Re: OT: If Kerry is elected...

From: Robert Monsen (rcsurname_at_comcast.net)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:30:42 GMT

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:mpBdd.286272$D%.197662@attbi_s51:
>
>
>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
>>>news:pan.2004.10.20.04.03.20.606728@example.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:pan.2004.10.19.03.32.19.759702@example.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:44:29 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.10.18.18.48.44.647170@example.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Try
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"If John Kerry wins, whose instructions will guide him?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I dunno - maybe the voters? Whoever it is, it's gotta be better
>>>>>>>>than whoever's sitting at the Bush control panel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cheers!
>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>WRT *US* National security,having the UN "guide" Kerry would be
>>>>>>>extremely bad,for the entire world,whether they realize it or
>>>>>>>not.And that's exactly what would happen with Kerry as Prez.He
>>>>>>>even said so;"global test".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to know the source for your information here, as to
>>>>>>what you predict Mr. Kerry will do. Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>When Saddam invaded Kuwait,Kerry voted against removing him,public
>>>>>record.Saddam threatened US and global security,yet Kerry would have
>>>>>allowed Saddam to have Kuwait,and probably Saudi Arabia next.That
>>>>>would be a substantial part of the world's oil supply in SADDAM's
>>>>>hands. Kerry's past behavior shows what he would do as Prez.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.
>>>He tends towards inaction.He's anti-military.He thinks he can be a
>>>great statesman and pursuade allies that said they will not do what
>>>Kerry wants. He's more a Chamberlain than any statesman. One of the
>>>Communist's "useful idiots".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You have no evidence except the rantings of right-wing radio to back
>>any of this up.
>
>
>
> Nonsense.It's all public record.Kerry worked with the enemy to end the
> Vietnam War,to the detriment of the US,our POWs,and the South Vietnamese
> people.
>

You are welcome to your opinions, even though they are obviously wrong.
The swift boat veterans ads have been discredited time and again. If you
want to be duped by a bunch of rich republicans with a political agenda
and a chip on their shoulder, that's your choice. If you want to use
their lies in an attempt to influence people, well, that seems to be
republican strategy these days.

>
>>Try to maintain some balance. Kerry was the only one of these two who
>>saw combat in the military.
>
>
> LMAO. 4 MONTHS,and he fragged himself.
> He can't even get his story straight there,either."Cambodia in
> December",and sent by Nixon,who was not even President at that time.
> You folks have BLINDERS on!
> And his DD214 on his own website shows discrepancies.Nobody gets a review
> board for a ordinary honorable discharge.There's something being hidden
> there,that's why Kerry will not sign a Form 180.
>

Well, neither you nor I were there. The people who were there, and who
served with him (unlike the "Swift Boat" liars like O'Neill) back up his
story. Military records back up his story. The leader of the "Swift
Boat" group, John O'Neill, has been biting at Kerry's heels since Kerry
kicked his ass during a debate on the *** Cavett show 30 years ago.
John O'Neill was a Nixon lackey, according to the white house tapes.
Nixon didn't like Kerry either.

I'll go with the available evidence on whether Kerry was a hero.

Here are his records:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf

(Where are Bush's records, anyway? ;)

>
>> Kerry was against pork-barrel defense
>>spending before 9/11, like everybody else (including Cheney, the
>>secretary of defense under GHW Bush). At the time, the important
>>problem to solve was bringing down the horrible, crippling deficit
>>that Reagan/Bush's 'voodoo economic' policies had built up (and which
>>they are again building up).
>>
>>The republicans want it both ways. They want to compare Kerry's
>>pre-9/11 voting record
>
>
> What ELSE is there to compare? Kerry's previous behavior and actions speak
> volumes about him.Kerry can SAY anything,but it means nothing.
> Empty promises.
>

Since you mention it...

Kerry's actions during the Vietnam war are, by any standard, heroic. He
has a silver star and a bronze star, in addition to those three purple
hearts.

His actions after the war were also heroic, in a different way. He got
up in front of the Senate foreign relations committe when he was, what,
25? The group he was spokesperson for was given some small credit in
forcing an end to the vietnam conflict by raising public awareness.

Don't confuse his opposition to the Vietnam war with his love for his
fellow soldiers. His shipmates always help him out, even after 35 years.
They wouldn't do that if he were the person you or John O'Neill claims
he is.

He was a district attorney, and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

His efforts in the Senate for 20 years have been meaningful and
honorable. He didn't author much legislation, but instead used his
senate oversite powers to address problems with money laundering and
terrorism (BCCI), MIAs (Vietnam), and budget deficit. He also voted with
the fiscally responsible when trying to bring down the deficit, rather
than just voting with his party, at some political risk. That's where
the republicans get their cannon fodder on him being 'soft on defense'.
He was heroically trying to help save social security. It was working
until Bush was 'elected'.

The guy will make a great president. At the very least, he'll put in an
honest days work, and he'll show up more often than Bush.

<http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html>

>
>>to Bush's post-9/11 stance. They also point
>>out, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, they can't have it
>>both ways and still maintain the appearance of intellectual honesty.
>>
>
> IMO,you lack that honesty.
>

You've shown yourself to be either disingenuous or callow. Why should I
possibly care what your opinion is? Why should anyone? 

-- 
Regards,
   Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
     - Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
        on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
Quantcast