Yup, that's the one. If you bluff, be prepared for us to take you
seriously. The end.
By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.
I have this magical development on my keyboard called the "Page Down" key.
It allows me to almost instantly get to the bottom of a post to see the
follow-up. If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.
However, when reading a series of archived posts, I find it hard to read
top-posted replies because I was taught in school to read from top to
.pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this guess
Let me put this more simply. People come here to communicate. Your choice
of top-posting impedes that. That's a good way to get put into the
"killfile" and outright ignored. It's one thing to be ignorant, but
you're showing that ignorance isn't the problem here.
So learn to freaking _trim_ unneeded text. You don't talk backwards,
why would you write that way?
So you're not only inconsiderate, but you're insulting. Lovely.
Are you like this in person, or just when hiding behind a fake name
on the Intarweb?
I notice you don't address my actual points. Does that mean you're
I fixed your sentence for you.
I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).
in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this
country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies! But
nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I don't
believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually happened,
would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there are
times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance, that
your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with
civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the duty
to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders"
doesn't quite cut it.
Two cents worth from a lurker:
The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago. The
question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?
Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
American citizens, simply on his say-so? No charges placed, no access to
council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
"when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
Constitution? It could be that the people locked up (Jose Padilla for one)
are guilty of horrible crimes. If so its up to the government to prove that
in a court of law. This is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.
Then there are the violations of the Geneva Conventions. These acts
strongly concern me as a veteran. Holding people as "ghost prisoners" (i.e.
without notice to anyone including the Red Cross) and the torture of the
prisoners at Abu Graib and so on violate the provisions of those conventions
which establish minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
That creates a moral precedent that other nations _will_ use against
captured Americans. Responsibility for Abu Graib starts at the top.
It could be argued that the Abu Graib torture does not violate the
conventions based on some legalistic interpretation of the documents. But
to the rest of the world this carries as much weight as Clinton's "meaning
of is is" did to his opponents. Remember: people act not on what is true
but on what they perceive to be true. The US being "bad guys" at that
prison predictably has to be the inspiration for the young and hot blooded
to strike out against us. Rather than make us safer Bush has made us less
Another issue: Bush's spending. Doesn't anybody's memory extend to ten
years back? One of the primary items in the Republicans 1994 "Contract for
America" was fiscal responsibility. Among other provisions that list of
proposed legislation included a constitutional amendment requiring a
balanced budget. Instead being fiscally responsibility Bush has been
throwing money into Iraq by the bushel full. From a surplus in the budget
to the current enormous deficit in just three years. What's wrong with this
picture? Whatever happened to paying as you go? The Republicans _were_ the
party of fiscal responsibility not that of profligate spending.
Much could be written about Bush's economic policies. Most of it bad. I
know that the US has lost over a million good paying jobs. The few jobs
created under Bush's economic policies mostly pay less. I am out of work
and have been for some time. If I am lucky I will get a job that pays half
of what I was making before. If lucky I might get paid as much in 2004 as I
did in 1985.
Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
could hardly worse.
Then why does Kerry seem to want to talk about nothing else? Even Clinton
has told him to shut up about it, a suggestion Kerry has apparently ignored.
Now we have someone on the left cooking up phoney documents to try to
discredit the president. They just can't stop shooting themselves in the
Just so we're clear, here...which people are we talking about, other than
Abdullah al Muhajir?
Well, Kerry is an admitted war criminal who concedes he has violated the
Geneva Convention. So, I guess you're voting for Nader? And by the way,
other nations were already treating POWs like this before Abu Ghraib. The
only difference is that they don't punish the people responsible.
Man, it's too bad Abu Ghraib happened, because otherwise the middle east
would just be a happy place like Disneyworld and no one would be mad at us.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the change in the Constitution that says the
President gets to spend whatever he wants. The last I checked, spending
bills had to go through Congress. So, if the Democrats in Congress didn't
want things to go through, they could have stopped it. So, there's plenty
of blame to go around. Why did the budget go from a annual surplus to a
deficit? Are you kidding me? Does anything that happened three years ago
today ring a bell? The surplus in 2000 of $236 billion was basically due to
above-average receipts from higher-income taxpayers from capital gains from
the stock market bubble, stock options, and bonus income, which added up to
$300 billion. Since government budget people seem incapable of considering
anything except the best-case scenario, they just assume those receipts
would go on and on. In actuality, they were just another symptom of the
stock market bubble that was bound to come down.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen where Kerry plans to reign in that
spending...in fact, he has promised trillions more.
Try again...see http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID 8. I'm sure
there are lots of people not making the money they made during the
phoney-baloney tech bubble.
Well, we won't get the chance to find out, unless he chooses to run again in
2008. Don't worry, though...the Clintons won't let him win that election
Kerry sure has made no mistake in pointing that out.
Probably better than Texas Democrats forging documents to try to gin up some
I'm not crazy about people being detained indefinitely. However, every one
of those people has a warrant signed by a federal judge. The practice was
upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in November of last year. But
I'd like to see some greater speed applied to their situations.
And as we've seen with federal judge appointments, you can't just ramrod
through anything you want to in the Senate if you have a majority.
Unfortunately, you can't get much of anything done in the Senate on your own
with less than 60 senators on your side. So, if anything gets done it's
because Republicans and Democrats both wanted to.
Well, this one's a layup. From John Kerry's interview with Crosby Noyes on
Meet the Press on April 18, 1971.
MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time
or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you
consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
SEN. KERRY: 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. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is
contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of
written established policy by the government of the United States from the
top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who
designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off
the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the
same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
This point of view is not supported by the facts and has been hotly
disputed. Most Nader voters are not Democrats and some of the polling data
I found showed that they would have split their vote between Bush and Gore.
It shouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore should have done to Bush what Bush
41 did to Dukakis. Unfortunately, no one could find a pulse on Al for most
of the campaign. The main purpose to blame for Gore's defeat is Al Gore.
For God's sake...the man lost his own state. Unfortunately for Kerry, it
looks like we're going to have a repeat in 2004, except the end result is
going to be closer to Bush/Dukakis than Bush/Gore.
So, what you're saying is that the Democrats chose political expediency over
Where does that rank compared to Kerry voting against funding for the
Yeah, it's too bad we have double-digit inflation and unemployment. Oops, I
forgot...we don't. If you question if it could be done worse, please refer
yourself to Jimmy Carter.
Actually, based on the events that happened in 2001 and Bush inheriting an
economy on the downturn, I think we're doing quite well, thank you. What we
definitely don't need is the most liberal member of the Senate running the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.