On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:53:54 GMT, "Tim Wisniewski"
wrote:


Oh my........i really tried to not respond.......but.......a logical
argument that i would make is that the lives of the men and women lost in
the current Iraq war are a great loss to the nation, their families, their
communities, and the value of our heritage. To dismiss such numbers

Uh, who was dismissing those numbers???

based
on a pretense of the numbers being emotional is NOT logical.

That's right. Try reading my post again. I never said ANY numbers were
emotional. I said the label "kids" is an emotional label being used to elicit an
emotional response.

It's a great
loss......!

I agree. Now you may continue with your Bush-bashing.
Oh, BTW, I'm not a fan of Georg Bush either.

Especially in a war that 'dub' chose to take the country into,
in a pre-emptive strike based on what he now says was bad intelligence. I
think the loss is very logical and very sad.........from a logical point of
view.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:57:09 GMT, wrote:

not to mention the lasting emotional damage to all of them. so many of our ex
soldiers end up incapacitated and on the streets and homeless. Ingrid

The emotional damage could be a lot less if this country treated them better
when they returned. If the huge number of incredibly STUPID and IGNORANT people
in this country who can't understand that the soldiers don't start wars could
keep it straight in their minds, they might not hold the soldiers responsible
for any unpopular wars like they did in the past. Korea has been called the
"forgotten" war. I consider Vietnam the "ignored" war. Iraq is shaping up to be
another unpopular war, with many people already beginning to treat returning
veterans shabbily.
I consider one of America's biggest national black marks the way we(as a
country) treated the veterans WE sent to fight in Vietnam. I'd sure hate to see
that repeated.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:09:23 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:55:46 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


OK, now all you have to do is prove that Bush's comment is the CAUSE of that.
Good luck.
Maybe Michael Moore would be willing to help you try. I wouldn't count on him
actually being much help, since he's not much in the credibility department, but
he'd be willing to try, I'm sure.

Oh, so the facts he exposed are not enough?

I wouldn't trust Michael Moore to expose the fact that the sky is blue. I
recently watched Bowling for Columbine, and after that experience I wouldn't
believe him if his tongue was notarized.

I don't only have Michael Moore.
There's Greg Palast, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Joe Conason, Molly Ivans, Jim
Hightower, or any number of books at the link I provide at the end of my
message. All of them can't be wrong. The facts are the facts.

Does that mean there's no proof for that claim that Bush's "Bring it on" has
CAUSED terrorist attacks?

Sometimes 18 is kids. Sometimes it isn't. I work with a 29-year-old who acts
like he's going on 13, so chronological age isn't a guarantee of maturity.

(snip)

No dear. Eighteen is always a kid.

Is it? Interesting. Back in the pioneer days that was considered old enough to
be raising a family, owning land, and doing most adult things.

It's always someone who is only eighteen.
I was not talking about maturity. However, since you did mention maturity is
it possible you are one of those who are going on 13?

It's always possible, but I don't think so. Anyway, I spent 15 years in the
military, so I guess that makes me qualified to speak on that subject, anyway.
How long did you serve?

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Nope, I don't see it a a choice between Kerry and Bush. I see it as a choice
between ALL the candidates on the ballot.



I prefer neither of those choices.

In a close election, which this promises to be, that's called throwing
away your vote.

Voting the way OTHERS insist you vote before they will acknowledge that
voting even matters is tantamount to not voting. If voting is EVER not a
waste, then it's also not a waste for those who didn't win. That presumes
value to the system. If voting is a waste, that presumes worthlessness to
the system. Let's hope those who parrot "waste your vote, waste your vote"
are wrong, & every vote is good for something, even if it isn't for your
candidate or the winning candidate.

If someone wants to vote for a dorky third party, that's their right, &
for others to parrot that to exercise one's right is "a waste" is just
another way that politicians lie, & it's sad to hear honest activists
parroting the lie. It translates "Vote for me or you're a dumb ****er." It
is galling that I will vote for Kerry because I'd rather have a useless
turd than a dangerous psychopath for president. But how much greater this
nation would be if we could vote for something anyone other than the usual
insider millionaires who pretty much collectively got us in the sorry
pickle our national has gotten to.

