Re: Kerry Hammered Vessticles Tonight ...........

Vessticles whined:

Actually, the bar is normally quite a bit above anything you could possibly comprehend. We just have to drop it when dealing with you in order to get to a level you can deal with.

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

Complain to snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com about his OT crap.

Jimi

What scares me, is the chance that he does, and simply rejects the very notion. That is thinking worthy of the worst totalitarians out there.

Hav you ever gone out with someone is too compliant? I mean, it is neat for a little while. But, at some point, it is annoying to have to always take the lead on everything, make all the decisions, etc. A little willingness to 'mix-it-up' is a godsend in my opinion (obviously I'm not talking about outright fighting).

When it finally comes to a time for shooting, I want someone who just do it. I don't want someone who will second guess himself endlessly to the point the required shot is missed, or taken too late.

Combativeness doesn't automatically mean combat is relished, but that when it is needed, it is used to required degree.

When we are targetted by mass murderers, any combativeness on our part is a plus. It is not a mindless reaction like say going berserk. It is an appropriate reaction to someone trying to kill us.

Please remind me of why you're not voting for Bush.

I intensely dislike his stance on the environment, or more accurately, his hostility toward it in favor of big business.

Ironically, we no longer even do the value added work on the raw materials like lumber. Just deprive ourselves of the trees, then ship them off for others to mill and use.

Further, as far as I'm concerned, his plan to legalize the illegals is criminal. His nephew's attacks on the Border Patrol, and his administrations focus on border personnel smiling rather than catching criminals is offensive.

I think he responded well in Afghanistan, but Iraq was premature at best (i.e. finish re-establishing Afghanistan first).

Further, I dislike his big spending. I can stand the reallocation of resources, and even some new spending on the war. But, between him and pork-barrel politics as usual in a Rep. controlled House/Senate I am disappointed to be mild. Also, any admin. that says outsourceing is a good thing, has its nationalism so well buried as to be sad (again, to be mild).

The Medicare (or was it prescription pills?) was so popular that 50,000 people left AARP when the head guy supported it. I figure they know more than I since they obviously followed the subject more closely.

It boils down to this, I know what I'll get from Bush and I don't like it. I don't expect anything positive from Kerry, but he at least might surprise me.

I don't like a lot of his domestic policies either but I'm a one-issue voter this time around - the war on Islamo-terrorism. If we don't win that nothing else will matter in the end. Bush has made mistakes in the war but at least he's shown that he's willing to fight it and to take it to the enemy. On that basis alone he gets my vote.

Why would you be surprised? His past record shows that he's an unrepentant anti-military pacifist and by his own words his future foreign policy will consist of waiting to respond until *after* we've been attacked again, and of the US then passing a 'Global Test' before taking action. How would we 'pass' this so-called Global Test? If

Is that what you _really_ want?

administrations

Well put! I'm one of the wackos who voted for Nader last election. Never again. It's back to voting for the lesser of the two evils.

Doug

Actually, I have been reading about how the aarp prescription drug discount cards are shaping-up to be real cost savers. People usually shy away from new things, new policy. Heck, people even shied away from debit cards when they first came out! Now looks at us.

Of course ... IF President Bush et al had NOT invaded Iraq, and some Islamist group with ties to Osama bin Laden had finally succeeded in one of the numerous attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein, or he had died from natural causes -- either way leaving the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party without a strong man and open to being overthrown in an Islamist revolt -- I have this feeling that Senator Kerry and the Democratic Party would have blasted Bush for not having had enough foresight to take action sooner to prevent Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists.

But that's just my thoughts, for what it's worth ...

Getting to Saddam is more difficult that one might imagine. Since 1978 there have been countless attempts and who knows how many more plans that were never carried out. The first problem was to catch Saddam outside one of his compounds (didn't happen very often). Then they would have to pick the right Saddam; he had several doubles (some reports say as many as 12 at one time or another but that number went up and down).

Even if they did get the real Saddam, I don't think therre would have been that much of a power vacuum in the Baathist Party. Chemical Ali was ready to step in at any time and get things organized until either Uuday or Qusay (probably the latter) took the reigns. It is a nice thought, though.

I would never argue that point ;~)

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

Kerry would. The next day he wouldn't.

Than he would, than he...

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

ROTFL!

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

Yes, this is a very real risk given his stated views (of course, nobody can believe politicians, I suspect the polls will be his deciding factor). Like I said, I'm not expecting much from him, but I could be surprised. I don't expect much from Bush and get it.

I can't say went for Nader, but I tried Perot both times. I can't recall if I said here before, but I think our only choices these days are the evils of the two lessers.

That is certainly a realistic possibility.

But, we didn't finish the job in the early 90s because it looked bad on tv. Now our troops aren't allowed to exterminate the enemy because -that- would look bad. Why send in the troops if you just intend to hamstring them yourself?

You're willing to elect a man to be President of the United States that you think would make decisions based on *polls*??? I prefer a _leader_...

I imagine that you would actually be chagrined rather than surprised once you see a President Kerry in action.

Yeah, all those attacks on the US since 9-11 have really been a bitch.....

Or perhaps because we've been asked to back off by the Iraqi government.

Why transfer sovereignty without giving the Iraqis control over their own people?

Maybe all that shows is that, once we're paying attention, such attacks are unlikely to come to fruition. Al Qaeda has never shown a fondness for hardened targets, and the hardening that has taken place is by national consensus, not because of administration leadership. I'm not condemning Bush for lack of leadership when I say that--I'm saying that he could either lead or get out of the way; the nation would go where it's gone anyway. Remember what happened to the shoe bomber? The other passengers on the plane came to the flight attendant's aid--it was a major psychological shift from the passivity people were trained to exhibit in previous air terrorism incidents. We even saw it develop spontaneously during 9-11 itself with the one flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Now, if you're asserting that Kerry is such a doofus that he would endeavour to let us get soft again, then you're reading a different set of tea leaves than I am. My God, what liberal Democrat wouldn't want to spend $50 billion on popular domestic security initiatives that would keep us a hardened target and at the same time generate lots and lots of jobs at public expense? Actually, I wouldn't, but that's because I see no point in strip-searching Al Gore before he gets on an airplane. Smart spending is preferred. But even spending that's a bit wasteful is still going to reinforce the psychology and bring benefit. Argue that Kerry would waste money--this Republican Congress does it without him, so it will do it with him. Nevertheless, if fiscal conservatism is your thing, I doubt Kerry is good choice. I'll leave it to you to think about whether Bush is on that count. On domestic security, though, they both will seek the same thing, even if poor Kerry is hamstrung by not having the able advice of John Ashcroft. I think I'll take my chances with dear John retired to Missouri.

Mark Schynert