot them all."

-- VVAW leader Scott Camil, in the University of Florida
Oral History Archive, October 20,1992


ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <tdQ5c.19256$Nj.1417@fed1read01>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (ScottW) wrote:
> >
> > > Know your boy.
> > >
> > > www.wintersoldier.com
> > >
> > > or (if that link fails)
> > >
> > > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php
> >
> > Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
> > "American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
> > revelations of atrocities.
>
> What recent revelations?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/blade/index_np.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE/

> I find this section very interesting.
> http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians
>
> >
> > Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.
>
> Not if they used their veteran status to give credibility to
> lies.

There's no statute of limitations on veteran status.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/index_np.html

The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John
Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening
conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the
symbolism of flag and country. To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
from Vietnam.

They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
and soldiers.

End quote.

> We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day
> waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who
> died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not
> accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American
> Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will
> find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will
> demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently
> been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the
> creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select
> few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese.
> We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize
> that which was base and grim.
>
> -- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"
>
> ----------
>
> Two years later, [1984] he ran for the U.S. Senate - dusting
> off his veteran's credentials by standing in front of the black
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to shoot a TV
> campaign ad, defying regulations that the memorial not be
> used for political purposes. The ad "was filmed illegally against
> the wishes of the National Park Service," according to the
> Boston Globe. Kerry authorized its broadcast anyway.
>
> -- J. Michael Waller, Insight Magazine, March 5, 2004
>
>
> "My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the
> [congressional] offices we would schedule the most
> hardcore hawks for last -- and we would shoot them all."
>
> -- VVAW leader Scott Camil, in the University of Florida
> Oral History Archive, October 20,1992

Weak stuff.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <tdQ5c.19256$Nj.1417@fed1read01>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > (ScottW) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Know your boy.
> > > >
> > > > www.wintersoldier.com
> > > >
> > > > or (if that link fails)
> > > >
> > > > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php
> > >
> > > Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
> > > "American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
> > > revelations of atrocities.
> >
> > What recent revelations?
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/blade/index_np.html
>
> http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE/

Awful stories. I hope the investigations reveal everything.

>
> > I find this section very interesting.
> > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians
> >
> > >
> > > Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.
> >
> > Not if they used their veteran status to give credibility to
> > lies.
>
> There's no statute of limitations on veteran status.
>
> http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/index_np.html
>
> The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John
> Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening
> conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the
> symbolism of flag and country. To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
> back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
> hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
> from Vietnam.
>
> They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
> peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
> and soldiers.
>
> End quote.

Weak stuff. I hate being told what conclusion to draw.
If there are distortions, reveal them with facts.

>
> > We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day
> > waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who
> > died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not
> > accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American
> > Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will
> > find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will
> > demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently
> > been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the
> > creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select
> > few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese.
> > We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize
> > that which was base and grim.
> >
> > -- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Two years later, [1984] he ran for the U.S. Senate - dusting
> > off his veteran's credentials by standing in front of the black
> > Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to shoot a TV
> > campaign ad, defying regulations that the memorial not be
> > used for political purposes. The ad "was filmed illegally against
> > the wishes of the National Park Service," according to the
> > Boston Globe. Kerry authorized its broadcast anyway.
> >
> > -- J. Michael Waller, Insight Magazine, March 5, 2004
> >
> >
> > "My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the
> > [congressional] offices we would schedule the most
> > hardcore hawks for last -- and we would shoot them all."
> >
> > -- VVAW leader Scott Camil, in the University of Florida
> > Oral History Archive, October 20,1992

It has been reported that Kerry attended the meeting where
they voted on this plan. Hardly weak stuff if true.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:20:55 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Weak stuff. I hate being told what conclusion to draw.
>If there are distortions, reveal them with facts.

Why? You'll just deny them.

[MINe 109]

In article <e7S5c.19281$Nj.383@fed1read01>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <tdQ5c.19256$Nj.1417@fed1read01>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (ScottW) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Know your boy.
> > > > >
> > > > > www.wintersoldier.com
> > > > >
> > > > > or (if that link fails)
> > > > >
> > > > > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php
> > > >
> > > > Aside from the strawman of whether or not the incidents reflected
> > > > "American policy," Kerry's charges have been supported by recent
> > > > revelations of atrocities.
> > >
> > > What recent revelations?
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/blade/index_np.html
> >
> > http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE/
>
> Awful stories. I hope the investigations reveal everything.

