Odd interaction with a road rager

Paul Cassel wrote:
GRL wrote:

There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against
bad-luck Bush if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead
of John Kerry.


Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like
Kerrey (Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.

As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the
misery of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.

Now if THAT isn't a ringing endorsement...

Bill "I think Spiderman and Alice N. Wonderland might steal it (in OH *and*
FL)" S.

GRL wrote:
The trouble is that the wrong Kerry is running. Bob Kerry one can
respect and admire while disagreeing with him. The pond scum John
Kerry's behavior: self-glorifying lies about his delusional
activities during his short 4 months in Vietnam, insulting our troops
with outrageous war crimes charges, and then offering aid and comfort
to the enemy meeting with them in France (while our POW's were being
abused by them) is so far beyond the pale... It is disgusting he was
nominated by the Democrats. We have a traitor running for president
thanks to the Democrat primary voters. Nice. Very nice.

What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
traitorous liar John Kerry. His own campaign has had to disavow his
repeated nonsense about his life being turned around by being
illegally ordered by Nixon into Cambodia with his river patrol boat.
The boat wasn't there and Nixon wasn't even president. Democrats had
a lot of fun with Reagan's lapses where he confused movie scripts
with real memories. But at least his stories were meant to uplift the
human spirit by giving positive examples of human behavior. Kerry's
self-serving stories are meant to make Kerry look good...which he's
not. He's no Ron Reagan...or Jack Kennedy, for that matter. Jack
Kennedy was a patriot and he would puke at the thought of scum like
Kerry running for president.

There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against
bad-luck Bush if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of
John Kerry.

Ya know, for a top-poster you write durn good.

Bill "but it's Bob KERREY, not Kerry" S.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:09:43 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote:

GRL wrote:

There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.


Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like Kerrey
(Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.

As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the misery
of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.

-paul

I would vote for my neighbors german sheperd, before I would vote for
Bush. Anyone, almost anything, is better than another 4 years, of him
screwing up my country. He is the worst president of my lifetime.
Nixon, may have been a crook, but he was a better president.

I am really disappointed in my fellow man. Why would you award someone
with another 4 years, when they have made so many major mistakes.

The Packer's won on Sunday, beating the Washington Redskins, let's
hope that prediction continues. The Redskins lose, the incumbant
loses. Being a Packer's fan, most of my life, how fitting that it was
them, that got to play the Sunday before the election.

In spite of the damage done in the last 4 years, I still believe that-
Life is Good!
Jeff

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:11:03 GMT, "Ken [NY)"
wrote in message :

LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
right and the far right.

Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
Ted Kennedy.

Exactly :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:13:54 +0000,
, "Just zis Guy, you
know?" wrote:

LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
right and the far right.

Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
Ted Kennedy.

Exactly :-)

Guy

They're going to vote exactly like the French did.

Elect the facist to keep out the nazi.
--
zk

: LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
: very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
: right and the far right.
:
: Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
: Ted Kennedy.
:
: Exactly :-)
:
: Guy

www.factcheck.org says he is the 11th, not the first.

you might want to get the facts.

Pat in TX

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:09:43 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote:

GRL wrote:

There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.


Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like Kerrey
(Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.

As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the misery
of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.

-paul

Seems to me that Kerry dug out the truth of BCCI, to the chagrin of
both Republicans and Democrats, as well as being the only one willing
to go after Iran/Contra. I think the guy has guts.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:09:08 GMT, "Ken [NY)"
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:58:17 -0500, "GRL"
claims:

What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
president, Republican or Democrat,

Anti-semitism is alive and healthy in the Democrat party, as
always. It fits in with their anti-black agenda. The only mystery is
why Jews and blacks fall into lockstep during elections, drinking the
liberal Kool-Aid, even though their votes are viewed by party leaders
as the sole property of the Dems.


Maybe you just don't understand anything?

....stuff deleted
4 months of the most dangerous work in the war, bar none. Kerry did not
ask for awards, this is not how the military operates. A superior
officier, who may or may not be delusional, I'll admit, must submit a
recommendation which is then investigated before any awards are given
(even purple hearts). But then, those with a political axe to grind
don't care much about truth.



The following morning after Kerry's alleged first intense combat
engagement, he requested a Purple Heart from his commanding officer,
Grant Hibbard (Ret.).
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/002447.php


No individual can request a combat award. They can document what
happened, with the recommendation of their superior officer, and wait
for a judgement. While I've read the web site, supposedly describing how
he requested the award, I can't give it much credence. The process
described is, simply, not how such awards are given.


As to the charges that the boats violated the borders of Laos and
Cambodia, there is no denying that it happened, and it happened frequently.


On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign acknowledged that John Kerry probably
was not in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, contrary to the senator's
decades-old assertion.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...0512-6687r.htm


Sure, pick a given date and you can, with good probability, say that he
wasn't in Cambodia on that day. The reality is, most of these operations
were covert, not documented by normal Navy processes (when picking up
SEALS, for example, the boat drivers do not report their goings and
comings). That Kerry, in his patrols up and down the river did cross
into Cambodian territory is undeniable. This was the role of these boats
and it was expected that this would happen.

On a personal basis, you may or may not feel that his awards are
worthwhile. Personally, anyone who would board one of those boats
deserves a medal for bravery. Anyone who willingly toured on one is
either an idiot, exceptionally brave, or has no survival instinct. I
believe that Kerry does not fit in the last category, and probably
doesn't fit in the first.

Rick

"Rick" wrote

No individual can request a combat award. They can document what happened,
with the recommendation of their superior officer, and wait for a
judgement. While I've read the web site, supposedly describing how he
requested the award, I can't give it much credence. The process described
is, simply, not how such awards are given.

One can write his own, and have it submitted up the chaian. A suitable
commander, looking to pad *his own* resume, might just sign it.

Not saying that is what happened in this case, but it *does* happen.

Pete