OT Flame War

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
You forgot to address Bush being an excellent fighter pilot, applying to
go to Vietnam, and whether he really earned his honorable discharge. The
evidence indicates at best an overstatement on the first point, while the
second and third are false.

What the hell did Mr. Sherman ever do for his country except to betray it
with treasonous views. President Bush served honorably and did not make his
military record a big deal. It was Kerry who did that, and he has lived to
regret it, thanks to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"James S. Prine" wrote in message
...
You forgot to address Bush being an excellent fighter pilot, applying to
go to Vietnam, and whether he really earned his honorable discharge.

I don't know about you, but I respect any individual who earns their wings
as a
fighter pilot. Clearly, Bush did that. Given that his family *did* have
some
measure of influence, I'm certain that Bush could have arranged far less
hazardous duty.

When you raise the question of whether or not Bush 'earned' his honorable
discharge, I have yet to see any verifiable information that has
conclusively
proven that he did not. Bush's entire military record is open to
scrutiny.

Mr. Kerry's discharge? Information is becoming available that Kerry
probably
*did not* receive an Honorable Discharge until after President Carter
assumed
the Office of POTUS; if you remember, Carter's *first* official act was to
provide amnesty for the American draft dodgers, shirkers, etc.

Kerry could easily shut up the Republicans by merely signing Form 180 and
finally revealing his military record in its entirety. Thus far, he has
failed
to do that. Queries to his campaign committee in reference to these
specific
questions have been repeatedly ignored.

As for Kerry possibly 'overstating' his "secret mission into Cambodia",
remember that he swore that before the U.S. Congress, going so far as to
remember it as being "seared...seared...into his memory." That proven
false,
how much else has Kerry 'overstated'?

If all the American troops in Vietnam were 'routinely' performing
unspeakable
atrocities, as Kerry swore under oath, how was it that so many thousands
of
South Vietnamese literally risked their lives in coming to America after
the
Communists finally overran the country?

How is it that all the "routine atrocities" stories have been debunked in
the 3
decades that Kerry swore to them before Congress?

Do yourself a favor...*read* Kerry's sworn testimony...take notes (I did),
and
compare them with all the information that's come to light since he made
those
statements in 1970. Their veracity...or lack therof...will speak volumes
about
Kerry's 'truthfulness.'

Mr. Sherman is a liberal ideologue and the last thing he ever wants to know
about anything is the truth. He selects his facts according to their liberal
purity. Any other kind of facts are anathema to him. He is like a deaf,
blind and dumb man. I have the measure of him and he is not worth arguing
with; rather, he is to be excoriated and condemned for being the useless
fool that he is.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
James S. Prine wrote:

I don't know about you, but I respect any individual who earns their
wings as a
fighter pilot.

I may well respect them as a capable fighter pilot, but that doesn't mean
they'll be any good as a US president.

President Bush has been a genius as the US President. Your Prime Minister
Blair hasn't been bad either, but I am sure you are too stupid to appreciate
him also.

Mr. Kerry's discharge?

Why should anyone care? The question is who will do the presidential job
more capably. What either of them did in what amounts to a former job in
a former life is hardly the point.

It was Kerry who made his Vietnam military service a key ingredient in his
campaign. Therefore, he let himself in for criticism which is fair and just.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"James S. Prine" wrote in message
...
I may well respect them as a capable fighter pilot, but that doesn't
mean they'll be any good as a US president.

Agreed. And a self-proclaimed war criminal with what appear to be
specious
wartime medals, who never served more than 3 months in combat (out of the
12
months he'd volunteered for), who returned to his nation and became a
celebrated traitor, is probably a lot *less* capable of serving as
President.

Why should anyone care?

It's the law. If Kerry *did* receive a dishonorable discharge...and a lot
of
information is surfacing that he probably did...then he cannot hold any
public
office, period.

The question is who will do the presidential
job more capably.

Agreed. Bush has shown, through recent history, that he's done a
remarkable
job. Kerry's main claims the past twenty years in Congress has been
lackluster
performance, at best. His chief qualification seems to be that, no matter
what
Bush has done, *he* can do it better, without making any enemies, and
without
his efforts costing anyone anything. He hasn't yet claimed the ability to
raise the dead...but I expect that next g.

What either of them did in what amounts to a former
job in a former life is hardly the point.