I don't expect to hear much about it on the evening news.

> > > I find this section very interesting.
> > > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Still, gotta admire someone who went to war for their country.
> > >
> > > Not if they used their veteran status to give credibility to
> > > lies.
> >
> > There's no statute of limitations on veteran status.
> >
> > http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/index_np.html
> >
> > The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John
> > Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening
> > conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the
> > symbolism of flag and country. To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
> > back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
> > hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
> > from Vietnam.
> >
> > They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
> > peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
> > and soldiers.
> >
> > End quote.
>
> Weak stuff. I hate being told what conclusion to draw.
> If there are distortions, reveal them with facts.

It's an opinion piece. Those are the conclusions of the writer.

For a biased but supported viewpoint, try dailyhowler.com. (Despite
their bias, the dailyhowler folks also take on liberal positions such as
the knee-jerk responses to "The Passion".)

> > > We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day
> > > waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who
> > > died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not
> > > accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American
> > > Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will
> > > find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will
> > > demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently
> > > been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the
> > > creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select
> > > few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese.
> > > We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize
> > > that which was base and grim.
> > >
> > > -- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"
> > >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > Two years later, [1984] he ran for the U.S. Senate - dusting
> > > off his veteran's credentials by standing in front of the black
> > > Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to shoot a TV
> > > campaign ad, defying regulations that the memorial not be
> > > used for political purposes. The ad "was filmed illegally against
> > > the wishes of the National Park Service," according to the
> > > Boston Globe. Kerry authorized its broadcast anyway.
> > >
> > > -- J. Michael Waller, Insight Magazine, March 5, 2004
> > >
> > >
> > > "My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the
> > > [congressional] offices we would schedule the most
> > > hardcore hawks for last -- and we would shoot them all."
> > >
> > > -- VVAW leader Scott Camil, in the University of Florida
> > > Oral History Archive, October 20,1992
>
> It has been reported that Kerry attended the meeting where
> they voted on this plan. Hardly weak stuff if true.

The first quote is a reasonable early seventies viewpoint against the
Vietnam war. The second is partisanship and amounts to nothing. The last
suggests conservatives believe Kerry was plotting terrorism, which would
be strong stuff if true. However, it is incredible.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(ScottW) wrote:

> MINe 109 > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article <e7S5c.19281$Nj.383@fed1read01>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's an opinion piece. Those are the conclusions of the writer.
> >
> > For a biased but supported viewpoint, try dailyhowler.com. (Despite
> > their bias, the dailyhowler folks also take on liberal positions such as
> > the knee-jerk responses to "The Passion".)
>
> This site is a one man show written by former 5th grade
> teacher/comedian/op-ed writer.
> Anybody with a couple newspaper subscriptions could crank out this
> column.

That's right. How come this ordinary viewpoint is so rarely represented
in the mainstream press?

<quotes snipped>

> > > It has been reported that Kerry attended the meeting where
> > > they voted on this plan. Hardly weak stuff if true.
> >
> > The first quote is a reasonable early seventies viewpoint against the
> > Vietnam war. The second is partisanship and amounts to nothing.
>
> It shows Kerry's lack of commitment to his beliefs. He is a political
> whore.
>
> > The last
> > suggests conservatives believe Kerry was plotting terrorism, which would
> > be strong stuff if true. However, it is incredible.
>
> Two witnesses claim he was there. Time will tell if this turns into
> something or disappears.

It will disappear, just like Drudge's intern.

Stephen

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: MINe 109

>The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John
>Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening
>conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the
>symbolism of flag and country.

Not really. Everybody respects his service, for 4 months he did well in the
miltary. For the next 20 plus years he's been trying to eviscerate it.

That's the problem with the Dems, they think Defense is something to be gutted
if the want to throw money at a social program.

>To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
>back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
>hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
>from Vietnam.

They have been presenting his post VN record. Frankly, it sucks.

>They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
>peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
>and soldiers.

