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

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.

Point me to what you believe is inaccurate in Bowling for Columbine.

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

Clearly, terrorist attacks have doubled since that statement. I guess you don't
read the newspaper...much like Bush.


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.

In the pioneer days? Are you serious? I would hope society had grown since
then. People only lived to be 45 back then...in the west. People in the far
east far outlived most people in the west. They are still superior to any
western country, spiritually and socially.

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?

Would that matter how long I served? I didn't think so.


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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:02 GMT, 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.

Ah, so Kerry didn't say those things that they quote him saying, then?
Interesting. Must be computer-generated graphics. You'd think the Kerry campaign
folks would expose the dishonesty involved in that. They didn't mention that
over at Kerry's message forum. They just talked about how his "viewpoint"
changes sometimes.
(snip)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:34:09 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

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.

I started out thinking I was going to have to hold my nose and vote for Kerry,
but I realized I couldn't hold my nose enough to do that either, so it'll have
to be for someone other than Bush or Kerry. I'll try to eat a light lunch before
I vote, just in case.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:38:28 GMT, escapee wrote:

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.

Sometimes when you don't know the answer you just don't answer the question,
right?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:13:29 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

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.

So, if you put a plate with those two choices in front of me, I'm afraid I'll
have to pass on that menu if there are ANY other possible menu choices.

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

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?

Nope. Moore demonstrated to me a total lack of integrity.

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?

Got a quote of my "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!

Kills adults, too, doesn't it. Maybe we should pass a law against it or
something. :/

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:42:48 GMT, escapee wrote:

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

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.

Point me to what you believe is inaccurate in Bowling for Columbine.

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

Clearly, terrorist attacks have doubled since that statement. I guess you don't
read the newspaper...much like Bush.

Uh, the fact that something happens after something else doesn't mean the first
thing CAUSES the second thing, does it? In that case, I must have caused it to
rain yesterday, since I went outside just before it started raining.


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.

In the pioneer days? Are you serious? I would hope society had grown since
then. People only lived to be 45 back then...in the west. People in the far
east far outlived most people in the west. They are still superior to any
western country, spiritually and socially.

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?

Would that matter how long I served? I didn't think so.

It would if you wanted to discuss the military.
Anyway, back on the subject of those "kids".

Maybe we should consider anybody under 21 kids. We could take away their driving
privileges. We could stop letting them join the military. We could stop letting
them get married. We could stop letting them enjoy ANY of the rights adults
enjoy. No voting. No firearms ownership. Anybody here wanna try that? If you
really believe everybody under 21 is a "kid" seems like you should support that.

If they're just "kids" they're not responsible enough to handle adult
responsibilities.
I joined the Army when I was 17. I wasn't the most mature 17-year-old, but I
learned quickly that I was part of a group that depended on me. I was surrounded
by a lot of other young MEN, most of them about the same age, and most of them
handled their responsibilities quite well. I spent plenty of time in lots of
different types of units with a lot of men(and some women) over 15 years, and I
don't think I served with too many "kids".

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:33:04 -0700, remove munged
wrote:

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.

Oh? How many Welcome Home parades were there for the veterans when they came
home from Vietnam? How many memorials have been erected to the men who served in
Vietnam?

As a part of the "Vietnam
Veterans Against the War" campaign I saw NONE of the idiocies
overblown by blowhards and republican chicken hawks!

Well, since YOU saw none, it certainly couldn't have happened. Any stories of
other people who claimed it happened to them or they saw it happen were just
figments of their imagination. Speaking of know-nothings, did you learn your
philosophy from the ostriches?

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!

I didn't even bother mentioning hippies. I was referring to the behavior of the
country as a whole, which I still consider abominable.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:25:36 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:


Uh, the fact that something happens after something else doesn't mean the first
thing CAUSES the second thing, does it? In that case, I must have caused it to
rain yesterday, since I went outside just before it started raining.

Everything reacts to something. Our leader set up conditions for terrorists to
lash out. We are not talking about the weather and how random weather is. We
are talking about a specific event of a dullard saying "bring it on" while he
went fishing and golfing, and life went on as usual. They guy is one of the most
ignorant presidents in my lifetime.

It would if you wanted to discuss the military.
Anyway, back on the subject of those "kids".

Yeah, jump right back there because now you don't know how long I served or
where. Where did you serve? What was your rank.

Maybe we should consider anybody under 21 kids. We could take away their driving
privileges. We could stop letting them join the military. We could stop letting
them get married. We could stop letting them enjoy ANY of the rights adults
enjoy. No voting. No firearms ownership. Anybody here wanna try that? If you
really believe everybody under 21 is a "kid" seems like you should support that.

