McCain in '08

gatt wrote:

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Kerry realized that he didn't have an anthills' worth of accomplishments
in 20
years of being a US Senator plus being a state lieutenant governor etc.
The
only thing he could come up with was to play up his four (4) months in
Vietnam.

I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.

Well put yourself in his handlers' shoes. He hadn't done anything remarkable
in 24+ years as a professional politician and was looking for a big
promotion. Voting attendance record? Not good. Intelligence committeee
attendance record? Deplorable. Voting record? All over the map. They
needed some angle to build the campaign on.

gatt wrote:

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

You brought up John Kerry. And if you are such a stickler for accuracy
regarding John Kerry, let's take a look at his political record. Please
tell us
all of the bills

I don't work for Kerry, don't endorse Kerry, don't care about Kerry, don't
have any interest in arguing for or against Kerry and further removing the
discussion from the newsgroup topic.

If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing Kerry's
story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore they only had
political motivations. I just pointed out that it was Kerry who brought up
Vietnam and started making his claims. Others merely wanted to rebut the claims
he was making in the national forum.



Please tell us his attendance record

What am I, his press secretary? Do your own homework. I'm not interested
in doing it for you, nor am I interested in Kerry's politics enough sk you
to explain your point.

A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices, but your only example of this
was an anonymous post on somebody's bulletin board. Or maybe not even that
because your link does not work.



Settle down, Beavis.

If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.

gatt wrote:

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it
in
this very thread. See

Ted Guy has been dead for over seven years. He was a PoW in Vietnam, and
did
not use his experience to boost his own political career. Are you saying
that
the late Ted Guy, is a liar?

I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. That's my point.

Ted Guy may have been a POW, and so his observations on the matter -IF
TRUTHFUL- have value. But everybody who used them for political purposes
(whether challenging directly or just 'letting people read for themselves')
is of questionable political integrity as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I'm not sure how "his own political career" has anything to do with
it. Conceivably he could have been working for somebody else. Not all
veterans are saints.

That's my point. Being a veteran is extremely honorable, but not all veterans
are honorable, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you a better
politician, or meat cutter, etc.

gatt wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:cZftg.7837

Humm, that is an interesting take. Who else would be attacking Kerry, if
not the right?

Those that wanted to set the record straight about what Kerry was saying
about their service.

And to say it isn't political, is, wellll...

...accurate.

Ludicrous. They waited until an election season to bring it up.

Again, look at the time line. Kerry was who "bought it up." He pretty much made
his Vietnam exploits his primary qualification for becoming President. He
didn't want to talk about his record in the Senate, as a politician, as
Dukakis's lieutenant governor, his political record, etc. He wanted to talk
about his claims of Vietnam, since he did spend four (4) months in the theatre.
Upon hearing his claims, others who had been there wished to tell their side of
the story.




I'm sure you have plenty of examples of the left attacking Kerry's military
record, sending around faked photos of him sitting next to Fonda, etc.

Don't stereotype "the right" or "the left" as if one looney move by one
individual represents an entire class.

wrote:

Owen Hiller wrote:
gatt wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:JCdtg.7776
I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.


But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
wasn't political at all.

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
publicizing on the national stage.

He bragged about his service? Really? I must have missed that.

Sure must have missed 2004. "I am John Kerry , reporting for duty" and then he
proceeded to talk about Vietnam. The usual media partners of his party (NY Times,
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc) were very fond of
pointing it out too, so it was hard to miss.




Many others were there? Where would that be -- Vietnam?

I referenced Vietnam above.



Their side of what story?

The claims that Kerry was making in 2004.



Doug Reese

(Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
representing his constituents.

gatt wrote:

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided

HEY, SMART GUY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DECIDED, ARE WE?
WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DID?

Because you were interested in talking about what critics of Kerry were saying.
To understand their motivation of setting the record straight as they saw it, it
is important to know what Kerry did first. There is no need to get excited and
shout.



In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one vote.
Kerry didn't even bother to show up.

*shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?

To unbaffle yourself, reread what you wrote:

" Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh."

Again that was merely a direct response to Kerry's claims.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:36:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in
::

I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
the charter of a newsgroup.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

If the problem with your engine is a bad magneto, doing
an oil change won't fix the problem.

In my view, the problem with off-topic posting is caused
by human nature, such as it is.

Creating a new newsgroup won't change human nature.
Some people go off-topic because they feel comfortable
with their friends; others want to have an audience for their
performance art. I don't think either personality type can
be siphoned off into a new newsgroup.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting.

Yes, at least to the extent that politics affects aviation, which is
quite a bit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.

B/

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:30:54 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::



So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.

I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:

POL: bla bla bla, ect

That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.

What say ye all?

Okeydoke. That's a creative solution. At least someone is thinking.

Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?