You & I may think that this of all voting years, a major-party vote, in
particular a major-party vote for Democrats across the board, matters more
than ever. Instead of the usual choice between a lesser of two evils, we
have a choice between a flat-out psycho who loves only his fellow oil
millionaires, or a boring turd whose foul-odored mouth spews milquetoast
wishiwashiness & two-faced cliches at every bend -- afraid to be in favor
of gay rights because that's "a state issue" & gay rights are my rights,
so the most I can hope for from Kerry is when he takes a baseball bat to
this minority, he'll bare down less murderously than Bush is doing. Hardly
a wonderful choice. But he'll never get us out of any wars, he'll just
insist on being nicer to the French about it. He'll always be afraid of
women's reproduction right because already his church, which is VERY
important to him, has told him he will be denied communion if he takes an
effective women's right stance. He may have some surfacy-nice things to
say for black america, but he's never made a decision that included black
voices in policy design, whereas oddly enough Bush has throughout his
creepy career AT LEAST had room for more minority involvvement, at every
level, than any national politician Democrate OR Republican in history, so
Kerry talks the talk but in actions he displays a clear belief in the
Great White Burden to make these decisions without ******s & spics getting
in the way.

Even his "tax the rich" stance is an old ploy & no president promising to
tax the rich has failed to make the rest of us pay more way more taxes
too, so that's just oldest cliche kissing-babies ploy & means nothing
real. Bush has not rolled back any taxes, he's merely shifted tax burdens
to states that raise the taxes. When Kerry restores the federal tax rates
& then some, it will not mean a role-back of the higher state & city taxes
imposed on us by Bush policies. We'll merely have, in all,
super-heightened tax loads on ordinary citizens.

It was Kerry's decision that Senator Clinton not be given prime-time
speaking time at the Democratic Convention. Democratic voters keep saying
they want Kerry to restore the so-called good times of the Clinton years,
meaning I suppose further support for the World Trade Organization for
which we have Bill Clinton to blame. But I'm afraid it isn't Bill's
conservative economics that Kerry is repudiating, but the Clintons'
collectively failed liberal idealism. And yes they were liberal idealists
who WANTED a single-payer plan for medicine who doomed us to HTMOs, who
WANTED gay equality in the military but made things vastly worse with
don't-ask-don't-tell. As a Democrat, Clinton was a bad president who
achieved very little, but as a man willing to compromise with the devil,
he furthered conservative agendas by bending over to receive group-sex
from republican congressmen. But symbolicly, Hilary's presence stands for
the liberal agenda that never got off the ground, rather than the
conservative achievement; she symbolized Bill's eradicating of a national
debt. And Kerry wants no part of it. He intends to raise taxes, period, on
people whose local taxes have already been maxed out.

On every issue that matters, Kerry is NOT a good candidate, has NEVER
presented a credible plan. What's his "plan" for improved health care
access? Less paperwork! I kid you not. He promises less paperwork, &
that's all. This man is a piece of shit with nothing worthwhile up his
sleeve.

But laid up alongside Bush, who despises the Constitution that is the only
thing restraining these millionaire politicians, a dog's pecker in a straw
hat would be an improvement. So give Kerry the hat & vote for him. A
president Congress stymies is better than a president Congress fast-lanes
for the oil-tycoon agenda.

BTW, I'm wondering if Bush is going to engineer a "crisis" in October to
ensure his re-election. Or "postpone" the election.

This week the whitehouse was "outed" for pressuring Pakistan to "kill
Osama before election day." It will not matter after the election, because
Bush now believes his best chance of winning is if he can get a timely
photo-op next to Bin Ladin's severed head. His second best chance is if
Osama's scattered crew does something big enough to scare the bejabbers
out of Americans to get most of us "behind our leader" as seems to happen
in such crises, but not so big a scare as to make everyhone realize Bush
is as much the cause of it as any single person ever can be. I'm sure
there's barely enough humanity left in Bush that he'd rather be
photographed holding up Osama's head than wearing a fireman helmet for the
photo-op atop the corpses another Twin Towers catastrophe. But either
choice will do the job for him, & he'll be grateful for either.

-paghat the ratgirl

I think it was Will Rogers who said "The Republicans want to take my
money and give it to the rich. The Democrats want to take my money and
give it to the poor. I'd like to keep it myself, but if those are the
choices I'd just as soon it went to the poor."

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article , (The
Watcher) claimed Kerry no better than Bush:

Yo, Watcher, Kerry IS better than Bush, the way a dog turd from a
constipated dog smells better than from a dog with diarrhea.

