Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
May you all have good food and good digestion on this day of gratitude
for the plentitude of resources bestowed upon Americans. And have a
thought or two for sharing those benefits with those who don't have
the same easy access to them.

And say thanks to America's farmers- who posted an average annual loss
of almost $2500 per farm in Iowa last year, which was a significant
improvement compared to average losses of $7500 in 2002. Without
them, we'd all be hungry today.

We live in the most free society in the world. This society has been under
assault from politicians and bureaucrats for the last 70 years since they
managed to get control of the American pocketbook.

They have convinced over half of this population that the government owes
them a living while at the same time rifling their wallets and threatening
them with jail if they don't pay half of everything they earn to the
government.

We have gotten appeals and Supreme Court justices who have invented
"freedoms" not written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the
end can only reduce the freedoms of those in this country.

This Thanksgiving I hope everyone here is well fed, well kept and well
altogether. Next time you think about the government of this country think
about this - if the press had reported on John F. Kennedy as they did on
Bush he would NEVER have been elected to office. That goes one hundred-fold
for Lyndon Johnson. But those men were elected and the vast majority of this
country supported them as Presidents.

You have to ask yourself why we ended up with a man in the Oval Office who
was running against a man whose picture is posted in the Ho Chi Minh City
War Museum in the hall of "Heroes of the Revolution". If that was the best
that the Democrats could do I suggest that we need a change in the
leadership of that party post haste. And I don't mean Howard Dean.

Those who don't know me probably think that I'm a Conservative Republican.
Actually I'm a Kennedy Liberal Democrat. But what I've seen will keep me
voting Republican for a great long while into the future unless something
drastic changes.

When Al Gore attacked Bob Kerrey it should have ended up turning the
Democrats against the Liberals and it didn't. What exactly will make the
needed changes?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That list was, frankly, quite ludicrous. It was nothing but inuendo
galore. Like those "two young boys murdered by Clinton operatives"
business. By the way, what the hell makes someone an "operative"? Judging
by the line of thought in the "dead bodies list", one could easily
conclude
that Charles Manson was a Reagan "operative".

Look, perhaps you'd like to ignore the fact that so many of Clinton's
associates died under very strange circumstances (explain why Ron Brown's
body was cremated so rapidly when the investigation of his death was
incomplete and there were suggestions that a /45 caliber bullet hole had
entered his head from directly above?)

The circumstances surrounding Vince Foster were so weird that anyone that
followed it would have been pushing for a Grand Jury investigation.

The actions of the FBI and the the Attorney General's office weren't
ludicrous in the cases of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

As for the "Mena Massacre" perhaps you ought to read about that one
yourself. Remembering that there were eye witnesses who put close Clinton
associates there and the missing boys being held by them.

And how was it that Hillary's missing legal files turned up in the trunk of
a car that was about to be compressed into a bail of steel?

There wasn't hardly a day that went by when something REALLY strange didn't
happen in the Clinton administration and there are still people today
unwilling to admit that.

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That list was, frankly, quite ludicrous. It was nothing but inuendo
galore. Like those "two young boys murdered by Clinton operatives"
business. By the way, what the hell makes someone an "operative"? Judging
by the line of thought in the "dead bodies list", one could easily
conclude
that Charles Manson was a Reagan "operative".

Look, perhaps you'd like to ignore the fact that so many of Clinton's
associates died under very strange circumstances (explain why Ron Brown's
body was cremated so rapidly when the investigation of his death was
incomplete and there were suggestions that a /45 caliber bullet hole had
entered his head from directly above?)

The circumstances surrounding Vince Foster were so weird that anyone that
followed it would have been pushing for a Grand Jury investigation.

The actions of the FBI and the the Attorney General's office weren't
ludicrous in the cases of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

As for the "Mena Massacre" perhaps you ought to read about that one
yourself. Remembering that there were eye witnesses who put close Clinton
associates there and the missing boys being held by them.

And how was it that Hillary's missing legal files turned up in the trunk of
a car that was about to be compressed into a bail of steel?

There wasn't hardly a day that went by when something REALLY strange didn't
happen in the Clinton administration and there are still people today
unwilling to admit that.

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That's right. I forgot. Yes, everyone knows that Clinton was busy
killing off all of his opposition.