Because of how he did it. He dishonors all other VN vetrans and himself. The
phony medal throwing, the rally with Fonda, the portrayal of all GI's as baby
killers and murderers. These things put him in the muck with most other
leftists.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: dave weil

>> Weak stuff. I hate being told what conclusion to draw.
>>If there are distortions, reveal them with facts.
>
>Why? You'll just deny them.
>

Not if they are provable.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(Mikermckelvy) wrote:

> >From: MINe 109


From Slate.com's Joe Conason:
> >The contrast between the military careers of George W. Bush and John
> >Kerry is drawing veterans to the Democratic Party -- and maddening
> >conservative Republicans who have grown accustomed to monopolizing the
> >symbolism of flag and country.
>
> Not really. Everybody respects his service, for 4 months he did well in the
> miltary. For the next 20 plus years he's been trying to eviscerate it.
>
> That's the problem with the Dems, they think Defense is something to be gutted
> if the want to throw money at a social program.

I think you left the radio on. Sounds like Rush.

> >To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
> >back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
> >hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
> >from Vietnam.
>
> They have been presenting his post VN record. Frankly, it sucks.

Frankly, you disagree, you meant to say. Not everyone supported the
Vietnam War. Bush's chicken-hawk crowd found "other priorities" when it
came to actually fighting.

> >They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
> >peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
> >and soldiers.
>
> Because of how he did it. He dishonors all other VN vetrans and himself. The
> phony medal throwing, the rally with Fonda, the portrayal of all GI's as baby
> killers and murderers. These things put him in the muck with most other
> leftists.

The fake photo with Fonda? *All* GIs? You haven't noticed the vets who
turn out for his appearances, have you?

[dave weil]

On 18 Mar 2004 10:44:23 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

> You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
>voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
>raise for military personel.
> If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
>Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.

Unfortunately for you, it's NOT true.

Time to make something else up, *or* listen to people who make things
up so that you can say that you "heard" this or that.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(ScottW) wrote:

> You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
> raise for military personel.
> If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
> Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.

You mean he voted against the giant omnibus defense bills that included
pay raises. No telling what he did in committee or behind closed doors.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(ScottW) wrote:

> dave weil > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 18 Mar 2004 10:44:23 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:
> >
> > > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> > >voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
> > >raise for military personel.
> > > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
> > >Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
> >
> > Unfortunately for you, it's NOT true.
> >
> > Time to make something else up, *or* listen to people who make things
> > up so that you can say that you "heard" this or that.
>
> I think your hatred is getting the best of you Dave.
> Perhaps a cognac to settle your nerves.
>
> Anyway, I see in '99 he did vote for a pay raise.
>
> http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_Defense.htm
>
> Then there is this.
>
> http://qando.net/archives/002111.htm
>
> His record on defense is overall, a negative one IMO.

This is why I don't believe in rumormongering planted stories. What's
the term, "rat****ing"?

Stephen

[dave weil]

On 18 Mar 2004 15:07:20 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On 18 Mar 2004 10:44:23 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:
>>
>> > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
>> >voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
>> >raise for military personel.
>> > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
>> >Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, it's NOT true.
>>
>> Time to make something else up, *or* listen to people who make things
>> up so that you can say that you "heard" this or that.
>
> I think your hatred is getting the best of you Dave.
> Perhaps a cognac to settle your nerves.

It's hardly hatred to point out that you are way too quick to fire off
scurrilous claims (like Mike has done in the past as well).

> Anyway, I see in '99 he did vote for a pay raise.
>
>http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_Defense.htm

Now, wouldn't it have done you well to do a little research before
making your claim?

> Then there is this.
>
> http://qando.net/archives/002111.htm
>
> His record on defense is overall, a negative one IMO.

Of course you would think that. It wouldn't matter what the facts were
anyway.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (ScottW) wrote:
>
> > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> > voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
> > raise for military personel.
> > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
> > Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
>
> You mean he voted against the giant omnibus defense bills that included
> pay raises. No telling what he did in committee or behind closed doors.

So we must judge him on his record.

Or listen to him explain that he voted for it first before he voted
against it. Frankly, that kind of a politician doesn't belong in the
White House IMO.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <cML6c.19782$Nj.459@fed1read01>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (ScottW) wrote:
> >
> > > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> > > voted against every military appropriations bill that included a pay
> > > raise for military personel.
> > > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating to
> > > Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
> >
> > You mean he voted against the giant omnibus defense bills that included
> > pay raises. No telling what he did in committee or behind closed doors.
>
> So we must judge him on his record.