On international trade, Bush & Clinton were on the same side, & so is
Kerry. Kerry like Bush will support Clinton's WTO catastrophe, & jobs will
continue to flood out of America to places where the same stuff can be
done by people earning pennies a day. America will continue down the road
of "service economy" meaning Wetbacks really are our enemies, getting all
our servant jobs.

So on International Trade: Bush bad, Kerry bad.

As Dean kept saying back when he still thought he might gain by telling
the truth, Kerry supports Bush's tax policies. He's NOW saying he'll tax
only the rich, but every candidate says that. A promise to roll back tax
cuts for the rich is really just a promise to raise taxes, period. I do
believe Kerry will pull up the reigns on Bush's crazed spending sprees
that favor the wealthy, but there'll be no money to assist the poor if the
deficit is actually supposeed to come down. So like both Clinton & Bush,
public services will continue to erode unless local government can
continue to find new taxes to pay for things regionally. The ultimate
effect is to continue policies that mean higher overall taxes locally so
that Bush can pretend he lowered taxes for the middle class when he has
never done so, & so Kerry can pretend he heightened taxes for the richest
2% when this will never happen (remember at the Iowa caucus Kerry promised
NOT to reverse corporate tax cuts, for which Dean jumped all over him --
now Dean too supports a bad cause because Bush is even worse, but Kerry is
not good news when it comes to tax policy -- ordinary people WILL pay
higher taxes &the rich will still have loopholes to evade their share).
All that will for sure happen is local taxes, including hidden taxes like
entry fees & parking fees in parklands, will continue to rise & rise &
rise, & they will not lower even if Democrats do succeed in raising the
federal taxes as is now promised.

So on taxation policies, Bush bad, Kerry bad.

Women's rights issues, human rights issues, & gay equality. Bush just
wants to whittle away at women's rights a bit at a time, giving fetuses
the rights that corporations have as human entities, while otherwise
having no respect for constitutional rights for anyone, gay or straight,
not even a right to privacy for what we check out of the library -- but
that fetus has rights! That corporation has rights! It's women -- & men --
who don't desere rights. Kerry any better? For the right of abortion,
Kerry has stated clearly, "Life starts at conception," & his stance is
essentially the Catholic one -- he has said that abortion is presently
legal & he would uphold the law of the land, he has not said he would
protect this right for women. Gay equality? He doesn't think this should
be regulated federally -- meaning he doesn't believe gay rights should be
equated with human rights that ARE federalized. He supports STATE
decisions on these matters -- some states have now & will continue to have
laws making homosexuality an imprisonable crime, while somen cities
already have gay couples rights for at least state employees. Kerry
supports both ends of that game -- he does not support gay equality.

How about the Patriot Act? It undermines very basic human rights. Yet
Kerry voted FOR it. He has made very vague promises to change that in the
future -- but in the main supports the Patriot Act's
high-intensity-invasion-of-privacy privileges of the government without
going through a judge to prove legitimate need. Kerry has promised to make
the Patriot Act "smarter." What the **** does that mean? It means nothing.
He's on record supporting it & now as a typical lying candidate he can
only come up with the idea of making it "smarter" -- smart enough to not
look so obviously like what it is & will remain? Smart enough to trick us
dumb americans into believing giving up even a vestigial right of privacy
would be good for us?

So on the full spectrum of equal rights, Kerry is bad. For gay rights he
would he would leave it to the states individually to restrict gay rights,
but Bush is VERY bad because he would do away with rights federally &
constitutionally. Yet for every man, woman, & child's right to privacy,
Kerry supports Federal law that does away with it, so what at first looks
like BAD for Kerry and VERY BAD from Bush, boils down ultimately to very
little distinction at all, because Kerry when push comes to shove does
support even federal restrictions on basic human rights.

On separation of church & state? Bush is against it. Kerry would be making
decisions from the White House based on or influenced his personal faith,
under papal threat of never being given communion if he decides against
what the Pope commands. He does believe in a separation of church & state
more broadly, so presumedly that's better.

So on sepaeration of church & state, Bush is PERSONALLY in touch with God
& acts according to god & doesn't have to listen to anything outher than
that schizzy voice inside his psychotic brain. Even so, he has not
suggested the separation of church & state is a bad thing. Kerry has said
the separation of church & state is a GOOD thing, but he will still make
decisiosn based on his PERSONAL faith, as is his personal right. On this
issue, both men score a big black BAD, the only distinction being if their
lipservice on this issue addresses fundamentalists or not; & one believes
God talks to him personally while the other believes God talks only to the
Pope. Big difference my ass. They're both superstitious wackjobs & they
have both made past decisions inspired by superstition.