How many of your associates committed suicide by shooting themselves in the
brain behind the left ear and then were found with a gun in their right
hands? How many of them were promptly cremated in an area and from families
who believed in burial?

If factcheck is so impartial explain why they didn't mention that so many of
the deaths happened under extremely strange circumstances. Why wouldn't they
bother to use a little statistical analysis of the facts?

Here's something to consider: I was born in east Oakland, CA, where there
were gangs and lots of lower income families. Everyone had guns in the
house. Drugs were a major problem and crime was high. For instance, one of
my brothers was in a rock and roll band and now 3 years later every single
member of that band is dead as are most of their multiple spouses.

And yet I've NEVER known anyone but one Air Force sargeant to have shot
himself.

But looking at the Clinton List just count the death by gunshots.

How many of your acquaintances shot themselves or were shot?

Perhaps it was all a statistical aberation but how the hell would anyone
know without investigating it and indeed factcheck simply wrote it off as
rumor and innuendo.

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That's right. I forgot. Yes, everyone knows that Clinton was busy
killing off all of his opposition.

How many of your associates committed suicide by shooting themselves in the
brain behind the left ear and then were found with a gun in their right
hands? How many of them were promptly cremated in an area and from families
who believed in burial?

If factcheck is so impartial explain why they didn't mention that so many of
the deaths happened under extremely strange circumstances. Why wouldn't they
bother to use a little statistical analysis of the facts?

Here's something to consider: I was born in east Oakland, CA, where there
were gangs and lots of lower income families. Everyone had guns in the
house. Drugs were a major problem and crime was high. For instance, one of
my brothers was in a rock and roll band and now 3 years later every single
member of that band is dead as are most of their multiple spouses.

And yet I've NEVER known anyone but one Air Force sargeant to have shot
himself.

But looking at the Clinton List just count the death by gunshots.

How many of your acquaintances shot themselves or were shot?

Perhaps it was all a statistical aberation but how the hell would anyone
know without investigating it and indeed factcheck simply wrote it off as
rumor and innuendo.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That's right. I forgot. Yes, everyone knows that Clinton was busy
killing off all of his opposition.

How many of your associates committed suicide by shooting themselves in the
brain behind the left ear and then were found with a gun in their right
hands? How many of them were promptly cremated in an area and from families
who believed in burial?

If factcheck is so impartial explain why they didn't mention that so many of
the deaths happened under extremely strange circumstances. Why wouldn't they
bother to use a little statistical analysis of the facts?

Number one: I have been unable to find any reference to this on
factcheck.org. I can only conclude that the factcheck.org staff has
been monitoring your posts and removing any evidence of what you claim
they've said.

Number two: Let's assume that factcheck.org DID respond to this and
concluded that there was no Clinton conspiracy to kill people (still I'd
like to see the link). That would put them AT LEAST at the same level
of accuracy as the entire mainstream media, all of the nation's law
enforcement agencies, and (I'm going out on a limb here) *most* of the
alternative media because they all thought that this was BS too.

So, if factcheck.org missed the "facts," it's because they were duped by
the largest and most sinister successful conspiracy in the history of
our country. If that's the only thing that they got wrong, they are
still WAY ahead of everyone else.

Still, I'm waiting for the link to their coverage of this story and
evidence that they botched it. What did they say *specifically* and how
was it wrong. Let me know when you hear back from Martian command.

Todd Kuzma

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Todd Kuzma" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

Now you're talking out of your ass. Among "factcheck.org"'s many
"accuracies" was taking that "dead bodies list" that was circulating
about
Clinton, investigating the LEAST likely entries on that list and then
proclaiming that the entire list was false.

That's right. I forgot. Yes, everyone knows that Clinton was busy
killing off all of his opposition.

How many of your associates committed suicide by shooting themselves in the
brain behind the left ear and then were found with a gun in their right
hands? How many of them were promptly cremated in an area and from families
who believed in burial?

If factcheck is so impartial explain why they didn't mention that so many of
the deaths happened under extremely strange circumstances. Why wouldn't they
bother to use a little statistical analysis of the facts?

Number one: I have been unable to find any reference to this on
factcheck.org. I can only conclude that the factcheck.org staff has
been monitoring your posts and removing any evidence of what you claim
they've said.