Sounds good. What doesn't sound good is the Bush campaign pretending a
vote against a complex bill is really a vote against a small part of it.

> Or listen to him explain that he voted for it first before he voted
> against it. Frankly, that kind of a politician doesn't belong in the
> White House IMO.

That means no politician belongs in the White House.

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <cML6c.19782$Nj.459@fed1read01>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > (ScottW) wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> > > > voted against every military appropriations bill that included a
pay
> > > > raise for military personel.
> > > > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating
to
> > > > Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
> > >
> > > You mean he voted against the giant omnibus defense bills that
included
> > > pay raises. No telling what he did in committee or behind closed
doors.
> >
> > So we must judge him on his record.
>
> Sounds good. What doesn't sound good is the Bush campaign pretending a
> vote against a complex bill is really a vote against a small part of it.

No, its a vote against all of it. It might have had provisions he liked
but in the end, he didn't feel they were important enough to
surpass the negatives as he voted no. Difficult to make an
argument of strong support for the troops. Obviously, they
weren't his first priority.

>
> > Or listen to him explain that he voted for it first before he voted
> > against it. Frankly, that kind of a politician doesn't belong in the
> > White House IMO.
>
> That means no politician belongs in the White House.

You can't get there without becoming one.

ScottW

[MINe 109]

In article <DLM6c.19792$Nj.3590@fed1read01>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <cML6c.19782$Nj.459@fed1read01>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (ScottW) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can't fake a voting record and I heard today that John Kerry
> > > > > voted against every military appropriations bill that included a
> pay
> > > > > raise for military personel.
> > > > > If true, I suspect this kind of information will be devastating
> to
> > > > > Kerry's veteran support when it becomes widely known.
> > > >
> > > > You mean he voted against the giant omnibus defense bills that
> included
> > > > pay raises. No telling what he did in committee or behind closed
> doors.
> > >
> > > So we must judge him on his record.
> >
> > Sounds good. What doesn't sound good is the Bush campaign pretending a
> > vote against a complex bill is really a vote against a small part of it.
>
> No, its a vote against all of it.

Well, that's not how you're spinning it: Kerry votes against military
pay raise.

> It might have had provisions he liked
> but in the end, he didn't feel they were important enough to
> surpass the negatives as he voted no. Difficult to make an
> argument of strong support for the troops. Obviously, they
> weren't his first priority.

Not obvious at all.

> > > Or listen to him explain that he voted for it first before he voted
> > > against it. Frankly, that kind of a politician doesn't belong in the
> > > White House IMO.
> >
> > That means no politician belongs in the White House.
>
> You can't get there without becoming one.

Then you're screwed.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:53:26 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> I agree that it is responsible to cast a nay vote to at least avoid a
>> Congressional rubber stamp for President Bush in his attempt at
>> conducting unfettered warfare, yes. Sometimes, tactical votes are
>> important to keep people honest, even if it opens one up to backbiting
>> by people like you.
>
> You're as bad at answering a yes or no question as
>John Kerry is.

I see. You can't understand English. OK.

>I think most Americans don't approve of
>symbolic political gestures when it comes to casting votes
>in the Senate.

I don't give a **** about what "most people don't approve of". You
didn't ask me about what "most people" thought (and your supposition
may or may not be correct - who knows? I know that *I'm* not
presumptuous to speak for "most people").

I happen to think that symbolic votes and protest bloc vote like those
that occur on *both* sides of the aisle on occasion are important
parts of the political process. I know that your two dimensional brain
has a hard time with this sort of thing though.

> But to talk about backbiting, Kerry criticized the presdent for
>failing to provide body armor. A piece of equipment specifically
>funded in an appropriations bill he voted against.

A bill that he knew full well was going to pass. I think it was a
pretty brave vote to put out there, actually, esepcially since he was
considering running for president.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:53:26 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >> I agree that it is responsible to cast a nay vote to at least avoid a
> >> Congressional rubber stamp for President Bush in his attempt at
> >> conducting unfettered warfare, yes. Sometimes, tactical votes are
> >> important to keep people honest, even if it opens one up to backbiting
> >> by people like you.
> >
> > You're as bad at answering a yes or no question as
> >John Kerry is.
>
> I see. You can't understand English. OK.
>
> >I think most Americans don't approve of
> >symbolic political gestures when it comes to casting votes
> >in the Senate.
>
> I don't give a **** about what "most people don't approve of". You
> didn't ask me about what "most people" thought (and your supposition
> may or may not be correct - who knows? I know that *I'm* not
> presumptuous to speak for "most people").