On Stem Cell research: Kerry claims to be for it, but as Dr Robert Lanza
(at Advanced Cell Technology) has pointed out, Kerry's claims that life
starts at conception & other statements that come from his Catholic faith
& his bid for at least a FEW conservative votes has muddied the issue;
Kerry's stance "confuses things" said Dr. Lanza. Bush by contrast is
against stem cell research because to be against it panders to the
anti-abortion conservatives, but in reality he has permitted a great
amount of this research to continue on the basis of stem cell cultures
already in existance.

So in all, Kerry's stance on stem cell research not nearly as supportive
as it needs to be to progress, & Bush's stance is not sufficiently against
it to stop the research. They're both ultimately middle-of-the-road about
it, they just have different political language to shape the greater
reality that they are equally stumblingblocks to this research. Both score
a Bad.

On war: Bush will have American lads & a few lasses the primary warriors.
Kerry will be more inclined to submit to whatever it takes to have Germans
& the French & so on go to war also. Both support war. Both are BAD.

If it matters that Kerry's heart is in a better place when he makes evil
decisions, but Bush has no heart when he makes the same decisions, then
vote for the big heart that does wrong. I do believe the horrors will be
fewer under Kerry. But I look at the issues one by one & politicians do
all somehow end up, in the last ditch, doing the exact same things, no
matter the party.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

he didnt "pick it up"... the republicans looked around for something to bash Kerry
with and just made an "issue" up out of whole cloth. they lie as easily as they
breath so they didnt need to do any real fact checking and they know that the bigger
the lie the easier it seems for people to believe if they just throw enough money
into the pot to keep everyone repeating it.

in politics it is called a "talking point"... you may be amazed that all of the
republican dopplegangers are saying the almost identical thing with almost the
identical wording. they are given their "talking points" and just parrot what they
are told to say.
Ingrid

(The Watcher) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:00:22 GMT, wrote:

well.... according to the republican TV ads anyway. you dont really believe those,
right? (otherwise I gotta bridge to sell).

No, I believe John Kerry's website, which has a message forum where there's a
question there about how he can address the reputation he's "somehow" picked up
as Mr. Flip Flop.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

well at least one congressman, Corrine Brown, is calling for united nations to
monitor our elections to insure their fairness.....
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/07/ale04016.html
"NBC News first reported tonight about an "outburst" on the floor of the House.
Turns out it was Corrine Brown (D- Jacksonville, FL) debating the request made by
five Representatives to have the UN monitor U.S. Elections (see article re/their
original proposal below). Turns out that House leadership answered their call with
legislation forbidding any U.N. money be used to monitor elections in the U.S. "

then they trashed her, forbid her to speak for the rest of the day and struck her
remarks from the congressional record.

pffft. there goes our free speech.

I think it is just as important to "democratize" the congress. Ingrid

Larry Blanchard wrote:
BTW, I'm wondering if Bush is going to engineer a "crisis" in October to
ensure his re-election. Or "postpone" the election.

I think it was Will Rogers who said "The Republicans want to take my
money and give it to the rich. The Democrats want to take my money and
give it to the poor. I'd like to keep it myself, but if those are the
choices I'd just as soon it went to the poor."



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

In article says...
I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

I concur that Kerry has shown himself also to be a pinhead. The scary
thing about re-electing Bush is that he will assume some sort of mandate.
Since the Republicans will control Congress after 2004, they'll pass
whatever idiotic idea comes out of the White House to benefit their
donors (i.e. large corporations) like they do now. A Democrat as
President will have to fight tooth and nail with a Republican Congress to
get anything passed. Gridlock is good in Washington. The less they do,
the better off we are in that they will spend more time bickering and
backstabbing than figuring out more ingenious ways to loot the Federal
Treasury.

To bring this back to gardening, our national parks and forests are our
nation's gardens. Re-electing Bush will mean 4 years of unlimited,
unregulated logging and clear cutting on the scale I don't think any of
us can imagine until it's over. To the Bush clan, a healthy forest means
one with very little trees. Trees are the reason for forest fires and
getting rid of the trees eliminates forest fires. Pretty simple concept
for any idiot to understand.