No, I didn't say that, but people like you think in terms of black and white.
What I'm proposing is that, we cease sending boys and girls into combat for fake
reasons. We should put the current administration in prison for lying to the
world, the UN and for the fact that in all the many months after "Mission
Accomplished" we still have not found one shred of evidence that WMD exist in
Iraq,


If they're just "kids" they're not responsible enough to handle adult
responsibilities.
I joined the Army when I was 17. I wasn't the most mature 17-year-old, but I
learned quickly that I was part of a group that depended on me. I was surrounded
by a lot of other young MEN, most of them about the same age, and most of them
handled their responsibilities quite well. I spent plenty of time in lots of
different types of units with a lot of men(and some women) over 15 years, and I
don't think I served with too many "kids".

You don't consider 17 to be a kid? Geesh, I sure hope you don't have kids. The
problem is, the military sells a line of bullshit to kids in very poor areas of
the country. Areas where college is only a thought, not a goal. They are told
they will travel all over the world and get college for free. All this while we
all know that anyone can get a student loan or grant for college in this
country.

I feel for you, soldier. You don't sound like you were ever in combat. If you
were in combat, I think you may have PTSD and are in denial of the tragedy which
is war.


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

In article ,
says...
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.


I agree, although I don't think Nader is the answer. But I'll vote for
Kerry just like you, because anything else is a vote for Bush.

Those who insist on they're right to vote for a third party are, of
course, right in principle. But we live in a real world, not an ideal
one. I saw one story, true or not I don't know, that one of Nader's
biggest backers is a Bush Republican. If true, that backer lives in the
real world - unfortunately.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

that is crap. it has nothing to do with how they are treated when they "get home".
all this nonsense about how badly the Viet Nam veterans were treated is bushwa
distraction for the real problem which is that government did almost nothing to help
them deal with their drug addictions (started in Viet Nam) nor their post traumatic
stress syndrome... for which there is really no cure. The correlation is how much
horror they have seen or committed and how crazy they are going to be afterwards. And
medical and mental care for many is going to be a lifetime of support. something our
citizens seems to be unwilling to think about much less make sure it is going to be
there.
the gov'ments response to agent orange, gulf war syndrome etc is the fund a
commission to look into it and take enough time that most of the victims die before
getting help. it has started already for our kids coming home with parts missing or
dead... we are not allowed to even see images of the coffins. and the seriously
injured are already dropping thru the cracks and due to the extended tour many of
them have lost their jobs.
I dont know anybody who treated returning VN vets badly when they returned. Maybe
there was a couple incidents, they made the news but it sure wasnt the norm or
average. Warm welcomes by strangers really isnt therapy for the horrors they have
seen and been thru. The real bad treatment was our gov'ment abdicating
responsibility for them after they returned home. Ingrid

(The Watcher) wrote:
The emotional damage could be a lot less if this country treated them better
when they returned.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

it really is a line of bullshit too, cause my teaching assistants boyfriend went into
the military so he could get money for college and they trained him to be a mechanic
and when he got out there WAS NO MONEY FOR COLLEGE. it is a lie. Ingrid

escapee wrote:
You don't consider 17 to be a kid? Geesh, I sure hope you don't have kids. The
problem is, the military sells a line of bullshit to kids in very poor areas of
the country. Areas where college is only a thought, not a goal. They are told
they will travel all over the world and get college for free. All this while we
all know that anyone can get a student loan or grant for college in this
country.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

if you take all the speeches he said and quoted out of context you could make him
sound like he was selling his mother into slavery if you wanted. it is called cut
and paste. it is made up. it is a lot of bushwa.
Ingrid

(The Watcher) wrote:
Ah, so Kerry didn't say those things that they quote him saying, then?
Interesting. Must be computer-generated graphics. You'd think the Kerry campaign
folks would expose the dishonesty involved in that. They didn't mention that
over at Kerry's message forum. They just talked about how his "viewpoint"
changes sometimes.
(snip)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:15:51 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Maybe we should pass a law against it or
something. :/


Finally a sensible response!
Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:02 GMT, 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.

Ah, so Kerry didn't say those things that they quote him saying, then?
Interesting. Must be computer-generated graphics. You'd think the Kerry campaign
folks would expose the dishonesty involved in that.

Can't we just stipulate that ALL politicians lie? The problem is
figuring out which one will do the least damage to the country.

Will Rogers again: "No one who wants to be elected should be."

When Jefferson talked about the "tree of liberty" that must be watered
occasionally "with the blood of tyrants", he was talking, not about the
British or the French or any other foreign enemy, he was talking about
Washington sending in federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Or was that Shay's Rebellion? Or were they the same thing? Whatever,
the point is the same. We started losing freedom almost as soon as the
ink was dry on the Constitution and it's been whittled away ever since
by all the politicians.

I'm in my late 60s and just hoping the country stays more or less the
same till I die. I wouldn't want to be just starting out in this
century.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?