That rage and hostility is venting again.
It's obvious that public support for that measure was overwhelming.
Kerry was being a dick.

>
> I happen to think that symbolic votes and protest bloc vote like those
> that occur on *both* sides of the aisle on occasion are important
> parts of the political process. I know that your two dimensional brain
> has a hard time with this sort of thing though.

I find it a bs rationalization of Kerry's no vote.
Let's put up a Kerry add and explain it as a symbolic
gesture or protest when it comes to something that important.
Let's see how that flies in America.
>
> > But to talk about backbiting, Kerry criticized the presdent for
> >failing to provide body armor. A piece of equipment specifically
> >funded in an appropriations bill he voted against.
>
> A bill that he knew full well was going to pass. I think it was a
> pretty brave vote to put out there, actually, esepcially since he was
> considering running for president.

Brave? I think it was stupid and impulsive. His own attempt
to rationalize it was a bigger bust than yours.

I see your great state is home to some interesting communities.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/18/county.gays.ap/

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:16:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>I see your great state is home to some interesting communities.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/18/county.gays.ap/

Oh yeah, although they just backed down.

Also, I'll note that the only Republican to either abstain or vote no
on the bill that you have referenced came from Tennessee (he
abstained).

I edited out all of the parts that made you look stupid, BTW. I hope
you are grateful, since you don't seem to have a clue about the inner
workings of our government.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:22:36 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Nice intelligent discourse on why Kerry doesn't have a conflicted
>record. Good job Dave.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

BTW, I'm glad that you're moving on, since the conversation was
apparently over your head.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:16:57 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >I see your great state is home to some interesting communities.
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/18/county.gays.ap/
>
> Oh yeah, although they just backed down.
>
> Also, I'll note that the only Republican to either abstain or vote no
> on the bill that you have referenced came from Tennessee (he
> abstained).
>
> I edited out all of the parts that made you look stupid, BTW. I hope
> you are grateful, since you don't seem to have a clue about the inner
> workings of our government.

You just keep hating Dave. It's all you got.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:37:10 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> You just keep hating Dave.

I actually like Dave. He's got a great monologue.

[Marc Phillips]

Yanni's Codpiece-Slammer said:

>I'm going to have to do some research. Someone I trust described a
>very different state of affairs. I don't want to comment further until
>I know what I'm talking about specifically.

Wow! What a refreshing statement to make on Usenet. One can easily imagine a
plague of locusts accompanying a similar statement from Arny.

Boon

[Sandman]

All the Arnii imitatiors hear are getting better at Krooglush then Arnii is,
LOt"S! He mist being so jolusse!!!

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Marc Phillips said:
>
> > Yanni's Codpiece-Slammer said:
> >
> > >I'm going to have to do some research. Someone I trust described a
> > >very different state of affairs. I don't want to comment further until
> > >I know what I'm talking about specifically.
> >
> > Wow! What a refreshing statement to make on Usenet. One can easily
imagine a
> > plague of locusts accompanying a similar statement from Arny.
>
> Tell us Phillops how you know so much about, the bible Philip's. Its
> like you talk to God when I am the Christian and you're house is
> full of tubes. What a bigit! LOL! If you and yore co-thugs didn't
> look the other way when I proove your lies are true. Obviously you
> have locusts where your brains should be. Oh wait, its your brain on
> the meat slicer again PHillips. Maybe I should claim victory now or
> perhaps Philip's you want to enroll in All Quida before God smites
> you again? I should just prove you hate music again, which is so
> easy its like you call yourself "Vinyle Anackronist" because you're
> NOT jealous of everything I say? ;-) If you're hands are so dirty
> Phillips maybe Sander's can help you wash, LOt"S.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bruce J. Richman]

Jaime Sandors wrote:


>All the Arnii imitatiors hear are getting better at Krooglush then Arnii is,
>LOt"S! He mist being so jolusse!!!
>
>

Proove et.