I'd vote for a bag of shit over George W. Bush. At least a hot bag of
shit will just sit there and steam in the oval office and do nothing for
4 years. If Kerry gets elected, I'll start Kerry bashing on November 3,
2004.

"Mark Anderson" wrote in message
.net...
In article says...
I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

I concur that Kerry has shown himself also to be a pinhead. The scary
thing about re-electing Bush is that he will assume some sort of mandate.
Since the Republicans will control Congress after 2004, they'll pass
whatever idiotic idea comes out of the White House to benefit their
donors (i.e. large corporations) like they do now. A Democrat as
President will have to fight tooth and nail with a Republican Congress to
get anything passed. Gridlock is good in Washington. The less they do,
the better off we are in that they will spend more time bickering and
backstabbing than figuring out more ingenious ways to loot the Federal
Treasury.

To bring this back to gardening, our national parks and forests are our
nation's gardens. Re-electing Bush will mean 4 years of unlimited,
unregulated logging and clear cutting on the scale I don't think any of
us can imagine until it's over. To the Bush clan, a healthy forest means
one with very little trees. Trees are the reason for forest fires and
getting rid of the trees eliminates forest fires. Pretty simple concept
for any idiot to understand.

Don't forget all the pollution that the trees emit - just like Ronnie Reagan
warned us about.

In article , wrote:

he didnt "pick it up"... the republicans looked around for something to
bash Kerry
with and just made an "issue" up out of whole cloth. they lie as easily
as they
breath so they didnt need to do any real fact checking and they know
that the bigger
the lie the easier it seems for people to believe if they just throw
enough money
into the pot to keep everyone repeating it.

in politics it is called a "talking point"... you may be amazed that all
of the
republican dopplegangers are saying the almost identical thing with almost the
identical wording.

Ah, but alas so are Democrats this year. The "don't waste your vote on an
independent" polly-wanna-cracker rift from Kerry's cockatoos is enough to
gag anyone who has just demanded to hear Kerry finally say something
substantive that would actually be worth voting for. Demanding only that
we vote against Bush pretty much means there's no positive reason to vote
for Kerry -- I've not heard one, & believing I have to vote for him anyway
is galling. It's a good thing I asked for an absentee ballot, as the
instant I mark for Kerryh, I'll probably hurl, &amp it would be awful to
leave a voting booth that fouled for the next voter.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:33:02 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

I consider one of America's biggest national black marks the way we(as a
country) treated the veterans WE sent to fight in Vietnam



More hype and blather from a know nothing. As a part of the "Vietnam
Veterans Against the War" campaign I saw NONE of the idiocies
overblown by blowhards and republican chicken hawks! What was
outstanding was the war mongers republicans inability to deal with
agent orange. That was the real slap in Vietnam veterans faces! Not
some highed out hippy!

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:39:33 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

after that experience I wouldn't
believe him if his tongue was notarized.


Oh Oh so your gun toting paranoid sensibilities were offended?

Care to point out which of the death by gun statistics were incorrect,
or is this more bullshit like you unfounded statistics on Iraq deaths
among NCO's in their late 30's?

Of the total killed in Iraq less than 10% were over 37 (103)

119 if we begin with the "middle" 30's

Wars kill kids.....on both sides!

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:38:31 -0700, remove munged
wrote:


Of the total killed in Iraq less than 10% were over 37 (103)

Almost double that number were below drinking age....KIDS!

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:58:13 -0700, Larry Blanchard


I prefer neither of those choices.

In a close election, which this promises to be, that's called throwing
away your vote.

BTW, I'm wondering if Bush is going to engineer a "crisis" in October to
ensure his re-election. Or "postpone" the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have already captured Bin Laden and will drag
him out of one of his caves right before election day.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:21 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:04:33 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:47:57 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


No, Kerry seems more likely to run the government based on some unrealistic idea
of a Nanny State, with big dreams involving the government doing everything for
everybody. Of course, somebody is going to have to pay for that, and I don't see
Kerry raiding his wife's trust funds, so he'll have to get the money from the
liberal's favorite source, the taxpayers. No problem. American taxpayers have
deep pockets. :/

How is that any worse than the pandering to corporate America by our current
administration?


And how is it better?

I guess when you don't know the answer, you ask another question.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html