Number two: Let's assume that factcheck.org DID respond to this and
concluded that there was no Clinton conspiracy to kill people (still I'd
like to see the link). That would put them AT LEAST at the same level
of accuracy as the entire mainstream media, all of the nation's law
enforcement agencies, and (I'm going out on a limb here) *most* of the
alternative media because they all thought that this was BS too.

So, if factcheck.org missed the "facts," it's because they were duped by
the largest and most sinister successful conspiracy in the history of
our country. If that's the only thing that they got wrong, they are
still WAY ahead of everyone else.

Still, I'm waiting for the link to their coverage of this story and
evidence that they botched it. What did they say *specifically* and how
was it wrong. Let me know when you hear back from Martian command.

Todd Kuzma

"Doug Reese" wrote in message
m...

I mentioned this earlier (to you?), but O'Neill never spent a day on a
Swift Boat with ay of Kerry's crew.

John O'Neill took command of the PCF 94 which was John Kerry's boat after
Kerry departed. Since that is a matter of record why are you arguing
otherwise?

Muderous actions towards Vietnamese? Would you care to elaborate?

For one thing there was the sampam incident where Kerry's actions led
to a fishing sampam which was coming in late to be fired upon by his crew
killing the men and boys on board and only by luck leaving the woman holding
a baby alive. He lied to cover it up and then lied several other times about
this incident changing the story each time.

"Critically important is the fact that Kerry filed a phony after-action
operations report concealing the fact that a young child had been killed
during the attack and inventing a fleeing squad of Viet Cong."

Also:

"George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in
numerous actions with Kerry in January 1969 through March 1969. In Bates
view, Kerry was a coward who overreacted with deadly force to protect
himself when he felt threatened. Bates, a retired Navy captain, believed
that Kerry treated the South Vietnamese in an almost criminal manner.

Bates is haunted by a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De
River in the first part of 1969. With Kerry in the lead, the boats
approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens
were milling about peacefully. As the boats drew closer the villagers fled.
There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It
was obvious to Bates that the existing policies, decency and good sense
required the boats to simply move on.

Instead Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon
his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy machine
gun fire. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked
and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet."

Come on, most of this is public record. Why do you think that Kerry wouldn't
release his complete military records?

"Doug Reese" wrote in message
m...

I mentioned this earlier (to you?), but O'Neill never spent a day on a
Swift Boat with ay of Kerry's crew.

John O'Neill took command of the PCF 94 which was John Kerry's boat after
Kerry departed. Since that is a matter of record why are you arguing
otherwise?

Muderous actions towards Vietnamese? Would you care to elaborate?

For one thing there was the sampam incident where Kerry's actions led
to a fishing sampam which was coming in late to be fired upon by his crew
killing the men and boys on board and only by luck leaving the woman holding
a baby alive. He lied to cover it up and then lied several other times about
this incident changing the story each time.

"Critically important is the fact that Kerry filed a phony after-action
operations report concealing the fact that a young child had been killed
during the attack and inventing a fleeing squad of Viet Cong."

Also:

"George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in
numerous actions with Kerry in January 1969 through March 1969. In Bates
view, Kerry was a coward who overreacted with deadly force to protect
himself when he felt threatened. Bates, a retired Navy captain, believed
that Kerry treated the South Vietnamese in an almost criminal manner.

Bates is haunted by a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De
River in the first part of 1969. With Kerry in the lead, the boats
approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens
were milling about peacefully. As the boats drew closer the villagers fled.
There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It
was obvious to Bates that the existing policies, decency and good sense
required the boats to simply move on.

Instead Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon
his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy machine
gun fire. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked
and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet."

Come on, most of this is public record. Why do you think that Kerry wouldn't
release his complete military records?

In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

You have to ask yourself why we ended up with a man in the Oval Office who
was running against a man whose picture is posted in the Ho Chi Minh City
War Museum in the hall of "Heroes of the Revolution".

"While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and
other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr.Kerry is part of that
tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to
the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the
1990s.

****It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation
President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits
during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the
Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and
a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr.
Clinton¹s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese
officials."

From the New York Sun:
http://tinyurl.com/6lvbh

Those who don't know me probably think that I'm a Conservative Republican.
Actually I'm a Kennedy Liberal Democrat.

(Snicker...)

--
tanx,
Howard

"You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911"
Atomic 7

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?