Thanks for admitting your part of the RAO consparussy plained by the toob and
vinal bigits. Their are know typos in my posts - never!!, it is impossibull !!
I can wipe all you thugs with $ 100 bills the next tyme I flosh!!!!



Bruce J. Richman

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: MINe 109

>> Not really. Everybody respects his service, for 4 months he did well in
>the
>> miltary. For the next 20 plus years he's been trying to eviscerate

>> That's the problem with the Dems, they think Defense is something to be
>gutted
>> if the want to throw money at a social program.

>I think you left the radio on. Sounds like Rush.

I never heard him say it, but it's one of the things I would agree with him on.

>> >To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
>> >back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
>> >hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
>> >from Vietnam.

He's the one who keeps reaching back. He's trying to meake it seem that
because he went to VN and was decorated that he hasn't been gutting national
defense ever since he got into the Senate.

.. Bush's chicken-hawk crowd found "other priorities" when it
>came to actually fighting.
>
Bush put himself into the miltary in an honorable way. He fulfilled his duty.
That he didn't volunteer to go into combat for political reason as Kerry did
shouldn't be held against him.


>> >They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
>> >peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
>> >and soldiers.

When you working with Jane Fonda you are doing just that.

I guarantee you that almost none of the regular forces sent to RVN thought the
war was fought well or for any good reason. I will also guarantee you that the
majority of those same people hate Fonda for her trip to NVN and anyone who
worked with her after that trip.

>The fake photo with Fonda?

Their were 2 photos. One that has them at a rally together and one that puts
them side by side, the second one is editing, the first one is not. Kerry was
at least one event with Fonda.

>*All* GIs? You haven't noticed the vets who
>turn out for his appearances, have you?

have you noticed the even larger number who don't?

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: MINe 109

>This is why I don't believe in rumormongering planted stories. What's
>the term, "rat****ing"?

IIRC the payraise he voted for was to be paid for by repeal of part of the tax
cuts.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(Mikermckelvy) wrote:

> >From: MINe 109
>
> >> Not really. Everybody respects his service, for 4 months he did well in
> >the
> >> miltary. For the next 20 plus years he's been trying to eviscerate
>
> >> That's the problem with the Dems, they think Defense is something to be
> >gutted
> >> if the want to throw money at a social program.
>
> >I think you left the radio on. Sounds like Rush.
>
> I never heard him say it, but it's one of the things I would agree with him
> on.

Cheney had something to say about gutting defense.

> >> >To tarnish Kerry, the right has reached
> >> >back more than 30 years to develop a narrative that transforms him from
> >> >hero to traitor, by distorting his anti-war activism after he returned
> >> >from Vietnam.
>
> He's the one who keeps reaching back. He's trying to meake it seem that
> because he went to VN and was decorated that he hasn't been gutting national
> defense ever since he got into the Senate.

Doesn't that bug the Republicans.

> . Bush's chicken-hawk crowd found "other priorities" when it
> >came to actually fighting.
> >
> Bush put himself into the miltary in an honorable way. He fulfilled his
> duty.

Even if you take him at his word, he left early to go to business school.

> That he didn't volunteer to go into combat for political reason as Kerry did
> shouldn't be held against him.

Why not? One of those "political" reasons was patriotism.

> >> >They hope to convince America that by testifying and organizing for
> >> >peace, the young Navy lieutenant somehow "dishonored" his fellow sailors
> >> >and soldiers.
>
> When you working with Jane Fonda you are doing just that.

I count the Purple Hearts higher.

> I guarantee you that almost none of the regular forces sent to RVN thought
> the
> war was fought well or for any good reason. I will also guarantee you that
> the
> majority of those same people hate Fonda for her trip to NVN and anyone who
> worked with her after that trip.
>
> >The fake photo with Fonda?
>
> Their were 2 photos. One that has them at a rally together and one that puts
> them side by side, the second one is editing, the first one is not. Kerry
> was at least one event with Fonda.

Who married Turner, who founded CNN. Therefore, all news is tainted.

> >*All* GIs? You haven't noticed the vets who
> >turn out for his appearances, have you?
>
> have you noticed the even larger number who don't?

Who are you, Samuel Goldwyn?