OT Flame War

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

...
I do not think the Dems could possibly have come up with a worse
candidate. Even the redoubtable Mr. Sherman is not going to vote for him.
Instead he is going to throw his vote away on another supreme asshole,
Ralph Nader.

The Democrats could well have found someone worse: Zell Miller.

Zell Miller is representative of the way the Democrats used to be in the
good old days. Now even he is going to vote for Bush because Kerry is such a
supreme jackass.

Mr. Dolan is likely wrong about who I will vote for.

If you were living on the Iowa side of the Quad Cities, you would have to
vote for Kerry as Iowa is a critical state. It could go either way and a
vote for anyone other than Kerry would in effect be a vote for Bush. Since
you are from the Illinois side, it doesn't matter who you vote for since
Illinois will go for Kerry because of Chicago and Cook County. Apparently,
Minnesota and Wisconsin are also up for grabs along with Ohio and Florida.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:33:48 GMT, "Mark Leuck"
wrote:

Notice nobody of stature seems to be supporting Nader

The dems are trying to sue him off the ballot in several states which
would make military absentee ballots "spoiled" ballots and thus
disenfranchise military voters who are polled 78% in favor of Bush.

The dems signed petitions to put Nader on the ballot -- but they
signed them with such names as "Donald Duck" and other obviously phony
signatures in order more easily to call the petitions into question.

Edward Dolan wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Edward Dolan wrote:


...
I do not think the Dems could possibly have come up with a worse
candidate. Even the redoubtable Mr. Sherman is not going to vote for him.
Instead he is going to throw his vote away on another supreme asshole,
Ralph Nader.

The Democrats could well have found someone worse: Zell Miller.


Zell Miller is representative of the way the Democrats used to be in the
good old days. Now even he is going to vote for Bush because Kerry is such a
supreme jackass.

In the "good old days", the Democrats were racist segregationists. Is
that what you approve of, Mr. Dolan.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

James S. Prine wrote:

And what revisionist right-wing website did you get this from?


Perhaps if you sought treatment for your chronic rectocranial inversion
problem, you would see that Kerry is already broadcasting most of the material
I've described here. He has yet to sign Form 180, and 94 pages of his military
records are still unavailable. Not right-wing rhetoric, but demonstrable fact.

Kerry's colleagues who served with him in Vietnam (aside from the severely
injured and the killed in action, only Kerry left his tour early...fact),
repeatedly describe him in negative ways...and many of them are long-time
Democrats who support the Democratic Party but sincerely detest Kerry himself.


All of these lies could be debunked here, but it is rather pointless,
since most already know better, and there is not much hope for those who
do not.


LOL...you sneer at people being bigoted and close-minded, yet you continually
fail to see that the worst offender here...is you, in that regard. And, as for
'lies', Kerry's own sworn statements are replete with them...remember his
infamous 'secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, '68? Debunked and
proven to be a lie. How he complained to the Fulbright Committee about his
boat only being equipped with .50 caliber machine guns...his 'sole weapons',
when the boats were also equipped with small arms and M-60 machine guns? No,
please don't let the facts get in the way of your left-wing venom


The quoted post does reveal Mr. James S. Prine as a partisan shill,
however, so it is of some service.


I used to be a registered Democrat, for many years. I finally learned the
error of my ways. As for a partisan shill, that is ridiculous. I just dislike
liars and phony 'war heroes' like Kerry immensely.

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.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Mark Leuck wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Mark Leuck wrote:

When ask for facts you deflect the issue, I've yet to see any evidence

the

US killed 2 to 3 million people

Considering all of the other complaints you seem to have about the US
perhaps you want to believe this happend?

AFP wire service published estimates of 2 million civilian deaths in
South Vietnam, 2 million civilian deaths in North Vietnam, and 1.1
Vietnamese military deaths for the war, for a total of 5.1 million. I
deliberately used very conservative numbers.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant


Where is the evidence the US killed 2 to 3 million people? You appear to
have deliberately not posted that[.]

Would all those people have died in the Vietnam War if the United States
had not waged it?

The above post by Mr. Leuck has to be one of the least logical I have
ever seen.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

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.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

Mark Leuck wrote:

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

How would you know if he were happy or not?

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant

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.'





James S. Prine

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

http://hometown.aol.com/jsprine/

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

AFP wire service published estimates of 2 million civilian deaths in
South Vietnam, 2 million civilian deaths in North Vietnam, and 1.1
Vietnamese military deaths for the war, for a total of 5.1 million. I
deliberately used very conservative numbers.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant


Where is the evidence the US killed 2 to 3 million people? You appear to
have deliberately not posted that[.]

Would all those people have died in the Vietnam War if the United States
had not waged it?

The above post by Mr. Leuck has to be one of the least logical I have
ever seen.

Least logical? You stated the US "killed" 2 to 3 million not that 5.1
million died

Where exactly did you pull the 2-3 figure million from? Now you fall back on
a "well nobody would have died if we hadn't been there" so I guess one has
to be very specific when responding to your flippant statements so I'll try
again

How many were killed by US soldiers [1] ?

[1] shot, knifed, bombed, beaten, poisoned etc

Also the numbers you posted may not be conservative after all

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

Mark Leuck wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

AFP wire service published estimates of 2 million civilian deaths in
South Vietnam, 2 million civilian deaths in North Vietnam, and 1.1
Vietnamese military deaths for the war, for a total of 5.1 million. I
deliberately used very conservative numbers.

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant


Where is the evidence the US killed 2 to 3 million people? You appear to
have deliberately not posted that[.]

Would all those people have died in the Vietnam War if the United States
had not waged it?

The above post by Mr. Leuck has to be one of the least logical I have
ever seen.


Least logical? You stated the US "killed" 2 to 3 million not that 5.1
million died[.]

Where exactly did you pull the 2-3 figure million from? Now you fall back on
a "well nobody would have died if we hadn't been there" so I guess one has
to be very specific when responding to your flippant statements so I'll try
again[.]

How many were killed by US soldiers [1] ?

[1] shot, knifed, bombed, beaten, poisoned etc[.]

Also the numbers you posted may not be conservative after all[.]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

The numbers reported by AFP were for war related casualties. DUH!

--
Tom Sherman - Curmudgeon and Pedant