I disagree. In 1993, Kerry went to Vietnam...again...and clearly did his
best
to bury (an appropriate term) the U.S. POW/MIA issue so he could
'normalize'
U.S. relations with Vietnam. His actions were extraordinary, to say the
least,
and he has never satisfactorily explained why he had so many documents
shredded. He claimed that the originals had already been shipped to
archives,
but that has been debunked. It is no secret that Kerry's cousin was the
recipient of a billion-dollar construction contract with the Vietnamese
government. I don't like Bush, but I *despise* Kerry for what he's done.

And how is what Davy Crockett might have thought were he alive today in
any way relevant to the current US?

The same might be said for your opinion...from your email address you
aren't an
American and you have no say in who we vote for (or against), so your
relevancy
on the issue is somewhat suspect. But I used Crockett as an example,
because
Crockett and his comrades-in-arms at the Alamo chose to fight to the death
against overwhelming odds...against an egotistical power-mad
dictator...the
Kerry of 1836.


Before I merely despised Kerry, but now, thanks to James, I hate the no good
******* more than ever and wish him nothing but dead. Surely if there is any
goodness and justice in this world, Kerry will shortly expire of a heart
attack, or maybe his prostate cancer will come back and get him. Kerry is
far more despicable than Clinton ever was.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mark Leuck wrote:

Ron Jr is not gay, try research next time[.]

How would you know if he were happy or not?

Happiness does not matter, but proper and correct behavior does. It is far
better to be miserable and to be correct than to be a happy slob and
incorrect. A gay homo is a contradiction in terms. They are always miserable
and deserve to be. Most heteros are also miserable, but they do not
necessarily deserve to be. If they would listen to the music of Beethoven,
they would not be nearly so miserable.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


On 18 Oct 2004 19:07:07 GMT, othanks (James S. Prine)
wrote in message :



"Colonel David Crockett...would *not* have supported Kerry."


And Dwight D Eisenhower's son does not support Shrub ;-)

Neither does Ronald Reagan's son - and Bush II claims to be Reagan's
political heir.


Ron Jr. is a flaming homo. Almost all homos are liberals, just like all
abortionists are liberals and just like all America haters are liberals.
Mr. Sherman is in good company.

And Edward Dolan is a bigot. What a surprise.

Well, I certainly have no time for homos. They are perverse and degenerate
and deserving of ever lasting hell fire. Guy Chapman most likely thinks
homos are perfectly OK and wouldn't mind being one himself.

I think woman are fantastically beautiful creatures and I simply can't
imagine a man who would prefer an ugly man to a wonderful and charming
woman. It may be that I am going crazy with my normalcy. I am getting old
now and I am more than prepared to die and leave the world to the likes of
Guy Chapman. May he prosper with all his broadmindedness and tolerance for
homos, abortionists and America haters.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
James S. Prine wrote:

I don't know about you, but I respect any individual who earns their
wings as a
fighter pilot.

I may well respect them as a capable fighter pilot, but that doesn't
mean they'll be any good as a US president.

Mr. Kerry's discharge?

Why should anyone care? The question is who will do the presidential
job more capably. What either of them did in what amounts to a former
job in a former life is hardly the point.

Kerry was the one who kept bringing Vietnam and his service up which is why
it matters to many, had he not done this from the beginning it would not
have been much of an issue although I imagine the Swiftboat Vets would have
still gone after him

To me it isn't what happened in Vietnam but what he did shortly afterwards
as well as his record in the senate

On 20 Oct 2004 16:16:29 GMT, othanks (James S. Prine)
wrote in message :

a self-proclaimed war criminal with what appear to be specious
wartime medals, who never served more than 3 months in combat (out of the 12
months he'd volunteered for), who returned to his nation and became a
celebrated traitor, is probably a lot *less* capable of serving as President.

Remind me again, is that better or worse than a chickenhawk deserter
who lied to Congress to get them to let him invade another country
against international law in order to settle an old score for his
father and to make money for his rich friends? ;-)

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:24:42 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

.....a chickenhawk deserter
who lied to Congress to get them to let him invade another country
against international law in order to settle an old score for his
father and to make money for his rich friends? ;-)

Let us know when you've fleshed out this little work of fiction. It
might make a good pulp novel.

James S. Prine wrote:

Just a pity he took all that expensive training and went AWOL, really
gd&r


I tend to agree. I've read a lot of information on this matter...much of it
bogus and clearly the work of partisan spinmeisters on both sides of the aisle,
but Bush *did* authorize release of his entire military record and it's open to
scrutiny....

And there are indications that some records may have been purged - this
is of course impossible to prove either way unless records turn up
elsewhere that were not in the official files released.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant