On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:14:02 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:51:15 -0400, (D) opined:

I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

How do you explain that a teenager was able to get two box cutters onto planes,
through security gates, at two airports? Bush has nothing to do with terrorist
attack cessation. Matter of fact, he said, "Bring it on." So, if you think
about a thousand dead kids (soldiers) and about seven thousand others who lost
limbs or are paralyzed or worse is protecting us, you have a rare view of the
term.

This seems to be where the "thousand dead kids (soldiers)" first popped up, so I
figured you should be the one to set the threshhold for exactly what you're
calling a "kid". From this it looks like ALL the soldiers are considered kids.
Surely that can't be right. Maybe a specific age could be proposed. Of course,
that would mean the number of dead "kids" would have to be reduced in that
statement, which wouldn't give it the same impact. Reducing the impact seems to
be going against the purpose of calling them kids in the first place, though.